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

[Unregistered 4U]

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.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Asking why is macOS this way and iOS that way is like asking why does a grocery store not sell high end drilling equipment. In every case, if the business in question realized that doing the “other thing” would be wildly profitable (and they’d like to realize those profits), they’d change their business structure, re-negotiate their business agreements and rake in the dollars for it.

I personally feel that Apple intends to bifurcate the macOS experience because it would make macOS more valuable to both them and developers. One Classic macOS for those that prefer it + developers. And another, let’s say “Ultra” OS that supports the the vast majority of macOS apps that don’t require special permissions or configurations + all the Netflix and Disney+ iOS apps of the world that depend on a more secure back end to support downloading video locally, like before going on a trip. Perhaps even introducing an “Ultra” Mac that’s entirely optional, no one has to buy it to have the Mac experience. BUT, for those that like the idea of downloading a few gigs of videos to watch locally VERY attractive, they’d spend the extra money for it. 🙂

 

[MilaM]

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

The idea that two companies gate keep large parts of digital markets is equally ridiculous.

 

[MilaM]

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.

I had not seen the Politico article, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. It does indeed point into the direction you're saying and is much more specific than to single quote I found. It still does not definitely say that this proceeding has been closed though.

What is very interesting is that apparently the DMA also opened the door for lawsuits against Gatekeepers in courts. I wasn't aware of that. Seems like the DMA articles on this site will keep us busy in the foreseeable future 😅.

 

[BaldiMac]

The idea that two companies gate keep large parts of digital markets is equally ridiculous.

Why? That's what the market supports. It's played out over both desktop and mobile markets. If governments did what I suggested, the downsides are minimal.

If you're really concerned about it, then you should target Google's anticompetitive agreements across 75% of the global market outside of China. Not punish Apple because of Google's behavior.

 

[MilaM]

If you're really concerned about it, then you should target Google's anticompetitive agreements across 75% of the global market outside of China. Not punish Apple because of Google's behavior.

Strange logic. Just because Google is a worse offender does not mean Apple should get a free pass.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

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

Scammers can flood the App Store with submissions too. No difference. Last time o checked one needs a developer license to submit an app for notarization, but it may have change.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

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.

Malware apps are not notarized in macOS either. Non notarized apps is outside the scope of my argument.

PS: MacOS is today the choice of most developer given the option. The most perfect blend of security and flexibility required for actual engineering work. Not without problems, but no system is problem free.

 

[BaldiMac]

Strange logic. Just because Google is a worse offender does not mean Apple should get a free pass.

Google is the only offender. They're the one's that dominated the market through anticompetitive agreements that leveraged their search monopoly. All Apple did was grow.

 

[BaldiMac]

Scammers can flood the App Store with submissions too. No difference. Last time o checked one needs a developer license to submit an app for notarization, but it may have change.

Seems like a big difference to me. Notarization has much fewer requirements than App Store review.

It's just the most likely explanation to me. Obviously, the EU agrees that there is a justification for it.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Seems like a big difference to me. Notarization has much fewer requirements than App Store review.

That does not answer my observation.

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

Me: Scammers can flood the App Store with submissions too. ...

You: ... Notarization has much fewer requirements than App Store review.

What? At most this would make it easier to flood the App Store review process.

So justifying the requirements as a measure not to flood Apple with notarization submissions makes no sense. If that was the purpose of developers than the App Store would be an easier target.

 

[BaldiMac]

That does not answer my observation.

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

Me: Scammers can flood the App Store with submissions too. ...

You: ... Notarization has much fewer requirements than App Store review.

What? At most this would make it easier to flood the App Store review process.

So justifying the requirements as a measure not to flood Apple with notarization submissions makes no sense. If that was the purpose of developers than the App Store would be an easier target.

Makes sense to me. I don’t know where your confusion is coming from.

Why do you think the EU thinks it’s necessary if you don’t think it’s to limit spammed submissions?

 

[Abazigal]

Look up the definition of "mutually beneficial". Imagine if devs started leaving iOS platform because they don't like the terms (as you suggest they should do). Imagine iPhone consumers starting to complain that their favorite app is only on Android. Imagine iPhone sales declining as previous iPhone buyers move to Android. Now, ask yourself how much Apple depends on their developers to write iOS apps.

I would honestly like to see these developers try, considering that iOS continues to be more profitable than Android when it comes to app distribution. If they feel that earning less money and propping up another multi-trillion-dollar company is worth "sticking it to Apple", go for it.

And personally, I have dealt with this sort of exodus before. I continued working on the iPad long before Office was made available on it (between 2012 to 2016) by looking for alternatives. If an app isn't available on iOS, I won't go switching to Android just for it. I will start searching for an alternative app that serves the same purpose. If Developer X decides that he doesn't want to earn my money, I will look for Developer Y who does.

I do use several iOS-only apps currently, but I consider myself an Apple user first, rather than a Notability user, or a 1password user, or an Overcast user or Ivory user. If any of these developers harbour any thoughts of exerting any sort of leverage to try and get me to switch away from iOS, well, I would like to see them try. 😏

 

[surferfb]

I would honestly like to see these developers try, considering that iOS continues to be more profitable than Android when it comes to app distribution. If they feel that earning less money and propping up another multi-trillion-dollar company is worth "sticking it to Apple", go for it.
😏

Fun fact - a large part as to why Apple is more profitable for developers? Way less piracy on iOS because there’s no sideloading or alternative app stores and all developers have to register with Apple, so if they’re offering pirated apps it’s very easy to shut down.

Sometimes I wonder why the “Apple should be forced open” types are so upset with the idea that Google is starting to ask developers to register before letting users sideload their apps? I mean, I’d think most legitimate developers would have no issue registering - good for consumers to know they’re not Russian malware factories. But hearing the open software people you’d think forcing developers to register before users can sideload is Android literally turning into Apple’s walled garden (even though people who really want to can turn the safety feature off).

Don’t mind me - I’m sure those two points are completely unrelated.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Strange logic. Just because Google is a worse offender does not mean Apple should get a free pass.

If the situation caused by Google is dealt with, we end up with multiple new OS’s to compete against Apple. Unless the goal is not end up with more completion and more choice and, instead, to penalize Apple because they had the audacity to make products people wanted to buy.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Seems like a big difference to me. Notarization has much fewer requirements than App Store review.

It's just the most likely explanation to me. Obviously, the EU agrees that there is a justification for it.

Yeah, people against Apple agree with the EU until a ruling by the EU doesn’t say what they want it to say. The answer is “because the EU you agree with on this matter says so”. 🙂

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Makes sense to me. I don’t know where your confusion is coming from.

Why do you think the EU thinks it’s necessary if you don’t think it’s to limit spammed submissions?

It’s funny that not long ago you were arguing that the EU regulation team were a bunch of Robin Hood crooks. You made so many posts explaining that point of view that you could write a book with it.

I made a question. Now your answer “because the EU says so”

Thank you for your answer. Next.

 

[BaldiMac]

It’s funny that not long ago you were arguing that the EU regulation team were a bunch of Robin Hood crooks. You made so many posts explaining that point of view that you could write a book with it.

I made a question. Now your answer “because the EU says so”

Thank you for your answer. Next.

You're confusing me with someone else. I think the EU is great. I disagree with specific EU regulations including parts of the DMA and the cookie notice fiasco.

 

[Abazigal]

Yeah, people against Apple agree with the EU until a ruling by the EU doesn’t say what they want it to say. The answer is “because the EU you agree with on this matter says so”. 🙂

That has always been the problem with the whole “enemy of my enemy” stance. Eventually, you know that Apple is going to find middle ground with the EU, and Apple’s solution is not going to be exactly how you envision it (as is the case with Siri AI).

 

[eifelbube]

Government overreach affects your life such as wearing a helmet, seat belts, how many children you can have, the size of a serving of French fries, etc.

You forgot to include traffic lights and stop signs at busy intersections. I think those are overreach too. I paid a premium for the horse power and acceleration speed of my car — I could zip through easily before traffic entering from left or right makes it to the intersection.

 

[eifelbube]

Apple charges a license fee for use of its intellectual property. The value Apple brings is the creation and maintenance of that intellectual property so that developers can make iOS apps, which in turn they make money from.

It really is as simple as that.

Apple makes money from the hardware it sells because there is third-party software that runs on it.

It really is simple as that.

 

[surferfb]

Apple makes money from the hardware it sells because there is third-party software that runs on it.

It really is simple as that.

And developers make money because Apple creates tools and intellectual property that developers use to build their apps. The reason developers want to do that is that is the platform Apple built attracts users who pay for software.

It really is simple as that.

 

[eifelbube]

Because it’s easier than recognizing that Apple has cultivated over a billion paying users and THAT’S what developers pay the commission for.

Any chance Apple’s paying-users-cultivation benefits from the ~$6 billion paid annually by its ~60 million worldwide developers?

 

[eifelbube]

And developers make money because Apple creates tools and intellectual property that developers use to build their apps. The reason developers want to do that is that is the platform Apple built attracts users who pay for software.

It really is simple as that.

It’s reciprocal then.

😊 It actually is as simple as that 😊

 

[surferfb]

Any chance Apple’s paying-users-cultivation benefits from the ~$6 billion paid annually by its ~60 million worldwide developers?

Apple does not get $6 billion from developers.

They have 60 million registered developers, but they absolutely do not have 60 million paid developers.

There is no publically released number of paid developers, but there are 1 million developers with apps in the App Store. Even if you triple that to account for people paying $99 without apps, that’s only $300 million.

 

[mrochester]

It’s reciprocal then.

😊 It actually is as simple as that 😊

And that’s why both Apple and the developer make money when the consumer decides to pay for an app.