well if they try the same BS steering limits then that will not pass.
Developers who offer the ability to sideload their apps in the European Union will still face restrictions and fees imposed by Apple, The Wall Street Journal reports.
App sideloading capabilities will allow users to download apps from outside the App Store for the first time, but only in the EU. The change is necessitated by the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), which seeks to reign in the apparent anticompetitive conduct of big tech companies.
Apple reportedly plans to comply with EU law in a way that retains close control over the apps downloaded outside the App Store. Apple has not yet revealed its final plans to comply with this aspect of the DMA, but the WSJ today provided new details citing people familiar with the company's plans. Specifically, Apple will apparently retain the ability to review each app offered outside the app store, as well as take a fee from developers that offer them.
Exact details of the fee structure are unknown, but Apple charges a 27% commission on in-app purchases made through alternative payment systems in the Netherlands, a capability that was initially triggered by a Dutch regulatory ruling. This is just three percent lower than its default fee, but unlike Apple's commission, it does not include tax, making the net total more than Apple's fee for most developers.
Apple has reportedly been working on the plan for offering sideloading for over a year and the company has held meetings with EU officials in recent months to discuss the new rules. The deadline to enact the changes is Thursday, March 7.
Companies are already said to be lining up to take advantage of the impending changes. For example, Spotify is mulling offering its app via its website to skirt the App Store, Microsoft has considered launching its own third-party app store specifically for games, and Meta is planning to launch a system to download apps directly from ads.
Article Link: Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ges a 27% commission
Makes sense, it's their platform and they have a right to implement security measures how they please.
Developers are simply choosing whether they want to be in Apple's storefront or their own.
Developers are simply choosing whether they want to be in Apple's storefront or their own.
But this whole thing is explicitly about not selling at Costco (App Store) but opening up the option for different stores and distribution mechanisms to exist, including direct to customer.
A fee to be on the App Store and have apple host your application on there, with all it entails, is perfectly reasonable. But this is about leaving the App Store. For your analogy to make sense, the iPhone as a platform would have to be Costco, and last I checked I already bought my iPhone. I own it and should be able to put any software on it I want. I am not renting an app platform. Apple has even themselves said that they don't want to be a business where you are the product. They want to sell products. Well, in the same vein, once you pay the product you should have control over it. I'd be happy for the default setting to be App Store Only. I'd stick to that myself. But on principle I feel like direct software distribution ought to exist. And that doing so should be able to circumvent Apple entirely. A Gatekeeper-like system would be fine, including the Apple Developer program fee, but even that should have a "Forced" 'launch anyway' option as it does on macOS.
I've always thought the 30% fee on the App Store is reasonable. I'm happy staying 100% within the App Store. But I also fundamentally believe you should have the right to run anything that can be run on your device.
Gatekeeper is a complete joke on the Mac. All it takes is right click and open and you can install and open any unsigned app. Not really a barrier at all.
The EU is NOT going to put up with this. Apple is about to get another smackdown, and hopefully a MASSIVE fine for screwing around.
That will be a short stop to losing your customers with a lot of users. Most users don’t even know what side loading is to begin with, how do you get them to see the point and move? I just don’t see it tbh.
But competition is good, as long as it’s voluntary, I for sure don’t need any other App Store, I’m very strict on keeping as few apps as possible since most of them fix a problem that don’t exist just to be able to harvest data.
Technically no one is selling their brand to Costco. Technically Costco is buying your product at the wholesale price (like every other business), marking it up and selling to the public to make their profit. #capitalism
And sure you can tell customers they call fill it with anything they like, but if they fill it with glue your product reputation doesn't get drug in the mud as a result of their stupidity.
In the tech world however, some need a bit more hand holding to prevent installing that "helpful" software the nice person on the phone suggests so they can validate your expiring auto warranty. 😇
The article mentioned that apple was having meetings with EU representatives. I am sure they presented their idea?
Does BEST BUY take 30% of in app sales?
Does BEST BUY take 30% of netflix subs on an tv you buy from them?
Does BEST BUY take 30% of your cable bill?
Does BEST BUY have the right to SAY NO PORN on tvs you buy from them.
CAN BEST BUY block FOX NATION due them not liking the content?
Does STEAM take 30% of free to play games in app sales?
STEAM allows you have emulators apple does not.
there is not only the cut but the app rules.
Neither PC stores nor physical stores have a duopoly. Further, MS does not prevent anyone from making apps for their OS. Console makers sell the devices for little to no profit (actually at a loss generally) and then make it up on game sales. Apple does not. They make a boatload of money on the hardware. However, if regulators wanted to force console makers to change their business model, I'd be down for that.
For mobile stores, it's actually 15% for the first one million in revenue and then 30% beyond that.
Great.
Not sure how banning apps like Spotify from mentioning promotions in their own software keeps the end user secure though. Seems like that's only there to protect Apple Music and Apples App Store fees.
If it's an HP Kettle it'll stay cold until you fill it with HP Water that costs $5600 per liter (fyi: cost of HP printer ink)
Deserved commission while retaining the ability to prevent people from using the hardware they purchased in a certain way.
Further... big companies that have grown bigger off of the back of Google/Apple stores and delivery platform seeing the profit that Apple's model has generated and simply wants a slice of it. They had a good idea, Apple had one to deliver their idea and make money, and now everyone is sour about it. It's like if I'm a car maker, and I get made that after selling wholesale to a dealer, they up the price and make a dollar off of the car I built... the nerve of those greedy... wait... that is our entire business model everywhere. Buy for $1 and sell for $2. Kinda obvious it's like saying buy my product for $1, but if you sell it for $2 I want an extra $0.50. Welcome to the system! You sell and someone out there will find a way to make money off of you, or more than you.
So before long, users will end up having half a dozen 3rd party App Stores installed on their iPhone? Genius. Slow clap for the EU power brokers and anyone else who thought this was ever a good idea.
Yet PC stores and physical stores sell software for higher prices than mobile. Console makers also sell software for higher prices than mobile. The reality is that the mobile market duopoly of iOS/Android provided software prices that were much lower than what consumers paid on desktop/laptop and console.
If I was selling stuff on the AppStore I’d probably be more than happy with a lower fee. But especially the right to run anything, I agree with. That’s why I felt that when the EU stepped in here, the best option would have been to do what you get on Android, where (if memory serves, but correct me if I’m wrong), you have to specifically opt in to be able to install 3rd party stuff.
You could then (in Apple’s case) warn the user that they’re exposing themselves to potential risks like malware and viruses and for all I care tell them they are no longer eligible for software support if they choose to install 3rd party apps.
The EU will have to re-factor their law then. I'm not agreeing with Apple's approach here, but this is a prime example of "malicious compliance". Similar to them allowing App Developers to link to external payments, but still taking a 27% cut.
They are following the exact rule of the law, but it is fundamentally against the spirit of said law.
Because the software for mobile is/was inferior on mobile. Of course games like Elder Scrolls or GTA are going to cost more than a mobile game like Fruit Ninja or Angry Birds.
Apple is just begging for regulators to kick them to the curb, I see.
Note how for every single one of these, with the sole exception to the App Store, there are alternatives on their respective platform.
Note how for every single one of these, with the sole exception to the App Store, there are alternatives on their respective platform.
For heaven's sake, the iPhone I bought is my property, not Costco's and not Apple's. I admire your ability to make up the most inaccurate analogy possible.
It sounds awfully like what I proposed a few weeks back: Storefront owners (who are also hosting) distribute their shops via the App Store. Upon submitting an app, developers can choose which storefronts they want to apply it to, declining the app store if they so wish altogether. All apps still have to go through Apple's QA program.
Whilst this does still make Apple 'gatekeepers' in the sense of still swatting away apps that don't meet its own rules it does mean that users can pick alternate storefronts and be confident the apps meet requirements. It also means devs can be sure that hacked versions of their apps that sidestep subscriptions (eg Spotify) that litter current app fronts do not make the cut. Its not really any different to the EU applying minimum safety standards on all products sold in its borders.
Counter-suits from the EU would depend on Apple's cut of sales outside its domain. If its still doing QA then they have a right to charge some commission although 27% is somewhat taking the nuts.
Whilst this does still make Apple 'gatekeepers' in the sense of still swatting away apps that don't meet its own rules it does mean that users can pick alternate storefronts and be confident the apps meet requirements. It also means devs can be sure that hacked versions of their apps that sidestep subscriptions (eg Spotify) that litter current app fronts do not make the cut. Its not really any different to the EU applying minimum safety standards on all products sold in its borders.
Counter-suits from the EU would depend on Apple's cut of sales outside its domain. If its still doing QA then they have a right to charge some commission although 27% is somewhat taking the nuts.
It's still more intrusive than it should be. It's MY computer, not Apple's. If I want to install an unsigned app, I should be able to without Apple pretending there's something wrong with it. I shouldn't have to know about the secret click.
Ew defending trillion dollar company anti consumer and anti competitive practices gives me the super ick.