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

[BaldiMac]

WE are the stadium owners. We bought the iPhone, licensed the OS, but Apple still wants to collect rent for apps we put on it. That is the correct analogy.

Nope. You just license the seats. Apple still owns the stadium (iOS).

 

[mittencuh]

Nope. You just license the seats. Apple still owns the stadium (iOS).

Who's on first, what's on second?

 

[N47H]

Nope. You just license the seats. Apple still owns the stadium (iOS).

You just lost that argument with comparing it to another stupid anti-consumer practice that (fortunately) only exists in North America. The rest of the world doesn’t use that model. There’s a reason all your sporting and event tickets cost so much more than in any other country - you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade. Yeah by all means don’t support Epic either, but support consumers, the little guys they’re the biggest losers in all this. But no, you’d rather support a huge multi national, faceless corporation who treats you as a statistic to make more money from than support consumers (yourselves).

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You just lost that argument with comparing it to another stupid anti-consumer practice that (fortunately) only exists in North America. The rest of the world doesn’t use that model. There’s a reason all your sporting and event tickets cost so much more than in any other country - you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade. Yeah by all means don’t support Epic either, but support consumers, the little guys they’re the biggest losers in all this. But no, you’d rather support a huge multi national, faceless corporation who treats you as a statistic to make more money from than support consumers (yourselves).

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

As a fellow American along with other posters here, all I can say is that it’s difficult for us here because we are so indoctrinated with a certain way of looking at these things.

Pro business propaganda is pumped into us literally from early school years on.

I have two cousins who recently moved onto college and I’ve learned from them that 1980s style completely debunked trickle down economics is still getting jammed into many heads. I’m sure that is location and school dependent.

 

[BaldiMac]

You just lost that argument with comparing it to another stupid anti-consumer practice that (fortunately) only exists in North America. The rest of the world doesn’t use that model. There’s a reason all your sporting and event tickets cost so much more than in any other country - you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade. Yeah by all means don’t support Epic either, but support consumers, the little guys they’re the biggest losers in all this. But no, you’d rather support a huge multi national, faceless corporation who treats you as a statistic to make more money from than support consumers (yourselves).

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

1) I didn’t bring up the comparison. I responded to someone else who did.
2) Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as sheep and fanboys is the truly losing argument. Nothing but an ad hominem fallacy.
3) I’m here to have a discussion. Everyone agreeing is boring.
4) I don’t see the good guy in a fight between a billion dollar corporation and a trillion dollar corporation.

 

[I7guy]

You just lost that argument with comparing it to another stupid anti-consumer practice that (fortunately) only exists in North America. The rest of the world doesn’t use that model. There’s a reason all your sporting and event tickets cost so much more than in any other country - you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade. Yeah by all means don’t support Epic either, but support consumers, the little guys they’re the biggest losers in all this. But no, you’d rather support a huge multi national, faceless corporation who treats you as a statistic to make more money from than support consumers (yourselves).

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

Make no mistake this isn’t about the little guy it’s about the big guy taking it in more than ever before.

I don’t understand the mindset of criticizing a brand and then continuing to use their products.

The “little guy” gains virtually nothing. The amount of criticism is disproportionate to the amount of gains the “little guy” gets.

 

[surferfb]

You just lost that argument with comparing it to another stupid anti-consumer practice that (fortunately) only exists in North America. The rest of the world doesn’t use that model. There’s a reason all your sporting and event tickets cost so much more than in any other country - you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade. Yeah by all means don’t support Epic either, but support consumers, the little guys they’re the biggest losers in all this. But no, you’d rather support a huge multi national, faceless corporation who treats you as a statistic to make more money from than support consumers (yourselves).

I think Apple's approach when it comes to this is, on the whole, significantly better for consumers. I understand Apple's approach results in developers paying more than they would like to, but given the benefits for consumers, I think that is worth it even if some or all of that additional cost gets passed onto me. However, given everything we've seen over the past 20 years, I have zero doubt that any reduction in costs developers will be pocketed by developers, not passed onto me. So, I think this has somewhere between "minimal" and "absolutely no impact" on my own wallet, while making iOS safer and nicer to use.

In my opinion, I am the one supporting consumers while you're advocating them to be exposed to more confusion, fraud, scams and malware all so greedy developers can pocket extra money and avoid paying Apple for its hard work. That probably seems crazy to you, but honestly all those bashing Apple on this one seem crazy to me.

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

Who here is "so devoted" to a brand? I frequently criticize Apple. For example, I think their introduction of ads into maps is bad and cheapening their product and brand image. The "icons in the menu bar" in the current version of MacOS is atrocious. I just don't criticize them on this topic, because I happen to think they are correct here.

 

[ossifer]

Why does Epic always demand that they should get everything for free?!

 

[djphat2000]

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.

You're treating the iPhone platform as the same as macOS. They are not the same.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Can someone answer me this.

Why should a perfectly legitimate small developer who passes technical/security checks by Apple need to demonstrate financial stability, VC backing, audited accounts, etc. before being allowed to put a "Download for iPhone" button on its own website?

Thank you.

PS: Apple in macOS already addresses the security problem primarily technically, rather than by deciding which businesses are financially qualified to distribute software. Which is from a security perspective, irrelevant. In effect such a discretionary judgement, in lame terms is ideological: "A richer company is more honest and reliable than a lesser one. Have a rich VC behind? You are more honest than one without one. Oh, we love small businesses ... but hey ...". But we all know that is not the actual reason. Crazy.

 

[BaldiMac]

Can someone answer me this.

Why should a perfectly legitimate small developer who passes technical/security checks by Apple need to demonstrate financial stability, VC backing, audited accounts, etc. before being allowed to put a "Download for iPhone" button on its own website?

Thank you.

PS: Apple in macOS already addresses the security problem primarily technically, rather than by deciding which businesses are financially qualified to distribute software. Which is from a security perspective, irrelevant. In effect such a discretionary judgement, in lame terms is ideological: "A richer company is more honest and reliable than a lesser one. Have a rich VC behind? You are more honest than one without one. Oh, we love small businesses ... but hey ...". But we all know that is not the actual reason. Crazy.

Seems pretty obvious that it’s to avoid scammers setting up a never ending line of companies to spam out app submissions.

 

[surferfb]

PS: Apple in macOS already addresses the security problem primarily technically, rather than by deciding which businesses are financially qualified to distribute software. Which is from a security perspective, irrelevant. In effect such a discretionary judgement, in lame terms is ideological: "A richer company is more honest and reliable than a lesser one. Have a rich VC behind? You are more honest than one without one. Oh, we love small businesses ... but hey ...". But we all know that is not the actual reason. Crazy.

macOS hasn’t solved the problem “technically” - the reason Macs don’t have a significant malware issue because the of size of user base (250 million) doesn’t make a good target when compared to Android (~4 billion), Windows (~2 billion), or the hypothetical open iOS (~1.5 billion)

There’s also the fact that MacOS also has an “unacceptable” level of malware (per Craig under oath). There is 40-50x more malware on macOS compared to iOS despite macOS having well over a billion fewer active devices.

 

[Starfia]

I genuinely don’t understand the mindset of being so devoted to a brand. You can love their products, be invested in an eco system, whatever else but there are people who won’t hear a negative thing said about their favourite brands, they could commit mass genocide and you’d still defend them.

If you've ever visited a site called MacRumors, you'll note plenty of ardent criticism of Apple by people who love Apple, often down to pretty fine details.

You are witnessing a mindset of some kind, but it's not "devotion to a brand." Whatever it is, I'd agree with your impression that you don't understand it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Can someone answer me this.

Why should a perfectly legitimate small developer who passes technical/security checks by Apple need to demonstrate financial stability, VC backing, audited accounts, etc. before being allowed to put a "Download for iPhone" button on its own website?

Thank you.

PS: Apple in macOS already addresses the security problem primarily technically, rather than by deciding which businesses are financially qualified to distribute software. Which is from a security perspective, irrelevant. In effect such a discretionary judgement, in lame terms is ideological: "A richer company is more honest and reliable than a lesser one. Have a rich VC behind? You are more honest than one without one. Oh, we love small businesses ... but hey ...". But we all know that is not the actual reason. Crazy.

Essentially, because that’s the rules as they exist approved by EU regulators. It’s possible the regulators might respond to a request as to why they approved it, but otherwise it’s just a guess. I’d imagine the goal is to make things difficult enough for small companies in the EU that the big companies can squeeze them out of valuable markets in the EU. It IS the big companies in the EU that were behind pushing the regulators to have Apple make the changes. That’s why almost all the changes are VERY beneficial to large companies and individuals with deep pockets and pretty much the same or worse for small companies/individuals. You’re not too far off, though. A richer company isn’t more honest, they just have so much to lose, they’re unlikely to take actions that would put themselves at legal risk. AND, if they do, they actually have assets that can be seized by any victims.

Folks using macOS expect a less secure system and would be unlikely to use any macOS system that wasn’t as insecure as macOS is. The “security problem” is simply not addressed for macOS and the users (and Apple) are ok with that.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Why does Epic always demand that they should get everything for free?!

They’re still losing lots of money on running the Epic Store and REALLY need a break. Which goes back to what I’ve always said. If you meet a business person that tells you they can’t make a profit and prosper on a 30% cut, you only THINK you’ve met a business person.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

you all massively support and condone profiteering for huge companies over your own wallets. Hence the crazy opinions on here supporting Apple in this whole charade.

It’s more pointing out an illogical application of the rules. If someone were were to say that Valve shouldn’t be able to require a commission, Epic Games shouldn’t be able to require a commission, Mom&Dad’s Bait and Tackle Shop shouldn’t be able to require a commission, I’d say the same thing in all cases. If what they have is valuable enough that people will pay a commission to work with them, then that’s the commission that should be paid by the person that agreed to pay the commission. And anyone that doesn’t want to pay the commission doesn’t have to work with them.

Strangely, if I were to replace one of the company names above with the name of a particular fruit, some would flip from being in agreement to vehement disagreement.

 

[MilaM]

Nope. You just license the seats. Apple still owns the stadium (iOS).

Technically that's true. But it's also true, that corporations can't put anything they want into license agreements. Some clauses can be deemed illegal by courts or outright banned by law, especially in circumstances when the corporation has a dominant market position.

 

[BaldiMac]

Technically that's true. But it's also true, that corporations can't put anything they want into license agreements. Some clauses can be deemed illegal by courts or outright banned by law, especially in circumstances when the corporation has a dominant market position.

Sure, but that's just FUD. "Some clauses can be deemed illegal" ignores the fact that what we were discussing isn't illegal. Even the EU gave it their blessing.

 

[techfreak23]

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.

That's not the only reason or even one of the largest reasons. Here's the thing that people making the macOS argument fail to see: macOS (and the hardware that runs it) was not released under the same paradigm that iOS was. iOS has always been handled the way it currently is with the app store and the related fees/commissions and the restrictions of where you can source apps. That's the product that they are selling and have been since its introduction. Apple would be crazy to try and completely shift macOS's paradigm to line up exactly like iOS's, but they probably would if they could without the predictable ramifications. Granted they have over the years introduced certain aspects of iOS's model into macOS, but very limitedly and optionally.

 

[surferfb]

Sure, but that's just FUD. "Some clauses can be deemed illegal" ignores the fact that what we were discussing isn't illegal. Even the EU gave it their blessing.

It is kind of funny, if when the DMA passed, you claimed the EU-blessed App Store changes would be “Apple gets 26% commission (6% off if you don’t use Apple’s payment processing), 15% on in-app link outs, 5% if you go outside the store (and Apple still gets to notarize apps outside the store)” people would have laughed and said “no way Apple gets that, you’re delusional.” (Me included!)

 

[MilaM]

It is kind of funny, if when the DMA passed, you claimed the EU-blessed App Store changes would be “Apple gets 26% commission (6% off if you don’t use Apple’s payment processing), 15% on in-app link outs, 5% if you go outside the store (and Apple still gets to notarize apps outside the store)” people would have laughed and said “no way Apple gets that, you’re delusional.” (Me included!)

I don't think this is over yet. So far we only have a rather generic response from a spokesperson quoted by one paper. For Apple to be 100% out of the woods the EC would have to officially declare that the "non-compliance" proceeding has ended. I don't think there is any evidence for that.

The terms are much better than what Apple proposed earlier. But are they enough to make alternative app stores viable? The EC wants competition in this space, that's the goal.

 

[MilaM]

Sure, but that's just FUD. "Some clauses can be deemed illegal" ignores the fact that what we were discussing isn't illegal. Even the EU gave it their blessing.

It's not illegal per se. But you have to take into account what the goals of the DMA are. The EU wants more competition in the market for app distribution. If it turns out certain legal clauses or fees will still be detrimental to this goal, they might ask Apple to adjust their terms again.

But I agree, it looks like the current new terms will stay for a while.

 

[I7guy]

It's not illegal per se. But you have to take into account what the goals of the DMA are. The EU wants more competition in the market for app distribution.

And it’s perfectly reasonable to force companies in that market to give away the property for free instead of encouraging real completion. /s

If it turns out certain legal clauses or fees will still be detrimental to this goal, they might ask Apple to adjust their terms again.

That would not be unusual for the eu to make an agreement and then change their minds.

But I agree, it looks like the current new terms will stay for a while.

 

[surferfb]

I don't think this is over yet. So far we only have a rather generic response from a spokesperson quoted by one paper. For Apple to be 100% out of the woods the EC would have to officially declare that the "non-compliance" proceeding has ended. I don't think there is any evidence for that.

The terms are much better than what Apple proposed earlier. But are they enough to make alternative app stores viable? The EC wants competition in this space, that's the goal.

Given everything we've seen from the Apple/EU spats so far, I find it very hard to believe they EU wouldn't push back on Apple saying "These are the new rates, and we worked closely with the EU on this", let alone put out an on-the-record statement saying "we welcome the changes" and "the Commission will monitor Apple's effective implementation of the new terms" if this hadn't been signed off by the EU.

It also isn't "one paper" I read the same statement in a Bloomberg article that came out well before the one quoted in the MacRumors post, and Politico reported (emphasis mine):

And on Tuesday, Brussels indicated it would close its biggest outstanding DMA case (against Apple) with no penalty. The iPhone maker said its move to overhaul the terms it imposes on app developers across the EU — scrapping a per-install fee that had drawn complaints since 2024 — should head off a non-compliance decision by the Commission.

The Commission’s sign-off on Apple’s changes also brings an end to the post-decision procedure the EU executive opened after the €500 million fine for its anti-steering rules — under which Apple faced periodic penalty payments of up to 5 percent of global turnover if it failed to comply. Asked whether the threat of daily fines had been lifted, Cardoso said the Commission was not considering periodic penalty payments at this stage.

You'd think it if the commission hadn't signed off on that they would be pushing for a correction on these articles that have been up for days at this point. But I guess we'll see.

 

[BaldiMac]

It is kind of funny, if when the DMA passed, you claimed the EU-blessed App Store changes would be “Apple gets 26% commission (6% off if you don’t use Apple’s payment processing), 15% on in-app link outs, 5% if you go outside the store (and Apple still gets to notarize apps outside the store)” people would have laughed and said “no way Apple gets that, you’re delusional.” (Me included!)

That's because all the anticompetitive arguments were just excuses for many people in the forum. What they really believed is that Apple has no right to charge for or control platform access. Despite both US courts and EU regulators making it clear that they could.

IThe terms are much better than what Apple proposed earlier. But are they enough to make alternative app stores viable? The EC wants competition in this space, that's the goal.

Sure, but it's a dumb goal to force competition between stores. The competition is between the millions of apps on the App Stores. If you want lower commissions from the stores, force lower commissions from the stores. If you want app categories that Apple won't allow, force them to allow them. I have no problem with that type of regulation.

Alternative mobile app stores have existed for more than a decade. They've failed in the market.

The whole idea that there should be competition for who controls access to private property is ridiculous.