Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees

[generationrex]

I think the issue with this is that companies like Spotify want to use Apple's App Store to "advertise" their product for free and steer users to their website for purchase to maintain their margins. Spotify should be required to pay Apple for access to their billions of devices if they're wanting to just advertise and not going to use Apple services. That's why Apple doesn't let developers advertise their products for purchase elsewhere other than the App Store. Apple has spent a lot of money developing the App Store market place to make it an attractive platform for developers so if you want to gain access to that exclusive user base (even if it's just for advertising) it's only fair to pay up, sorry.

If Spotify doesn't want to pay Apple for this privileged access to advertise on their exclusive platform that they built from the ground up, they can always put up their ads elsewhere and point users to their website for purchase and keep all their margins to themselves, why does it need to be through Apple's App Store?

This is a fair point. The only problem is you can't put your app anywhere else. You HAVE to use the App Store (Apple requirement) and you HAVE to pay Apple. Apple could take a middle ground.. something like :

• You want to be on the App Store, our rules.
• Otherwise, host your own store and market your product. Pay your $99 dev. fee and keep whatever you make and good luck to you for the rest. (Something like how the desktop/laptop world works).

But that's not the case at present. The App Store has a model designed to flow as much $$ into Apple's coffers as they can get away with by manipulating consumer behaviour and restricting developer options.

 

[gnipgnop]

Not quite. App Store is 15% if you make less than $1 million per year. If you make more than $1 million, then you pay 30% (even for the first million).

Not quite. You get the 15% rate if your calendar year sales were under one million. So you could start the calendar year at 15% and then surpass the one million mark later in the year. Which means 30% only applies to revenue beyond the one million in that calendar year. The next year you would be subject to 30%. And companies that were already over one million mark in calendar year sales would never get the 15% rate.

 

[scorpio vega]

Good for apple. Now let all the android fans trying to make iOS into android do whatever sideloading they want to do.

 

[damienbutt]

E.g. nothing in the regulation states that Apple has to allow unsigned or self-signed apps, so Apple still can require signing and subject that signing to some criterias as long as they can convice the regulator they are necessary for the safety of their OS or hardware.

I haven’t actually written an app. This was just an example.
But I would think regulators will see right through Apple's tactics and just update the regs.
If an app is open source and audited by the community then signing shouldn’t matter.
It seems to go against the spirit of what the EU regs are trying to achieve.

 

[mk_in_mke]

I believe Apple provides a great service for the millions of developers:
- Distribution mechanism,
- Vetting the applications,
- Safe payment method,
- Reduce distribution /. marketing cost for the developers

Developer have benefitted and are still benefitting from the framework Apple provides for all users to enjoy the apps. It is in my view absolutely normal for Apple to get a payment for what they do. Simple as that.

What makes it complex, I also believe, is the relationship:
- Apple sell its platforms to billions of users
- Apple needs the apps to entice users to use their platforms
- Developers need apple to create and maintain the platforms the users enjoy


... question becomes: what is fair price to pay to access the safe environment Apple created?

Let's look at how much a developer would have to pay to provide us, the users, with similar safe, secure and enjoyable experience?

 

[makitango]

Off course they tried. It's Nestlé. I would be disappointed if they did not 🤣.

Apple tried similar things with voiding warranties. I guess they are on a level with Nestlé there. Oof, I guess that's a low blow.

Microsoft complained about the cloud gaming app for PR purposes. They have a tip for pinning the web address to the iPhone home screen for what they say is "quick access".

Not sure how iOS represents a "higher cut" when the dominant app store (Steam) for the dominant OS (Windows) charges 30%. iOS App Store is 15% for the first million in revenue and 30% after that, so most developer apps will be subject to the 15% rate. Also keep in mind that Epic has stated in court that their own 12% store commission prevents them from making a profit. Which also means that developers doing their own stores on Mac/Windows have some additional costs to consider. Epic is a billion dollar company and 12% isn't enough apparently.

Steam is only for gaming, which is a leisure activity. App Store is for everything and you have no other choice. Any platform where Steam can be installed on top, does.

If I were Apple, I'd just throw my hands up and say, "You want side loading? Click this button in settings and it's enabled. But be warned, we will not be reviewing any of the apps for malicious software and will not be held liable if you choose this option."

But I guess Apple is still concerned for the customers who choose side loading, so they're trying to keep it safe and regulated. Typical Apple, can't let anything go without nanny-ing it (which is great in some cases, but a stumbling block for them in others).

They never offered support for any third-party app in the first place. Go ask Apple in their stores or on their hotline that you have a problem with Microsoft Word, the answer will be reinstall app or reset your whole device.

 

[makitango]

Good for apple. Now let all the android fans trying to make iOS into android do whatever sideloading they want to do.

So macOS is like Windows because it allows sideloading?

 

[gnipgnop]

People talk about this stuff like the future is buying your software from a bunch of crack dealers in a park at night.

How do you get on using an actual computer?

People use all kinds of different systems with all kinds of different legacy expectations. There is no monolithic approach. Apple chose a different system for the iPhone because they had the opportunity to do so and wanted to do so based on their experience with desktop/laptop operating systems.

 

[Populus]

I feel like the most logical implementation is something similar to Gatekeeper on the Mac. Certificates to identify the developers and make sure apps are legitimate. This helps handle pretty much everything Apple would want and allow for them to block apps by pulling certs. Theoretically. Plus they do it on the Mac by default already.

Definitely, in my opinion this would be the most sensible approach, just like on the Mac.

However, knowing Apple, I think it is likely to not be as good as it may sound.
We’ll see…

 

[DanTheMan827]

Not sure what all the surprise is here. This was about being able to sideload. Ok here you go. Absolutely nothing says Apple can’t get paid for hosting companies products. Apple will still get its 100% deserved commission/reimbursement for its platform hosting expenses.

Except the DMA explicitly says they must offer sideloading free of charge…

If Apple has the audacity to try and charge for it, it will certainly backfire on them.

 

[Bananir]

I feel like these EU changes really only benefit big players and not indie developers. Apples rules before EU got involved were more targeted at helping smaller devs get their apps off the ground. Now the rules are skewed towards big businesses limiting competition by creating barriers to entry for smaller competitors.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't apple require a $100 annual fee before you can publish anything? How is that supportive? Its the same reason you'll see some indie games on sites like itch.io instead of steam.

 

[BaldiMac]

Except the DMA explicitly says they must offer sideloading free of charge…

If Apple has the audacity to try and charge for it, it will certainly backfire on them.

No, it doesn't.

 

[DanTheMan827]

View attachment 2340640

What point are you trying to make? That just because nearly everyone charges the same rate that it’s okay?

Hell, if anything, digital stores should be charging less because there’s considerably less overhead.

 

[mrochester]

This is a fair point. The only problem is you can't put your app anywhere else. You HAVE to use the App Store (Apple requirement) and you HAVE to pay Apple. Apple could take a middle ground.. something like :

• You want to be on the App Store, our rules.
• Otherwise, host your own store and market your product. Pay your $99 dev. fee and keep whatever you make and good luck to you for the rest. (Something like how the desktop/laptop world works).

But that's not the case at present. The App Store has a model designed to flow as much $$ into Apple's coffers as they can get away with by manipulating consumer behaviour and restricting developer options.

I think that’s broadly what Apple will do except If you don’t agree to share revenue from the app then the upfront cost will be higher. So a much higher upfront cost with no further fees or lower entry fee with ongoing commission payments.

 

[scorpio vega]

So macOS is like Windows because it allows sideloading?

I really need you all to come with a better argument.

macOS and windows have always been like that so I accept it. I can’t remember outside of maybe a browser or something specific I needed to sideload anything but I also am well aware of how sketchy and easy it is to accidentally download nefarious files. My brother downloaded a browser thinking it was the real site only to now have adware galore.

iOS has not and I am glad. Android could use some regulation with the mess that is that os but android has always been an open haphazard mess so it wouldn’t make sense to change its ethos.

 

[DanTheMan827]

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.

Actually, they can now direct people out of the app… but they have to display a scary warning, and still give Apple 12-27% of sales made as a result of that link.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I think their goal in not allowing streaming games is a good user experience. I'm certainly not interested in encouraging developers to abandon native interfaces in favor of cross-platform crap like we see on the Mac.

I don’t disagree. But is it really up to them to decide that? And is it really about the user experience for either side more than it is about who gets paid what?

If the game developers are unwilling or unable to follow’s Apple’s policies (not technical limitations, policies, extending far beyond the direct purpose of the app and into things like specific language allowed to be used in its description (Apple Vision Pro only, no line breaks three spaces three caps etc or we reject your app update)), then the alternative is that those games are not available at all. Game streaming has advantages at times, not always. Why arbitrarily just say no, and for reasons that seem to be mostly about billing and control and control of billing?

I don’t really know what the right arrangement here is. I don’t think Apple is completely right about everything and is unilaterally making all the right decisions, whether they have the legal or reasonable grounds or not. And government interference won’t help either.

It’s just unfortunate that the incentives seem misaligned on all sides. Just more internet balkanization. And Apple seems unreasonably stubborn about a few strange points, to the detriment of a lot of things including other parts of their own company.

 

[BaldiMac]

But is it really up to them to decide that?

Yes.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Yes.

Well as the great philosopher Homer Simpson once said, that’s for the courts to decide.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Yes.

Yeah it probably is. Whether that’s actually the right decision for them is a different question.

 

[gnipgnop]

Steam is only for gaming, which is a leisure activity. App Store is for everything and you have no other choice. Any platform where Steam can be installed on top, does.

Gaming apps generate the majority of revenue on the iOS App Store. Other app types that are relatively lucrative tend to be subscription based (entertainment, exercise, dating) or free (social media) or purchased online (ebooks, i.e., mostly Amazon). Subscriptions = 15% after the first year or 0% if purchased online.

 

[makitango]

No, it doesn't.

You can't both be right. But you both can provide evidence to back it up.

I really need you all to come with a better argument.

macOS and windows have always been like that so I accept it. I can’t remember outside of maybe a browser or something specific I needed to sideload anything but I also am well aware of how sketchy and easy it is to accidentally download nefarious files. My brother downloaded a browser thinking it was the real site only to now have adware galore.

iOS has not and I am glad. Android could use some regulation with the mess that is that os but android has always been an open haphazard mess so it wouldn’t make sense to change its ethos.

No we don't. The point made was that iOS would be no different than Android if it were to support just one feature that the other side and any other normal consumer OS has, and this is not the case.
macOS vs Windows is an easy to understand example that it is the combination of features that attract customers, not a singular one. You can also easily go around on the street and ask Android users if they ever sideloaded, and the majority would say either no or ask what sideloading is, and then say no again.

 

[JohnRckr]

Glad I switched to Samsung, tired of anything iPhone related

 

[BaldiMac]

You can't both be right. But you both can provide evidence to back it up.

I certainly can't quote something that doesn't exist.

 

[dwaite]

Ok. But you can buy pods from third parties. Nespresso does not prohibit it contractually, because it would be anti-competitive. So there is that.

You can buy Netflix or Spotify or DLC or pay for YouTube premium or purchase Kindle books from outside the app, and when you do you don't pay Apple a commission.

For several of those, they only offer the option to purchase outside the app, or add a surcharge in-app.

I wasn't speaking to Nespresso, but rather their relationship with retailers selling their machines. Nespresso _does_ limit your ability to purchase third party manufactured pods on their newer machine via patents and DRM.