iPhone App Sideloading Coming to Users in the EU in First Half of 2024

[webkit]

Irony: The EU argues that it is vital that consumer "choice" be protected such that there be competition, so therefore, it must force Apple to open its ecosystem. And yet, in relation to USB-C, the EU argues that Choice must be stopped, so that there can be no competition in the area of charging standards.

But these were largely for two different purposes. One for "standardization" reasons (sort of like NACS in North America for electric vehicles) and the other for competition/choice reasons.

 

[Analog Kid]

I can install Linux over Windows or MacOS.

And just like that, the goalposts moved...

You can run any web app on any device.

My wireless router is internet connected and checks for firmware updates, but I can not run a POP3 server on it.

I can, however, run web apps on my iOS devices because they're web apps and I have a web browser...

Phones and PCs are only 2 different platforms if you've lived in Apple land your entire life and never experienced anything outside the walled garden.

I don't understand this argument at all. Phones and PCs are completely different in form and function.

I expect you, or someone, is going to offer the "but they're both computers" platitude that sounded so erudite in the 90s, so I'll also point out that if your definition of computer is something with a processor in it, then virtually everything is now a computer for better or worse. Of the long list of differences between the two, focusing on the fact they both have processors is narrowing the discussion to their least interesting feature.

The Apple ecosystem is really good but it's also an insidious method of consumer lock-in.

Seriously, stop trying to save me from my own preferences by taking my preferred options away and reducing consumer choice. Nothing locks me to one platform or another other than a consistently better experience.

 

[Analog Kid]

The improvements are that it lifts restrictions and allows for more competition.

It does not. It reduced competition from two business models to one by restricting what can legally be made and sold.

It will give iPhone users more choices in where to buy/acquire apps and iOS app developers more choices in where to market their apps.

If this is what they wanted, they could have chosen such an ecosystem. What this is saying is "we let you make a choice and you didn't make the one we think is best for you, so we're taking that choice away"

 

[Analog Kid]

But these were largely for two different purposes. One for "standardization" reasons (sort of like NACS in North America for electric vehicles) and the other for competition/choice reasons.

Except we now have less choice in both cases, so...

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Irony: The EU argues that it is vital that consumer "choice" be protected such that there be competition, so therefore, it must force Apple to open its ecosystem. And yet, in relation to USB-C, the EU argues that Choice must be stopped, so that there can be no competition in the area of charging standards.

Apple wasn't competing with anything with lighting.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple wasn't competing with anything with lighting.

Then why didn't they just use USB micro-B at the time?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Then why didn't they just use USB micro-B at the time?

They weren't competing with anything at the point when the EU mandated USB C.

Yes lightning was good in 2013 but the world has moved on in the last decade.

 

[Abazigal]

That will depend on how creative app stores, developers, etc. may want to get once the more lucrative iOS market is opened up more and there is more potential competition.





Or potential new competition and consumer choices could lead to Apple keeping costs/fees more or less the same or perhaps even lowering some in order to keep developers using the App Store.

What I still believe will happen is that Apple will attempt to bill developers for 27% of revenue. I can’t say for certain whether Apple will get away with this, but I am fairly certain they will try.

The idea is to still disincentivise developers from venturing beyond the App Store, since they actually end up pay more this way, not to mention the added burden of reporting and verifying their sales figures to Apple.

 

[Analog Kid]

They weren't competing with anything at the point when the EU mandated USB C.

Yes lightning was good in 2013 but the world has moved on in the last decade.

So when you say "Apple wasn't competing", what you meant to say was that you liked one more than the other...

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

So when you say "Apple wasn't competing", what you meant to say was that you liked one more than the other...

No. No idea how you got that from what I posted.

What I meant was Apple introduced lightning in 2012 and it was superior to what existed elsewhere at the time. They then proceeded to milk it for a decade long past the point where the competition had moved on to better things.

Embarrassing that EU legislation had any effect on their flagship product at all. If they weren't still shipping tech from a decade ago it likely wouldn't have done.

I preferred lightning when it was the best i/o for a mobile device but that hasn't been true for a long time. Lightning isn't competitive with USB C at all. Apple tacitly admitted that themselves when they switched the iPad Pro to type C in 2018

 

[toobravetosave]

Then that depends on the other App store's terms and conditions...

Should Apple get a cut if I sell it on another App Store?

 

[MilaM]

Embarrassing that EU legislation had any effect on their flagship product at all. If they weren't still shipping tech from a decade ago it likely wouldn't have done.

I agree. The switch to USB-C was long overdue. Had they switched with the iPhone 14, the optics would have been better and I think many consumers happier.

But apparently this is the year of a lot of changes at Apple. Todays news that Apple will adopt RCS for messaging was quite a shocker 🤯.

 

[Analog Kid]

No. No idea how you got that from what I posted.

What I meant was Apple introduced lightning in 2012 and it was superior to what existed elsewhere at the time. They then proceeded to milk it for a decade long past the point where the competition had moved on to better things.

Embarrassing that EU legislation had any effect on their flagship product at all. If they weren't still shipping tech from a decade ago it likely wouldn't have done.

I preferred lightning when it was the best i/o for a mobile device but that hasn't been true for a long time. Lightning isn't competitive with USB C at all. Apple tacitly admitted that themselves when they switched the iPad Pro to type C in 2018

You still seem to be confusing objectively "competing", differentiating by technology for a market advantage, with your subjective opinion of what is better and therefore subjectively competitive.

You'll note that @Timo_Existencia didn't mention Lightning at all, just the fact that nothing is now allowed to compete with USB-C.

 

[MilaM]

What I still believe will happen is that Apple will attempt to bill developers for 27% of revenue. I can’t say for certain whether Apple will get away with this, but I am fairly certain they will try.

They maybe have a chance to recoup costs. But I think they would have a very hard time justifying a 27% fee.

 

[toobravetosave]

You still seem to be confusing objectively "competing", differentiating by technology for a market advantage, with your subjective opinion of what is better and therefore subjectively competitive.

You'll note that @Timo_Existencia didn't mention Lightning at all, just the fact that nothing is now allowed to compete with USB-C.

This sounds like a particularly obtuse and robotic conception of competition. Lightning was never competing with usb c, Apple switched most of their devices to usb c years ago, iphone and iOS were competing with android.

By virtue of ecosystem lockdown Apple has permanent capture over most of their users. Lightning was just a wasteful and greedy outdated technology that was in no way competing with usb c. It was riding a captured market against all logic

 

[Abazigal]

They maybe have a chance to recoup costs. But I think they would have a very hard time justifying a 27% fee.

Well, there is precedent.

Apple shocks iOS developers with 27% commission on third-party payments

Netherlands policy may show how Apple will comply with new laws in rest of world.

arstechnica.com

As for justification, well, how does one begin to prove whether a certain percentage is too high or too low? I mean, 30% is what gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony charge to developers who release games for their consoles, and nobody bats an eyelid because they understand that a company ultimately still needs to be profitable at the end of the day.

 

[toobravetosave]

Well, there is precedent.

Apple shocks iOS developers with 27% commission on third-party payments

Netherlands policy may show how Apple will comply with new laws in rest of world.

arstechnica.com

As for justification, well, how does one begin to prove whether a certain percentage is too high or too low? I mean, 30% is what gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony charge to developers who release games for their consoles, and nobody bats an eyelid because they understand that a company ultimately still needs to be profitable at the end of the day.

Console makers typically sell the consoles at or close to a loss. It’s an unsaid subsidizing of the console.

How high are iPhone margins?

 

[MilaM]

Well, there is precedent.

Apple shocks iOS developers with 27% commission on third-party payments

Netherlands policy may show how Apple will comply with new laws in rest of world.

arstechnica.com

As for justification, well, how does one begin to prove whether a certain percentage is too high or too low? I mean, 30% is what gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony charge to developers who release games for their consoles, and nobody bats an eyelid because they understand that a company ultimately still needs to be profitable at the end of the day.

It's not really a precedent. It's Apple trying to outsmart a smalish European competition watchdog with little leverage over Apple. At the time I though, what a stupid move by Apple. The DMA was already in the works and I'm sure the EU bureaucrats took note of it.

 

[toobravetosave]

Also you shouldn’t really say it’s about profitability because they’d still be profitable just less so.

 

[MilaM]

As for justification, well, how does one begin to prove whether a certain percentage is too high or too low? I mean, 30% is what gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony charge to developers who release games for their consoles, and nobody bats an eyelid because they understand that a company ultimately still needs to be profitable at the end of the day.

I don't really have an opinion on what percentage is fair for the whole service Apple provides. Alternative App Stores will have to figure it out too.

Fun fact ... even Apple thought 30% is probably on the high side, as E-Mails from the Apple vs. Epic court case revealed:

The best emails from the Apple vs. Epic trial

Please peruse this new archive of unearthed knowledge.

www.theverge.com

Also funny how there apparently never was a grand plan to make the App Store a huge cash cow. It's more like they stumpled into it naively.

 

[toobravetosave]

Let’s also also not forget apps sell iPhones and make Apple money too. Taking 30% from the very people who attract users to your system is heinous. It should be much closer to just a processing fee.

 

[Analog Kid]

This sounds like a particularly obtuse and robotic conception of competition. Lightning was never competing with usb c, Apple switched most of their devices to usb c years ago, iphone and iOS were competing with android.

By virtue of ecosystem lockdown Apple has permanent capture over most of their users. Lightning was just a wasteful and greedy outdated technology that was in no way competing with usb c. It was riding a captured market against all logic

So robotic and obtuse is bad, but shifting according to the argument being made is good...

 

[Abazigal]

Console makers typically sell the consoles at or close to a loss. It’s an unsaid subsidizing of the console.

How high are iPhone margins?

I don't see the logic of looking at margins. Regardless of how profitable the iPhone is, is Apple expected to somehow just subsidise the cost of running the App Store and treat it as a cost centre? Is Apple not allowed to make a profit in one area simply because it is already (very) profitable in another?

Or to use an example, if there were say, another console maker who could somehow mass-produce a console at a decent profit and still build up a sizeable user base, does that mean he can't then charge developers 30% for hosting games on his App Store, simple because his hardware side is profitable?

Why does it have to be one or the other? What's wrong with a business that just so happens to be profitable (or at least tries to be profitable) in pretty much every aspect of what they do?

 

[toobravetosave]

I don't see the logic of looking at margins. Regardless of how profitable the iPhone is, is Apple expected to somehow just subsidise the cost of running the App Store and treat it as a cost centre? Is Apple not allowed to make a profit in one area simply because it is already (very) profitable in another?

Or to use an example, if there were say, another console maker who could somehow mass-produce a console at a decent profit and still build up a sizeable user base, does that mean he can't then charge developers 30% for hosting games on his App Store, simple because his hardware side is profitable?

Why does it have to be one or the other? What's wrong with a business that just so happens to be profitable (or at least tries to be profitable) in pretty much every aspect of what they do?

No, I said it should be close to a processing fee for exactly that: running the App Store. Not gouging because they can and you’ll accept it

 

[toobravetosave]

So robotic and obtuse is bad, but shifting according to the argument being made is good...

What did I shift?

But yes, robotic and obtuse are bad lol