The fact that it is not Apple’s rules don’t make them bad rules. As I stated to begin my comment, the DMA doesn’t address enough of the right sort of problems. These are some of the problems I think regulation should address.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is excellent. The only thing that is left to be addressed is limitation by policy on the usage of apps by EU accounts distributes by alternative channels when users are abroad. Such limitations do not exist for the App Store for the same EU Apple IDs / Accounts. It makes little sense for many cases, an example is military Europeans deployed abroad that use the iPhone.
Cheers.
I am pretty sure the EU is not saying there is no requirement for safety while sideloading. It is just saying that Apple need not worry whether the third parties will provide safety. That is something the third parties will worry about. We all know why Apple is warning about security risks on alt stores. Hint: It is not actually about safety. It is to discourage them from going to that store.
Revenue is not profit. Once the revenue to profit ratio gets small enough, any company will exit the EU market.True, but $100 billion in yearly revenue from the EU means that Apple (i.e. Apple's shareholders) are going to tolerate a lot more over-regulation
For example. Honda left the small engine power tool market in the United States due to overregulation of small combustion engines. It was no longer profitable to comply, so they left. There are many other instances of this.
Apple still has a net 27% profit margin, the services profits, which are what Apple is fighting so desperately to defend here, are not core to Apple's ongoing profitability. However if Tim stays in charge they might be one day as Apple pivots away from hardware.
Worldwide average. The EU is becoming a less and less attractive market for any business. With the DMA, any company wanting to break into the market has a higher and higher barrier to entry into the EU market.
This barrier was placed by the EU itself, while deflecting the masses to cry "omg big company bad" with these supposed pro-consumer anti-trust regulations. In reality these regulations apply to everyone wanting to enter this market. They're just using Apple as a punching back for cash while garnering public support. Most of ya'll bought the ruse, hook line and sinker.
Please provide a detailed explanation as to why a company will have a harder time breaking into the EU because of the DMA which only applies to companies with either a sufficiently large end user customer base or a sufficiently large business user base.
So here's what will happen.
Users will compromise their phones via third party app stores.
They'll blame Apple because it's their iPhone and Apple makes those iPhones.
Some of them will realize that Apple is very rich.
They'll launch a class action lawsuit in the hope of quick cash.
And in that moment, I hope that Apple sues the bejeezus out of the EU and whatever alternative app store provided the malware.
I am, in principle, not opposed to enforcing app store choices, and I like that Apple was forced to ditch Lightning. I think that the core tech fee is way too high as it stands, and needs to be capped. But not allowing any safety warning is just being completely out of touch. Anybody who does that should be forced to clean their friends' and family's infected Windows 95 machines for ten years. Most users are simply too dumb to be trusted full access to their machines, and that's a fact.
Users will compromise their phones via third party app stores.
They'll blame Apple because it's their iPhone and Apple makes those iPhones.
Some of them will realize that Apple is very rich.
They'll launch a class action lawsuit in the hope of quick cash.
And in that moment, I hope that Apple sues the bejeezus out of the EU and whatever alternative app store provided the malware.
I am, in principle, not opposed to enforcing app store choices, and I like that Apple was forced to ditch Lightning. I think that the core tech fee is way too high as it stands, and needs to be capped. But not allowing any safety warning is just being completely out of touch. Anybody who does that should be forced to clean their friends' and family's infected Windows 95 machines for ten years. Most users are simply too dumb to be trusted full access to their machines, and that's a fact.
And that’s why we see relatively a lot of Mac malware for the userbase when compared to iOS. And no, I’m not talking about state sponsored iOS attacks. Those are of a different kind.
“Open” vs. “Closed” Software Ecosystems: A Primer - LeasePilot
With the relatively recent explosion of industry-specific software solutions for commercial real estate companies, the task of comparing and evaluating various software platforms is becoming increasingly difficult. If you’ve spent any time researching CRE software, you’ve no-doubt come across...
leasepilot.co
nope.
The "gun" is forcing a change. Developers had a choice from the beginning in which no "gun" was used. "Gun" is now being used to force someone to do something different.
nope. it was an attempt to build up a user base to advocate for sideloading so Epic can have an extra 30%. a large risk for a large reward.
Read between the lines: iOS made up less than 3% of Fortnite income compared to 60% on PlayStation. Why not sue Sony who also take 30%?
Epic weren’t stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them yet if it could drag Apple through the courts and they happened to win then Sony would have no leg to stand on.
the risk is getting banned from releasing all future software which clearly iOS App Store brings in more revenue than a major gaming platform. the reward is bringing their game store, undercutting Apple's 30%, gaining 100% on first party, and having an edge in vertically integrating a store and Unreal Engine which equates to even more revenue.
Good question. See, Tim Sweeney BS argument was about: "Sony sells consoles at a loss, so we believe they need a store to make that money back". However, that argument is stupid when you look at Nintendo selling Switches at a profit since day one.
So why isn't Tim Sweeney going after Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft? Unreal engine royalties on those platforms makes up a large portion of their revenue (along with Fortnite). If they piss off one of those companies, Unreal Engine will cease to exist on those platforms. If developers move away from UE, this will indirectly affect their PC game store as it no longer makes much sense to release on EGS when Steam has more users (it currently is attractive to release on EGS if using UE since Epic will waive UE royalties).
On iOS, Unity seems to be the dominant engine. So how do you fight against Unity? By offering a lower cut than Apple and providing a free engine for devs to use as long as they release on Epic Games Store. Not only will you take Unity customers away but also take Apple's cut for all UE games including their own.
Epic isn't doing this for the good of developers. They're doing it to effectively take Apple's 30% away and keeping a chunk of that for themselves.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Hey,
After looking at the Core Technology Free structure with more detail I must say that my knowledge of it was totally off.
forums.macrumors.com
I must say that Apple being such a great communicator, on this subject is not doing much of a good Job, because the deal for App builders seams to be ok.
I think any entity should be payed for what they produce. How much money they make is irrelevant to this principle. Arguing that this or that business entity should be offer this or that for free is nonsense. It to the entity to decide, no one else. My grieve with the iOS / App Store approach to the future of digital commerce is tangent to this.
Now back to the CTF. The way I now see it with the help of @BaldiMac.
- As a general rule Apple charges fifty cents per App a user uses per year. Apple charges this value in 12 month installments.
- As an exception any App and each App, per year, the first one million users installing or updating it in that year, pay 0.
- As an exception usage of non profit Apps is exempt.
I specifically use the term user, considering that technically, regardless if Apple charges directly to the iOS user (Apple ID account) or developer, is such entity that pays. Either through developer charges or otherwise.
I honestly think that businesses whose focus is creating Apps or digital services around digital goods should not have much a problem with it. They even throw a bone to them by offering the license for free to the first 1 million users installing the App in that year, further allowing payment in 12 months installments for the other ones.
So I would say that digital businesses operating in the realm of digital goods, Apps and what not, as far as it goes in the EU space, should just shut up about the CTF costs. Yes, I am thinking of Epic, Spotify and the likes.
Now, what the unfortunate remaining challenge for Apple? Well, it falls on the fact that the App Store policies, the source of contention, is rooted on a better policy deal for apps and digital services not dealing with digital goods. I am thinking about Online Banking, Shops like Amazon, ... Furthermore Apps that even though aren't made from registered non profit entities were actually built not to make a profit per si, but other reasons. The only realistic option for these is the App Store. Now, this might be not well taken by the EU unless Apple applies the same rules to CTF as it applies in the App Store for these circumstances. Finally, low cost non subscription based Apps might find this pricing challenging, or simply do not update them.
For people probably 10 people that have been following posts, in particular people that have opposing views to mine. Here is my main frustration with Apple regarding these issues.
This CTF approach could have been totally baked into the App Store a few years ago and we would have probably not been witnessing such a spectacle. Imagine Apple had offered this optional CTF service tier within the App Store to unlisted, I repeat unlisted Apps, probably charging not €0.5 but €1 per App a year to cover not only CTF but also hosting and servicing the app for download. I think this approach would be the next best thing after the App Store, has they would have in a single point the list of all Apps acquired/downloaded either sold by the App Store or any other alternative distribution / sale channel. For Apple they would probably have better control over CTF charges than they have now. This instead of going through painfully seen arguments and requirements such as, oh each "Game Stream is in effect an App and should be deployed as such on the App Store". Furthermore, this issue and others challenges above would probably have been solved as businesses could opt from using the App Store classical tier or the CTF tier as they see fit for their business.
I think the issue for the vast majority of businesses contenting the current App Store policies was not the absence of multiple App Stores, but the fact that they do not see the value of the App Store to the point it justifies its price. Yet see value in Apples APIs to develop their App. They felt their arms being twisted to pay for something that they see little value, being forced to opt for having an App or not based on a thing they see little value, to the point of rupture. Depending on the kind of business, not seeing much value of additional App Store services on top of say a CTF and hosting should be a natural affair within the realm of the App Store, instead of being simply denied deployment.
In other words, if Apple had recognized this, and such solution around policy and tech was found by Apple with no pressure from regulators, probably could have been better implemented for all users to the same effect.
Anyway, in the end the CTF clarifies what value Apple puts on their core technology for building Apps. A thing that has been obscured until now amongst tangent retail like metaphors. That I think its good for users.
Cheers.
After looking at the Core Technology Free structure with more detail I must say that my knowledge of it was totally off.
EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
It does not take much brains to arrive to the conclusion that Apple Core fees is an attempt to steer users to the App Store, an Apple digital service. As an example .... - Suppose you have 10.000 subscribers paying €3 a month. You also update once a mont the App with new features and bug fixes...
forums.macrumors.com
I must say that Apple being such a great communicator, on this subject is not doing much of a good Job, because the deal for App builders seams to be ok.
I think any entity should be payed for what they produce. How much money they make is irrelevant to this principle. Arguing that this or that business entity should be offer this or that for free is nonsense. It to the entity to decide, no one else. My grieve with the iOS / App Store approach to the future of digital commerce is tangent to this.
Now back to the CTF. The way I now see it with the help of @BaldiMac.
- As a general rule Apple charges fifty cents per App a user uses per year. Apple charges this value in 12 month installments.
- As an exception any App and each App, per year, the first one million users installing or updating it in that year, pay 0.
- As an exception usage of non profit Apps is exempt.
I specifically use the term user, considering that technically, regardless if Apple charges directly to the iOS user (Apple ID account) or developer, is such entity that pays. Either through developer charges or otherwise.
I honestly think that businesses whose focus is creating Apps or digital services around digital goods should not have much a problem with it. They even throw a bone to them by offering the license for free to the first 1 million users installing the App in that year, further allowing payment in 12 months installments for the other ones.
So I would say that digital businesses operating in the realm of digital goods, Apps and what not, as far as it goes in the EU space, should just shut up about the CTF costs. Yes, I am thinking of Epic, Spotify and the likes.
Now, what the unfortunate remaining challenge for Apple? Well, it falls on the fact that the App Store policies, the source of contention, is rooted on a better policy deal for apps and digital services not dealing with digital goods. I am thinking about Online Banking, Shops like Amazon, ... Furthermore Apps that even though aren't made from registered non profit entities were actually built not to make a profit per si, but other reasons. The only realistic option for these is the App Store. Now, this might be not well taken by the EU unless Apple applies the same rules to CTF as it applies in the App Store for these circumstances. Finally, low cost non subscription based Apps might find this pricing challenging, or simply do not update them.
For people probably 10 people that have been following posts, in particular people that have opposing views to mine. Here is my main frustration with Apple regarding these issues.
This CTF approach could have been totally baked into the App Store a few years ago and we would have probably not been witnessing such a spectacle. Imagine Apple had offered this optional CTF service tier within the App Store to unlisted, I repeat unlisted Apps, probably charging not €0.5 but €1 per App a year to cover not only CTF but also hosting and servicing the app for download. I think this approach would be the next best thing after the App Store, has they would have in a single point the list of all Apps acquired/downloaded either sold by the App Store or any other alternative distribution / sale channel. For Apple they would probably have better control over CTF charges than they have now. This instead of going through painfully seen arguments and requirements such as, oh each "Game Stream is in effect an App and should be deployed as such on the App Store". Furthermore, this issue and others challenges above would probably have been solved as businesses could opt from using the App Store classical tier or the CTF tier as they see fit for their business.
I think the issue for the vast majority of businesses contenting the current App Store policies was not the absence of multiple App Stores, but the fact that they do not see the value of the App Store to the point it justifies its price. Yet see value in Apples APIs to develop their App. They felt their arms being twisted to pay for something that they see little value, being forced to opt for having an App or not based on a thing they see little value, to the point of rupture. Depending on the kind of business, not seeing much value of additional App Store services on top of say a CTF and hosting should be a natural affair within the realm of the App Store, instead of being simply denied deployment.
In other words, if Apple had recognized this, and such solution around policy and tech was found by Apple with no pressure from regulators, probably could have been better implemented for all users to the same effect.
Anyway, in the end the CTF clarifies what value Apple puts on their core technology for building Apps. A thing that has been obscured until now amongst tangent retail like metaphors. That I think its good for users.
Cheers.
Last edited:
The irony of thinking Sony should open up because Nintendo exists and at the same time not thinking Apple should open up iOS since macOS exists and thrives
So no gun exist because what you describe makes zero sense.
No change is forced. Developers didn’t have a choice, there was only 1 option.
The developer can have their app on multiple stores simultaneously, and if they choose to stop having it on apples AppStore, then customers have the option to choose another application and vote with their wallet if they only want to use the AppStore by Apple.
That is absolutely impossible, there’s no possibility of Sony/microsoft/nintendo banning the use of Unreal Engine from being used. If Sony banned the Unreal Engine from being used it would wipe out half the games on the platform and effectively kill the platform. Same with Microsoft if they did that.
And you’re describing a fantasy world essentially. 99% of games in the Epic store exist in Steam as well. So I don’t get why you and other constantly making the same mistake of assuming games applications/games are only on one platform.
It’s currently attractive to launch a game on EGS for the same reason it’s to release it on GoG and Steam.
You are correct.
However, even zero profit revenue is valuable in helping pay for fixed costs.
Seems to me that you and Carlos are both saying the same thing about why Epic went after Apple and not Sony/MS/Nintendo.
No, I'm talking generally, about people defending corporations. I'm not talking about politicians here at all.
There we go, it’s not closed because they do not have “complete control” over the software since they allow third-party software to run of which they do not even have access to the source code.
Thanks for the validation that iOS is an open platform.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, that doesn't make the gun disappear.
What? Developers could have not developed for iOS. There was that choice of not signing up for dev program. Rules were clear. Nothing would be "changing".
But customers already paid for the app knowing that it was available on the App Store at the time of purchase.
Similarly devs knew Apple was going to take 30% and limit where they can distribute iOS apps at the time of signing up for the $99/year dev program
If Epic intended to take Sony's 30%, Sony has every right to ban Epic's games. Same with Microsoft. Not a fantasy.
No idea what you're saying here. Clarify.
"Ctrlos" is seemingly agreeing with me about how Epic is being hypocritical, yes.
Article: "Apple’s iPhone/iOS platform is generally classified as a closed ecosystem"
You: "iOS is an open platform"
See the problem? I'm moving on. You're not reading carefully.