Leaked EU Document Could Spell Major Changes for App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Browsers, and Siri

[vipergts2207]

I was the person you asked, and I’ll repeat my response:

I guess I've always given Europe the benefit of the doubt and seen their past approaches to regulation as being more high minded and rational than the US or other countries. But you could be right-- maybe there isn't a good reason for this, maybe it's just stupid.

Right, I already got your answer. I was asking for theirs.

There are two competing business models. This kills one. There will be no competing business models. The math is quite simple.

A business model is not a competitor. A company is a competitor. Apple is a competitor and will continue to exist and compete with Google and other developers at large.

 

[Naraxus]

That the truth hurts your feelings does not make it any less true.

Your outright lies and gross generalizations is what makes it less true.

Can you cite with reputable sources to back up your claims?

 

[pacalis]

Nah, I’m not the one claiming to have taken a poll that contains anything but garbage data.

I didn't claim I took a poll. I suggested a thought experiment to test if there is any indication that consumers want this.

And, aside from the ripoff software person, I don't think there is any indication that consumers want this.

Some devs want this, and companies (and especially dodgy companies) want this, but I just don't see it as making life better or adding any value for your average soccer mom, teen, senior, executive... and so on.

 

[Abazigal]

Yes I see almost everyone who replies to me likes to use an analogy as they find it difficult to defend any negative outcomes of this proposed legislation so they have to come up with outlandish and incorrect comparisons.

Thankfully the lawmakers haven't been swayed by similar arguments from paid lobbyists and are doing the right thing for consumers in this instance. These rules don't just apply to Apple either, it will improve Android, ChromeOS and Windows too.

EU antitrust focuses on harm done to smaller businesses, not consumers. This is more about benefiting businesses and companies domiciled in the EU, and less about doing right by consumers (notice how in all this, nobody has solicited any feedback from citizens about what they actually think?).

I understand why the EU is doing this, and I have no illusions about what it means for me as the end user.

 

[Stunning_Sense4712]

Let’s not forget that adult oriented applications is usually banned from both the Google and Apple App stores. It would be nice if Apple users were allowed to side load those kinds of applications which Android users are already able to do. It is more about giving consumer the choice of what they can install not Apple dictating what users install on their devices.

 

[Quu]

Yes, some people want to steal apps. That's pretty much 100% of the reason people want sideloading.

Those people do not, of course, care in the slightest that they will make things worse for everyone else. It's all about them.

I mean it's not 100% of the reason. I want sideloading so I can sell apps to people through my own website and also on competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut (15% up-to 1 Million in revenue, 30% above that).

On my own site I pay 1.5% to 2.5% to process a credit card. Apple takes 30% from me for every sale but they aren't footing the bill for all the servers that make my app function. Meanwhile I can sell the same app for macOS and not pay Apple a dime beyond the developer fee to get a certificate so users know my Application is traceable should it do something nefarious.

Developers like myself (and EPIC games) want what we've always had on computers, a fair and open market where competing stores can sell software.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Didn't Microsoft have to make a special version of Windows long ago that didn't include Internet Explorer and Media Player because of anti-trust complaints in Europe?

Windows N or something?

Maybe Apple needs to make iPhone N running iOS N for Europe

😛

 

[Quu]

EU antitrust focuses on harm done to smaller businesses, not consumers. This is more about benefiting businesses and companies domiciled in the EU, and less about doing right by consumers (notice how in all this, nobody has solicited any feedback from citizens about what they actually think?).

I understand why the EU is doing this, and I have no illusions about what it means for me as the end user.

Consumers are at the heart of EU competition policy and they specifically shuffle cases around for the ones that will have the largest impact on consumers.

Of course this focuses on allowing competition from other companies (and individual developers) because that is how at the end of it all consumers win.

Just like with their USB-C directive with their goal being to force all phones, digital cameras and other portable consumer goods to use one unified connector. They specifically list the reasons for doing it and one of them is to benefit the consumer by making their devices easier to manage.

Didn't Microsoft have to make a special version of Windows long ago that didn't include Internet Explorer and Media Player because of anti-trust complaints in Europe?

Windows N or something?

Maybe Apple needs to make iPhone N running iOS N for Europe

😛

They did yes. And I wouldn't be opposed to that, Europe having the superior iPhone and so forth 😛

 

[Analog Kid]

A business model is not a competitor. A company is a competitor. Apple is a competitor and will continue to exist and compete with Google and other developers at large.

Ideas compete. Two companies forced to sell the same product are not competing.

 

[DaRev]

All these companies should pull out of the EU until they have rules that are fair to both the companies and consumers.

Also if they are going to be woke in America they should be equally woke in China and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I want sideloading so I can sell apps to people through my own website and also on competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut (15% up-to 1 Million in revenue, 30% above that).

On my own site I pay 1.5% to 2.5% to process a credit card. Apple takes 30% from me for every sale but they aren't footing the bill for all the servers that make my app function. Meanwhile I can sell the same app for macOS and not pay Apple a dime beyond the developer fee to get a certificate so users know my Application is traceable should it do something nefarious.

Developers like myself (and EPIC games) want what we've always had on computers, a fair and open market where competing stores can sell software.

But even though Apple takes 30% of every sale... it's still worth it, right?

I mean... you wouldn't keep doing it if it wasn't.

You knew the rules going into it and you still did it.

I dunno... I think getting 70% or 85% of something is still better than getting 0% by not becoming an iOS developer.

There are millions of developers who hate Apple's and Google's fees... but still do it anyway.

🙂

 

[Quu]

But even though Apple takes 30% of every sale... it's still worth it, right?

I mean... you wouldn't keep doing it if it wasn't.

You knew the rules going into it and you still did it.

I dunno... I think getting 70% or 85% of something is still better than getting 0% by not becoming an iOS developer.

There are millions of developers who hate Apple's and Google's fees... but still do it anyway.

🙂

Every business that is being shaken down should just quit right? Like the bakery paying protection money to the local mob they may lose 30% every month but hey they still made 70% right?

No. This is why we have competition law. This is why there are movements all over the world (South Korea, The EU, specific states in America) all working to undo Apples anti-competitive one-store-only policy.

And thank goodness, we're winning for consumers everywhere.

EDIT:// Also I did want to speak more about this. You asked about us still releasing things on iOS. The 30% cut from Apple did actually make us stop supporting some older apps on iOS while we continued to support them on other platforms (Windows and macOS). That is simply because that 30% cut is the equivalent of several employees.

We also transitioned one app to be "free" but once launched asked you to login to an account which is paid for outside of the app. The problem is due to Apples rules we're not allowed to tell users any website address or have any buttons that leads them out of the app so that they can pay for the subscription the app requires on our own website. Similar to how Netflix can't do that either.

The double standard that Apple has here is quite frustrating because if we sold a physical good like Amazon or UberEats we don't have to give Apple a 30% cut. They get nothing and we can use our own payment system in the app, for instance from Stripe our preferred card processor. But because we provide a digital good somehow it's worth less than a physical good in Apples eyes. This is really ridiculous when we are still paying employees and paying for physical resources to backup what we deliver to consumers (we pay for servers and we have to buy software and computers to actually make the software we sell digitally).

So ya know, there's a lot going on here, the 30% cut is for us terrible. It's higher than sales tax and card processing fees combined and Apple provides very little value to us in exchange for that which is why as I said for some of our apps we abandoned them on the iOS platform and for other apps moved to subscriptions that are started from our own website.

 

[pacalis]

EU antitrust focuses on harm done to smaller businesses, not consumers. This is more about benefiting businesses and companies domiciled in the EU, and less about doing right by consumers (notice how in all this, nobody has solicited any feedback from citizens about what they actually think?).

I understand why the EU is doing this, and I have no illusions about what it means for me as the end user.

This is interesting if it indeed the case. It means the EU is not operating without any basis in standard economic theory at all.

Edit: This is an interesting read about ex-ante (vs. ex-post) regulation.

The Digital Markets Act: European Precautionary Antitrust

The European Commission has set out to ensure digital markets are “fair and contestable.” But in a paradigm shift for antitrust enforcement, its proposal would impose special regulations on a narrowly defined set of “gatekeepers.” Contrary to its intent, this will deter innovation—and hold back...

itif.org

I continue to believe that this approach is going to do a whole lot of harm to Apple, the customer and many developers generally.

 

[nvmls]

No, but sometimes the same principles apply and you were struggling to understand how choice works so I picked a particularly simple analogy. Some products allow aftermarket choice, some do not. You can choose which approach you prefer when you go to the counter.

Sometimes != this time

You defend an ice-cream analogy and I'm struggling sure, with your clarification I can carry on my day though, thank you.

There are two competing business models. This kills one. There will be no competing business models. The math is quite simple.

Really? well no wonder you are sitting in a forum like me posting these amazing arguments.

Why is Apple allowing "premium resellers" and other subpar experience driven businesses in the name of their brand throughout the world, which can't even guarantee honoring international warranty & or repair programs, as part of their physical business, many times sharing stock with third party items of which Apple gets no cut whatsoever?

Seems as long as their products are being offered / used = profit they don't care if you choose to buy at a reseller. But in software this is different, because we want chocolate only at the counter right?

Tell me again how macOS killed Windows when Apple allowed side-loading so I can chuckle just a bit, thanks.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Every business that is being shaken down should just quit right? Like the bakery paying protection money to the local mob they may lose 30% every month but hey they still made 70% right?

No. This is why we have competition law. This is why there are movements all over the world (South Korea, The EU, specific states in America) all working to undo Apples anti-competitive one-store-only policy.

And thank goodness, we're winning 🙂

I love all this mob talk and shakedown talk.

You know you agreed to their terms, right? Nobody has to develop for iOS. 😉

Seriously though... would Apple simply lowering their fees a little (or a lot) help you? Or do you want to leave the App Store completely and rely on submitting and maintaining your iOS apps on 3 or 4 different app stores and websites?

I can see the appeal of letting Apple handling everything and simply subtract their cut... especially if it was lower. Sort of an all-in-one package. It's easy.

I'm not sure the average small developer would be interested in setting up their own servers, payment systems, and whatnot and deal with the hassles that come with that.

 

[ric22]

For those that hate the idea of side loading and think it'll ruin iOS... you won't be obliged to side load a thing. Neither will anyone else.

 

[Quu]

I love all this mob talk and shakedown talk.

You know you agreed to their terms, right? Nobody has to develop for iOS. 😉

Seriously though... would Apple simply lowering their fees a little (or a lot) help you? Or do you want to leave the App Store completely and rely on submitting and maintaining your iOS apps on 3 or 4 different app stores and websites?

I can see the appeal of letting Apple handling everything and simply subtract their cut... especially if it was lower. Sort of an all-in-one package. It's easy.

I'm not sure the average small developer would be interested in setting up their own servers, payment systems, and whatnot and deal with the hassles that come with that.

I edited my previous reply to expand a bit, you can read it above. But essentially we only have two viable phone platforms. Android and iOS so there is really little choice.

But just to summarise what I said in my edited post. We have had to abandon software on iOS in the past and change business models due to the 30% cut being simply too high.

I think we would accept 5% for basic distribution and card processing which would be inline with what we know it costs to deliver our own apps through our own platforms, 10% for added extras such as iCloud storage, promotion etc. When it comes to third party stores on Android (the Samsung store and Amazon stores on Android for instance) we were able to negotiate less than 7% fees in both instances.

Seriously though... would Apple simply lowering their fees a little (or a lot) help you? Or do you want to leave the App Store completely and rely on submitting and maintaining your iOS apps on 3 or 4 different app stores and websites?

I can see the appeal of letting Apple handling everything and simply subtract their cut... especially if it was lower. Sort of an all-in-one package. It's easy.

Totally I know plenty of small developers who are happy with paying Apple 15% (as they are below 1 Million in revenue). That's not a really bad deal. It's ya know, not optimal, it's not great. But it's not really bad. And even if we get sideloading on iOS I foresee many developers still choosing to use Apples App Store.

But I know many game developers who would flock to Steam and EPIC Games on iOS when no doubt those stores launch. I know that my own company would likely put our app on more stores. We already are on many including some Chinese specific ones for the Xiaomi phones and so forth.

In-fact there is software available to publish on all the app stores at the same time to make it easier on developers.

I'm not sure the average small developer would be interested in setting up their own servers, payment systems, and whatnot and deal with the hassles that come with that.

Other services and stores will come along to assist developers in this regard. It won't be necessary for them to do it all themselves. Just like we have AWS for hosting so you don't have to buy and setup physical servers and build a datacenter. We live in a very diversified and services driven economy and day 1 that sideloading is a thing there will be alternative stores that mirror exactly what Apple is offering developers but at a lower price.

There is a lot of room to meagre out a profit between the 2.5% it costs to process payments and the 15% that Apple is charging small developers and the 30% they're charging large developers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I edited my previous reply to expand a bit, you can read it above. But essentially we only have two viable phone platforms. Android and iOS so there is really little choice.

But just to summarise what I said in my edited post. We have had to abandon software on iOS in the past and change business models due to the 30% cut being simply too high.

I think we would accept 5% for basic distribution and card processing which would be inline with what we know it costs to deliver our own apps through our own platforms, 10% for added extras such as iCloud storage, promotion etc. When it comes to third party stores on Android (the Samsung store and Amazon stores on Android for instance) we were able to negotiate less than 7% fees in both instances.

Thank you for telling your story. I went back and read your edited reply above. 🙂

It's always nice to hear from actual developers in here.

👍

 

[Hikerdave]

What I don’t really understand, why would Apple need to comply with any of these “rules”? I know there are fines, but again, why would Apple actually need to pay the fines. Serious questions, I really don’t understand why governments can force companies to do what they want. I am guessing that the government can somehow make other companies not play ball with Apple, but again why do companies actually need to listen to the government? I know I am just completely stupid, but I just don’t know.

 

[vipergts2207]

Ideas compete. Two companies forced to sell the same product are not competing.

Ideas compete in a theoretical sense. In the actual market, real companies compete with each other for marketshare. And again, sideloading is the only differentiating factor between an Android and an iPhone?? You really have that low of an opinion of Apple’s ecosystem? And if that is the only differentiating factor then they’re already not really competing anyway since something like 99% of distributed apps on Android come through the official Play Store.

 

[Stunning_Sense4712]

What I don’t really understand, why would Apple need to comply with any of these “rules”? I know there are fines, but again, why would Apple actually need to pay the fines. Serious questions, I really don’t understand why governments can force companies to do what they want. I am guessing that the government can somehow make other companies not play ball with Apple, but again why do companies actually need to listen to the government? I know I am just completely stupid, but I just don’t know.

Apple would be shut down from doing bussiness in the country and would possible trigger an anti trust case to discuss the breakup of Apple Inc due to monopolistic behavior.

 

[ian87w]

Makes no sense, and seems to be too specifically targeted. Every businesses should have a right for trade secrets. I cannot go to McDonalds and demand them to make me a BK whooper. I cannot go to KFC and demand them to adjust their recipe to my taste.

I want to see the same regulatory concept applied to the European car makers, and see how they would like it.

 

[CthuluLemon]

How would me making a phone with the same features and closed off walled garden be treated any differently then Apple doing it?

No everyone doesn’t think like that or like me. I agree with that. You can’t make one product that’s going to meet everyone’s needs or wants. I think people should have a choice of what to buy instead of being forced to buy what the government thinks is best for them. This is why we have a choice of different products. What we don’t need is the government saying all of this product needs to be this way. Unless the product is going to kill people or seriously injure them then why not have that product available for the customers who want it. This is basically the concept of a free market where people vote with their money and buy the products they want versus some sort of Socialism where the government tells you what product you need to buy. Of course the EU isn’t exactly capitalist so I’m sure that’s where the disconnect is.

Perhaps in countries where the government thinks they know what’s best for their subjects Apple will just have to make adjustments versus in the USA where the free market is a thing we will still get a proper iPhone.

lol, alright Mr Smith—how’s the weather in DC ?— what you advocate for is all fine and dandy, but defending Apple here is just to undermine all of it. Apple has not proven its control of the App Store and related restrictions are justified by consumer privacy concerns, the EU is insisting the App Store must face that market test, that Apple can’t hide behind their IP when that IP doesn’t just protect a product, but also supports an entire business ecosystem. The EU has decided Apple shouldn’t be able to use their natural monopoly on hardware and OS to create an artificial monopoly on marketplace and payment on that hardware and OS, especially if they insist on limiting that OS to that hardware. Notice how Apple limits macOS to Apple hardware, but because Apple doesn’t insist on controlling the marketplace and payment on macOS, it doesn’t face the same scrutiny in that arena? Funny how that works. Apple can pretend the iPhone is a novelty it should control all Apple wants, the EU knows it’s a smartphone and a vital tool for communication in the modern world.

Apple is insisting that its way, a way that conveniently benefits Apple, is the only way, rather than putting it’s option to the test and risking the market produce something better that’s not under Apple’s thumb.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone; eventually, his company was split up as an artificial monopoly. Technology progresses exponentially faster, and so Apple and other smartphone manufactureres have reached the point sooner. Their invention has produced a market, and the EU is now ensuring they, as private companies with multiple conflicts of interests concerning that market, do not unilaterally or oligarchic-ally govern that market.

 

[dk001]

What are you talking about? I don’t have a computer on every floor in my house. So if someone falls or collapses nowhere near my computer, I can’t use it! What’s with the attitude on these forums lately. Yes my 50 pound desktop is on one floor in a three story house.

And to say a computer is equivalent to a cell phone because Skype can call 911 is just ridiculous.

Also if you actually read what I said is that an iPhone needs to be a phone “at all times”. I don’t take my 50 pound desktop with me in the car in case I get in a wreck and need to call 911.

You are quibbling.
Most do not carry a phone around with them 24/7.
Most do not carry a laptop around with them 24/7.

Both devices can make calls.
Both can call emergency.

I could go on and on. At the same time you can come up with items that differentiate. Or don’t
End of the day, both are computers.

 

[6787872]

given the option

novel concept for apple stans, isn't it?