EU Welcomes Apple's App Store Changes, Epic Slams 'Junk Fees'

[Unregistered 4U]

So much time wasted on something that is probably hardly going to be used just like the whole 3rd party browser thing that has not come to anything or those 3rd party app stores which are basically non-existing either

With the might of the Setapp utility apps, I’m sure the 7 people that thought they would use a 3rd party app store, but never did and the 2 that actually used it appreciate it tremendously!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

If it was worth it to Apple and if they thought they could get developers to agree to the deal re: macOS, they’d do it. However, macOS just isn’t that important to Apple financially. 90%+ of their profits come from all things non-macOS. It doesn’t mean they should, it means that businesses do what businesses do to make a profit with one of the primary limitations on how much they can make being how valuable their offering is. macOS, not that valuable. iOS, VERY valuable.

 

[redheeler]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

I agree. Many of the same people against higher government taxes and overreach come here in support of taxes if they're paid to a corporation. At least pick the tax that might be spent on public good, rather than the one guaranteed to only make private executives and investors richer. Makes no sense to me but what do I know...

 

[Abazigal]

So Epic is just making things up now? Because the DMA absolutely does not say that.

Something something spirit of the rules and all that.

 

[19callum93]

“Can I sell my products in your store for free?” 🤔

 

[ginkobiloba]

Whiniest Tech Bro in the industry, just after Musk.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Cant wait till Epic fades away

 

[frenchcamp49er]

So Epic is just making things up now? Because the DMA absolutely does not say that.

Now he's just flat out lying

 

[wilhoitm]

Does anyone still play Fortnite? 🤔

 

[wilhoitm]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

Nothing is free buddy!

 

[Abazigal]

One can argue that the intent of the DMA is to open up iOS to the point where it resembles a PC operating system more closely. Anyone would be able to install anything they wanted on their device. Epic would then be able to offer their own games store on iOS, where they keep 100% of Fortnite IAP while also hosting other developers' apps and charging them a commission.

This is also one way the EU could theoretically prevent themselves from being beholden to a US tech giant (2 actually) for such a critical part of their overall infrastructure.

However, we also know that Apple will never capitulate to such an extent. I am willing to bet that they would sooner exit the EU market than allow users to freely sideload the app of their choice. And so Apple retains full notarisation of apps on iOS, even those being offered on third party app stores (meaning that Apple ultimately still controls what can and cannot run on their devices).

The barrier to operating your own third party App Store is still pretty high (not everybody has a spare million lying around), they are still available only in very select parts of the world, and have to compete with Apple's App Store distribution.

I am most intrigued by the 5% cut on apps distributed outside the App Store. On paper, it sounds like a small, almost inconsequential amount. However, the principle of the matter is that iOS remains Apple's intellectual property, and this should not be given away for free. I also wonder how Apple intends to actually collect that 5%. With a flat fee, it's simple. Simply multiply the number of app installs by 50 cents. How exactly is Apple supposed to audit how much money a developer makes to ensure that they are reporting the right amount? It certainly sounds like Apple could drown a smaller developer in red tape if they wanted.

And so I go back the serenity prayer. Know what you can change, and accept what you cannot. 😎

 

[Squidiey]

Epic Games was ordered to pay a record $245 million to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to settle allegations that

Fortnite

used deceptive design tricks ("dark patterns") and allowed children to rack up unauthorized in-game purchases without parental consent. [1]……this guy Tim Sweeney is no good.

Fortnite’s age rating ironically isn’t for children. (13+)

But hey it isn’t pay-to-win at least unlike others. (Looking at you, Clash of Clans.)

 

[Squidiey]

The last time I gave a thought about games I was dropping quarter dollars into machines at the bowling alley in 1983.
Except Gran Turismo on PS1 PS2 PS3. I have recovered from that hopeless state. And I sucked at GT.

Yeah I mostly play PVZ and The Witcher these days.

 

[Squidiey]

Does anyone still play Fortnite? 🤔

It’s player counter is quite big last time I checked on a website.

 

[dreadlord]

Nothing is free buddy!

What does it even mean? Microsoft does not charge for the external installations as well as Apple does not charge for external macOS app installations.

Apple and Microsoft have the platform for the businesses to run their apps but the relationship is mutually beneficial. If the businesses don't use the platform or avoid developing for it due to high fees, then the platform becomes empty which makes it less compelling. If people cannot find their apps or pay much higher fees for purchases to the applications, then Apple and Microsoft would even pay developers to bring their apps to their platform.

I just cannot understand people supporting Apple on this at all. They literally have the largest profit margin on any hardware ever, and people are just defending Apple that they have the right to even charge developers or the user more to just use its hardware after buying. The developers pass these fees on to the users in the end. Similar to Trump's tariffs.

I'm coming from the automotive industry. The companies run on so low profit margins for a single vehicle, they tried to generate income via subscription services. Everybody thought this is dumb, and just got outraged to even think about paying for a feature that should come by default after buying a car. I don't see a difference here. The only difference is Apple has a strong control over the mobile market.

 

[coolfactor]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

This is missing the bigger picture. And ... Apple's platforms are not open-source, so comparing to Linux is pointless. Using open-source components and having the finished product be open-source are two different things.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

So I should be able to enter your home and take what I want.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

What does it even mean? Microsoft does not charge for the external installations as well as Apple does not charge for external macOS app installations.

Apple and Microsoft have the platform for the businesses to run their apps but the relationship is mutually beneficial. If the businesses don't use the platform or avoid developing for it due to high fees, then the platform becomes empty which makes it less compelling. If people cannot find their apps or pay much higher fees for purchases to the applications, then Apple and Microsoft would even pay developers to bring their apps to their platform.

I just cannot understand people supporting Apple on this at all. They literally have the largest profit margin on any hardware ever, and people are just defending Apple that they have the right to even charge developers or the user more to just use its hardware after buying. The developers pass these fees on to the users in the end. Similar to Trump's tariffs.

I'm coming from the automotive industry. The companies run on so low profit margins for a single vehicle, they tried to generate income via subscription services. Everybody thought this is dumb, and just got outraged to even think about paying for a feature that should come by default after buying a car. I don't see a difference here. The only difference is Apple has a strong control over the mobile market.

Like all manufacturers charge for a service. Come on now.

 

[coolfactor]

What does it even mean? Microsoft does not charge for the external installations as well as Apple does not charge for external macOS app installations.

Apple and Microsoft have the platform for the businesses to run their apps but the relationship is mutually beneficial. If the businesses don't use the platform or avoid developing for it due to high fees, then the platform becomes empty which makes it less compelling. If people cannot find their apps or pay much higher fees for purchases to the applications, then Apple and Microsoft would even pay developers to bring their apps to their platform.

I just cannot understand people supporting Apple on this at all. They literally have the largest profit margin on any hardware ever, and people are just defending Apple that they have the right to even charge developers or the user more to just use its hardware after buying. The developers pass these fees on to the users in the end. Similar to Trump's tariffs.

I'm coming from the automotive industry. The companies run on so low profit margins for a single vehicle, they tried to generate income via subscription services. Everybody thought this is dumb, and just got outraged to even think about paying for a feature that should come by default after buying a car. I don't see a difference here. The only difference is Apple has a strong control over the mobile market.

One small point — In the eyes of consumers, Apple's mobile platforms are _very_ different from laptop/desktop platforms. People buying a third-party app for the Mac don't show up at the Genius Bar for support with that app. They go to the company that made the app. However, the number of people that go to Apple for support with their mobile device (regardless of the developers behind the apps) means that Apple is spending time and money supporting apps that are not even theirs.

 

[Ctrlos]

Epic's constant whining is tiresome. Especially when you consider they would not have half the success they've had without iOS devices.

I agree about Epic but Unreal Engine is their real meat and potatoes. iOS was only ever a single digit percentage of Fortnite income. Epic only sued Apple because they were the biggest fish in the pond. Forgetting all the free marketing the case brought them during the pandemic, their ultimate goal was to loosen the restrictions across the board and ultimately get the Epic Store on PlayStation which accounted for over 60% of Fortnite income. They weren't about to bite the hand that feeds however.

 

[neuropsychguy]

I agree. Many of the same people against higher government taxes and overreach come here in support of taxes if they're paid to a corporation. At least pick the tax that might be spent on public good, rather than the one guaranteed to only make private executives and investors richer. Makes no sense to me but what do I know...

It’s not inconsistent. People do not have to use Apple products at all. The only way to avoid government taxes is to move somewhere with lower taxes, which can cost a lot of money. This makes Apple’s “tax” avoidable but other taxes not.

Also, all are welcome to invest in AAPL if they’d like to do so. You can buy partial shares through many brokerages so it doesn’t take much money to start. Some brokerages have essentially no minimum, which means even $1 will start.

A lot of the difference comes down to choice. With government taxes, individuals have very little say in paying money and how it is spent. Governments do a lot for the public good, but there is also a lot of waste. There is waste in private companies, but with a need to remain profitable and provide returns on people's investments, public companies have direct accountability to others that governments do not. In theory governments do, but in practice, it can be difficult to make sweeping changes in a government.

One last comment. If taxes are lowered, people have more money to keep. Whether that results in loss of "public good" is a different matter. If Apple "taxes" on apps are lowered, will people have more money to keep? Will the savings for company X, for example, mean that they will reduces prices by the amount they save on reduced commissions?

 

[dreadlord]

One small point — In the eyes of consumers, Apple's mobile platforms are _very_ different from laptop/desktop platforms. People buying a third-party app for the Mac don't show up at the Genius Bar for support with that app. They go to the company that made the app. However, the number of people that go to Apple for support with their mobile device (regardless of the developers behind the apps) means that Apple is spending time and money supporting apps that are not even theirs.

So in this example, as Apple charges developers now, I can go to Apple Store and should get support for problems with Instagram? None sense. Just a justification from the corporate. If you don't have a stake at Apple where you get money from their profit, there is not a single benefit to support Apple on this.

 

[dreadlord]

It’s not inconsistent. People do not have to use Apple products at all. The only way to avoid government taxes is to move somewhere with lower taxes, which can cost a lot of money. This makes Apple’s “tax” avoidable but other taxes not.

Also, all are welcome to invest in AAPL if they’d like to do so. You can buy partial shares through many brokerages so it doesn’t take much money to start. Some brokerages have essentially no minimum, which means even $1 will start.

A lot of the difference comes down to choice. With government taxes, individuals have very little say in paying money and how it is spent. Governments do a lot for the public good, but there is also a lot of waste. There is waste in private companies, but with a need to remain profitable and provide returns on people's investments, public companies have direct accountability to others that governments do not. In theory governments do, but in practice, it can be difficult to make sweeping changes in a government.

One last comment. If taxes are lowered, people have more money to keep. Whether that results in loss of "public good" is a different matter. If Apple "taxes" on apps are lowered, will people have more money to keep? Will the savings for company X, for example, mean that they will reduces prices by the amount they save on reduced commissions?

It is just an illusion that people don't have to buy Apple. That's exactly what the EU law is about. As I see people are just so okay with platform owners like Apple and Google to charge developers unjustified fee, they are together hold a duopoly. There is no escape from this unless the government like EU intervenes.

Has any of you seen Apple's justification for these things? They don't give any number like how much they spend on for "supporting" activities that would justify their fee. Not at all. You can only see how much money make from their services branch which is crazy amount of money.

 

[surferfb]

If you don't have a stake at Apple where you get money from their profit, there is not a single benefit to support Apple on this.

I think Apple’s restrictions on sideloading and third party stores make the platform significantly safer for all users, which is a huge benefit.

It is just an illusion that people don't have to buy Apple. That's exactly what the EU law is about. As I see people are just so okay with platform owners like Apple and Google to charge developers unjustified fee, they are together hold a duopoly. There is no escape from this unless the government like EU intervenes.

An illusion?!? How does iOS only have only between 25-30% of the EU market then? Android exists and allows users and developers to sell and install apps from outside the Play Store.

Has any of you seen Apple's justification for these things? They don't give any number like how much they spend on for "supporting" activities that would justify their fee. Not at all. You can only see how much money make from their services branch which is crazy amount of money.

They shouldn’t need a justification. iOS and the associated APIs developers use to create their apps is Apple’s intellectual property, and absent a very good reason, the government shouldn’t be telling companies how much they can charge for use of their property.

I personally don’t think “Apple charges a commission that is in line with almost all other platform owners across multiple industries” is a good reason, and definitely not a very good reason, particularly when Android exists and has 70% of the worldwide market, but obviously people disagree about that.

 

[NightFox]

“Can I sell my products in your store for free?” 🤔

"No, we'll take a cut on any of your magazines we sell to our customers, just like any other store. That's how retail works."

But, Apple: "And if any of those customers decide to subscribe to your magazine using the details you printed inside it, we'll take a cut of that. You sell your own merchandise through your magazines? Yeah, we'll have a bit of that too."