What they don’t realize is that Apple develops a whole OS per App Store and builds lots of APIs their own apps aren’t even using.
Imagine the screaming if Apple deprecated APIs they don't use. After all, the DMA only requires access to the the gatekeeper uses.
if only apple charged a yearly developer fee of some kind. oh wait....
And one solution is a sliding scale based on d/l numbers and price.
Want what for free? Apple already charges developers for access, even if they don't use the app store.
That is a develop's choice. They can use the tools, as has been pointed out, and avoid Apple's fee to develop an app.
True sideloading would completely remove Apple from the picture.
yeah no. This literally not how business works. You want to sell in the EU? You follow EU laws. It matters not you own the platform, you still have to comply with the law, or be fined on your *worldwide* revenue. Apple will comply.
They already will, some companies don't like they aren't getting 100% free access to Apple's user base.
It might do so whilst screaming and kicking making a fool of itself, but eventually the EU will have what it wants.
Problem is I don't think the EU knows what it really wants. I suspect this will get tied up in courts if teh EU takes action.
The EU influence reaches far beyond its market size (which remains massive). You will have noticed that ALL new iPhones have now usb-c, and it would be foolish to think that this would be the case if it wasn’t because the EU legislated about it.
While it may have speeded it up (even though Apple would only had to introduce it on the iPhone 17), Apple was already moving in that direction; as shown by the iPads.
For a concrete example just look at YouTube Premium IAP. $19/mo with Apple’s tax vs $14/mo on the website.
And you are free to subscribe for $14. Google simply wants to drive you to tehir system and poke at Apple.
Another question is "How many develops charge less on teh Mac if you buy direct vs from the Mac App Store?" In my experience, the answer is almost zero; they chose to convert the "Apple Tax" to a "Developer Tax."
Malicious compliance by Apple: trying to obey the law without actually obeying. Let’s hope the EU strikes down Apple
That’s exactly what malicious compliance is in his case. There’s the exact letter of the law and there’s the intend of the law.
It doe not appear the intent of the DMA was for Apple to be required to provide 100% free access to their App Store.
s I understand it, the EU does not want Apple to be the only gatekeeper of what can be installed on an iOS device. So they want additional stores that are not controlled by Apple. It’s as simple as that.
And Apple said ok, but let’s make it really hard and really expensive. So if the intend is to allow for more (potentially profitable) stores, the EU could argue Apple is putting up roadblocks and will strike it all down, forcing Apple to come up with another plan.
And clearly, the Microsofts, Metas and Epiqs of this world have to say today Apple’s framework is unworkable to make their case.
Which is why I think sideloading, if implemented like it is on the Mac, is what will bolster Apple's argument. Anyone is free to develop an app and have it load, possibly just after a warning it is not from a known developer.
The stores are not controlled by Apple. They only require notarisation of the apps (for security purpose, which explicitly is allowed by the legislation) and the core technology fee. Other than that third party developers are free to do whatever they want.
True sideloading would end that need as well.
You want to argue that notarization costs Apple?
Not the point. Apple is entitled to make a profit from its store and decide what the margin should be. At some point, if the store's ROI is too low, they could simply shut it down. Not saying that would happen, but Apple could exit the app market without exiting the phone market.
I suspect, n the end, the Apple app market will not change much; despite all the whining.
Answer is: barriers to entry and network effects (nobody will buy it without an established ecosystem of third-party apps). That’s why government prudently regulates the few remaining mobile OS operators that have „won“ this game - rather than waste billions in futile attempts to establish competition.
Though in regulated industries such as you describe, the few players assured of a profit based on some criteria, such as invested capital for capital intensive companies such as utilities. Airlines were once assured profits and routes allocated to them.
I doubt EPIC/Spotify et. al. would like ot have to pay a fee every time a user uses their app, no matter where it came from, that was large enough to subsidize all the free and low cost apps.
You already see whining about the CTF, imagine if that was codified and expanded by EU regulation. I doubt they would want to be in the business of ensuring Apple makes a profit.
