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

[I7guy]

[…]

The US is not the only nation in the world.

[…]

no but considering the number of pro anti-trust posts in these threads it’s a great indication.

 

[MacFarmer]

"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"

haha, this is just hilarious

 

[d686546s]

no but considering the number of pro anti-trust posts in these threads it’s a great indication.

Depends on what you're trying to say, but unless I misremember your point was about a US court ruling.

A US court ruling in this context generally is a good indication about Apple's position under US law, but doesn't really have any bearing otherwise.

 

[I7guy]

Depends on what you're trying to say, but unless I misremember your point was about a US court ruling.

A US court ruling in this context generally is a good indication about Apple's position under US law, but doesn't really have any bearing otherwise.

Actually for the most part apple has not been found guilty for anti trust in the App Store. That some governments don’t like the hold apple has in the app store is another matter as witnessed by the needle threading of the DMA.

 

[gnipgnop]

Third, what's in the consumer's "best interest" is a whole other topic of discussion that on MR magically always aligns with what is the most profitable for Apple. That being said, Apple's model certainly has benefits for consumers, but it also removes choice, prevents them from accessing certain services and, in some cases, may lock them in.

The EU responded to lobbying by billion dollar software companies like Spotify and Tinder. That's the "best interest" that they were focused on.

And ironically, subscription based companies like Spotify/Tinder are the least likely to be effected by Apple's control of iOS because it's not very difficult for them to get users to pay via the internet and completely avoid Apple's commission (example: Spotify's 99% success rate for iOS subscribers paying online). Plus, subscriptions via the App Store will drop to 15% commission after the first year. Considering that Epic has testified in a court that they don't make a profit with their 12% Epic Store commission it's hard to see 15% as anything punitive by Apple per Spotify/Tinder.

The above facts are very much the reason the EU never attempted to show hard data that iOS was economically worse for consumers or developers versus the other operating systems on the market. Repeatedly labelling something as "anticompetitive" in the media and then failing to support that with a side-by-side comparison to other operating systems for desktops/laptops, mobile devices or game consoles is essentially admitting that there's nothing to see.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Yeah all other app store will be run by red cross and all money will just go to the dev./s

Or the GoodWill App Store, Salvation Army App Store.
Thrift App Store, Flea App Market.

 

[gnipgnop]

I’m sure I’m not the only person who wouldn’t take issue with Apple’s business model if they sold their hardware at a loss and made it ip through the App Store. Reasonable people know companies have to make money somehow. What they don’t like is feeling fleeced or seeing a company act in nefarious ways. I’d love to pay two thirds the price for an iPhone.

Selling hardware at a loss and then making it up with software sales is an approach that was used by console manufacturers not named Nintendo BUT was abandoned after the Playstation 3/Xbox 360 generation. Both Sony and Microsoft switched to a strategy where they take small losses at launch and then begin making profits later on as manufacturing costs drop.

 

[coredev]

I’m sure I’m not the only person who wouldn’t take issue with Apple’s business model if they sold their hardware at a loss and made it ip through the App Store. Reasonable people know companies have to make money somehow. What they don’t like is feeling fleeced or seeing a company act in nefarious ways. I’d love to pay two thirds the price for an iPhone.

Selling things at a loss is not a good business model long term.
And Apple does not have to do it, because it has a strong brand and people line up to buy iDevices.
Also, Apple is a business with shareholders and is obliged to make prudent business decisions.
Operating at a loss in any business unit is not one of them, so Apple doesn't do it.

 

[vipergts2207]

Selling hardware at a loss and then making it up with software sales is an approach that was used by console manufacturers not named Nintendo BUT was abandoned after the Playstation 3/Xbox 360 generation. Both Sony and Microsoft switched to a strategy where they take small losses at launch and then begin making profits later on as manufacturing costs drop.

Even if they're no longer selling PS5s or Xboxs at a loss, selling that kind of hardware for that price still doesn't leave much margin for profit. If they were selling at a loss when priced at $499, even if manufacturing has become 20% cheaper, that's only a double-digit profit per unit, but even that doesn't factor other costs beyond manufacturing.

 

[vipergts2207]

Selling things at a loss is not a good business model long term.

Tell that to the printer companies.

And Apple does not have to do it, because it has a strong brand and people line up to buy iDevices.
Also, Apple is a business with shareholders and is obliged to make prudent business decisions.
Operating at a loss in any business unit is not one of them, so Apple doesn't do it.

Yup excellent point, which is part of why the EU enacted the DMA, so that the unchecked business objectives of the company and their obligation to their shareholders isn't allowed to harm the EU's markets.

 

[seek3r]

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.

That’s literally the point. That’s not a problem. It requires a conscious decision by the user to run an unsigned app. That means it provides security while still allowing folks to use the platform as they need. The requirement is that if you’re taking that extra step you’re aware of the risk

If nothing unsigned could run they’d lose a huge amount of tech folks and others that use macs literally immediately. It would cripple my ability to work on a mac for instance

 

[ender78]

The one who doesn't get to dictate the business model is the content creator: they can try to make it work with embedded ads, but it's on them to make it work, not on their viewers.

Say what ! They're the only ones that get to dictate the model. It's "Their Content". They are granting you a license to use it, which "requires" that you are at the very least presented the add. Don't like it, watch something else.

 

[seek3r]

If this is accurate this isnt really sideloading, it’s the app store with extra steps :/

 

[gnipgnop]

Even if they're no longer selling PS5s or Xboxs at a loss, selling that kind of hardware for that price still doesn't leave much margin for profit. If they were selling at a loss when priced at $499, even if manufacturing has become 20% cheaper, that's only a double-digit profit per unit, but even that doesn't factor other costs beyond manufacturing.

Smartphones require a continuous R&D loop because the market expectation is improved hardware every year. Consoles don't have that model. The goal is to sell the same hardware for 5-7 years typically. Apple has also been unique in the smartphone market in that they both produce their own OS and their own SoC. They definitely have a heavier lift than most Android manufacturers.

 

[gnipgnop]

That’s literally the point. That’s not a problem. It requires a conscious decision by the user to run an unsigned app. That means it provides security while still allowing folks to use the platform as they need. The requirement is that if you’re taking that extra step you’re aware of the risk

If nothing unsigned could run they’d lose a huge amount of tech folks and others that use macs literally immediately. It would cripple my ability to work on a mac for instance

It works that way due to the legacy expectations for desktop/laptop computers. Apple chose to take a different approach with mobile that was closer to how software distribution worked with game consoles. New platform = no legacy expectations.

 

[seek3r]

It works that way due to the legacy expectations for desktop/laptop computers. Apple chose to take a different approach with mobile that was closer to how software distribution worked with game consoles. New platform = no legacy expectations.

Not legacy expectation, different *kind* of platform.

The mac serves needs that arent legacy, and are needs not served by ios/ipados.

Legacy would inply that newer folks in the tech industry, and newer technologies, dont require deep access and the ability to run unsigned apps. That’s not accurate.

It’s not a legacy requirement, it’s a target market requirement

If Apple were ever to discontinue the mac they’d either have to open up ipados a lot more or lose some of their biggest and most lucrative customer groups that currently buy macs.

 

[gnipgnop]

Not legacy expectation, different *kind* of platform.

The mac serves needs that arent legacy, and are needs not served by ios/ipados.

Legacy would inply that newer folks in the tech industry, and newer technologies, dont require deep access and the ability to run unsigned apps. That’s not accurate.

It’s not a legacy requirement, it’s a target market requirement

If Apple were ever to discontinue the mac they’d either have to open up ipados a lot more or lose some of their biggest and most lucrative customer groups that currently buy macs.

The desktop computer market started in the 1970s. Software distribution obviously didn’t involve digital storefronts at that time. That’s the legacy part of it. It’s always been an expectation that desktop computers allowed installation from a wide variety of sources and through a wide variety of methods.

That obviously isn’t true for the iPhone. It was designed entirely around a 1st party digital storefront due to the lack of desktop legacy expectations. And its success proved that it’s a viable alternative. Consumers were fine with it being different.

 

[vipergts2207]

Smartphones require a continuous R&D loop because the market expectation is improved hardware every year. Consoles don't have that model. The goal is to sell the same hardware for 5-7 years typically. Apple has also been unique in the smartphone market in that they both produce their own OS and their own SoC. They definitely have a heavier lift than most Android manufacturers.

That model of relying on stagnating hardware for 5-7 years isn't really the existing model either. The PS5 Pro (and an improved Xbox as well) are rumored to be coming out in the Fall, 4 years after their respective launches. Not that any of this matters anyway regarding these regulations on Apple. And let's be real, the year to year smartphone innovation has become pretty lackluster at this point. We're to the point where having a few extra square millimeters of screen real estate, a slightly improved camera, and little bit faster processor are apparently supposed to be a big deal.

 

[bsolar]

Say what ! They're the only ones that get to dictate the model. It's "Their Content". They are granting you a license to use it, which "requires" that you are at the very least presented the add. Don't like it, watch something else.

No, they are not. They are granting me a license to use it but YouTube mandates that and nothing in said license dictates that I have to watch the entirety of their video, or specific parts of it, or that I cannot skip parts I don't want to watch.

From YouTube's Terms of Service, specifically what applies to Content Creators:

You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it) only as enabled by a feature of the Service.

I don't know what makes you think that a Content Creator on YouTube has any right to "dictate the model", but they do not.

 

[ric22]

It works that way due to the legacy expectations for desktop/laptop computers. Apple chose to take a different approach with mobile that was closer to how software distribution worked with game consoles. New platform = no legacy expectations.

Why are you using 'legacy' as an insult to describe MacOS/Windows/Linux which literally everyone still work on? Blocking access to software the makers aren't a fan of isn't a futuristic gain that improved the world. 🤦‍♂️

 

[Joe The Dragon]

The desktop computer market started in the 1970s. Software distribution obviously didn’t involve digital storefronts at that time. That’s the legacy part of it. It’s always been an expectation that desktop computers allowed installation from a wide variety of sources and through a wide variety of methods.

That obviously isn’t true for the iPhone. It was designed entirely around a 1st party digital storefront due to the lack of desktop legacy expectations. And its success proved that it’s a viable alternative. Consumers were fine with it being different.

also apples over the top censorship vs play store makes the lock in look bad and not competitive.
If apple was really about security and safety (like outside payment systems rip people off)
then apps that got banned for content should be allowed like
Metadata+ / Drones+
Phone Story
informational magazine about Google's OS
legal porn apps (I think now apple is more open to adult stuff)
and more

 

[gregmancuso]

I’m sure I’m not the only person who wouldn’t take issue with Apple’s business model if they sold their hardware at a loss and made it up through the App Store. Reasonable people know companies have to make money somehow. What they don’t like is feeling fleeced or seeing a company act in nefarious ways. I’d love to pay two thirds the price for an iPhone.

I'd love to see the iPhone be sold as a loss leader. But to say that the only reason is is not fair that Apple charges 30% is because they also charge market rates for their hardware does not make sense.

You don't think that if the console makers could figure out how to charge more for their consoles they would keep the prices where they are? And also still charge the 30%?

And, while this is an assumption, I really don't think that consoles are sold at a loss anymore.

 

[seek3r]

The desktop computer market started in the 1970s. Software distribution obviously didn’t involve digital storefronts at that time. That’s the legacy part of it. It’s always been an expectation that desktop computers allowed installation from a wide variety of sources and through a wide variety of methods.

That obviously isn’t true for the iPhone. It was designed entirely around a 1st party digital storefront due to the lack of desktop legacy expectations. And its success proved that it’s a viable alternative. Consumers were fine with it being different.

Bad argument considering that technically the iphone was designed around no third party apps at all, remember, jobs just wanted web apps (basically shortcuts to web pages). There was no app store when the iphone came out

It’s already changed. It can change more

 

[makitango]

And app reviews will cost $500 each and take 6 months and usually be rejected 😂

Will cost Apple more in fines in the EU. Will these events be on AT+? Because then I'd subscribe.

no but considering the number of pro anti-trust posts in these threads it’s a great indication.

This thread has zero indication about what is a nation and how their citizens think.

Actually for the most part apple has not been found guilty for anti trust in the App Store. That some governments don’t like the hold apple has in the app store is another matter as witnessed by the needle threading of the DMA.

In the US maybe. Feel free to open Maps and scroll past that.

The EU responded to lobbying by billion dollar software companies like Spotify and Tinder. That's the "best interest" that they were focused on.

And ironically, subscription based companies like Spotify/Tinder are the least likely to be effected by Apple's control of iOS because it's not very difficult for them to get users to pay via the internet and completely avoid Apple's commission (example: Spotify's 99% success rate for iOS subscribers paying online). Plus, subscriptions via the App Store will drop to 15% commission after the first year. Considering that Epic has testified in a court that they don't make a profit with their 12% Epic Store commission it's hard to see 15% as anything punitive by Apple per Spotify/Tinder.

The above facts are very much the reason the EU never attempted to show hard data that iOS was economically worse for consumers or developers versus the other operating systems on the market. Repeatedly labelling something as "anticompetitive" in the media and then failing to support that with a side-by-side comparison to other operating systems for desktops/laptops, mobile devices or game consoles is essentially admitting that there's nothing to see.

I don't care what news outlets report, at the end of the day you have yet to present a single EU citizen who doesn't hide behind a social media account and is probably not even an EU citizen or one unaffiliated with Apple or their hands in the stock jar who will tell you they don't want this.

Selling things at a loss is not a good business model long term.
And Apple does not have to do it, because it has a strong brand and people line up to buy iDevices.
Also, Apple is a business with shareholders and is obliged to make prudent business decisions.
Operating at a loss in any business unit is not one of them, so Apple doesn't do it.

Any crack dealer on the street will tell you otherwise.

That’s literally the point. That’s not a problem. It requires a conscious decision by the user to run an unsigned app. That means it provides security while still allowing folks to use the platform as they need. The requirement is that if you’re taking that extra step you’re aware of the risk

If nothing unsigned could run they’d lose a huge amount of tech folks and others that use macs literally immediately. It would cripple my ability to work on a mac for instance

And I have yet to find (and then install) an unsigned app on iOS that I actually need. Truth be told, we're already set and ready to go, but some really want to paint the apocalypse on the wall and record the screams of shareholders and remix them as children's voices.

Say what ! They're the only ones that get to dictate the model. It's "Their Content". They are granting you a license to use it, which "requires" that you are at the very least presented the add. Don't like it, watch something else.

I just skip whatever I want if the platform allows me to.

The desktop computer market started in the 1970s. Software distribution obviously didn’t involve digital storefronts at that time. That’s the legacy part of it. It’s always been an expectation that desktop computers allowed installation from a wide variety of sources and through a wide variety of methods.

That obviously isn’t true for the iPhone. It was designed entirely around a 1st party digital storefront due to the lack of desktop legacy expectations. And its success proved that it’s a viable alternative. Consumers were fine with it being different.

What is legacy is the 3.5mm audio jack, or the Ethernet form-factor. But there is nothing legacy about any kind of software distribution except maybe having it on physical discs with packaging and other funny environment-insulting stuff.

 

[gnipgnop]

Bad argument considering that technically the iphone was designed around no third party apps at all, remember, jobs just wanted web apps (basically shortcuts to web pages). There was no app store when the iphone came out

It’s already changed. It can change more

App Store launched in 2008. It was already in development when the iPhone launched in 2007. iPhone was never sold as web app only nor did it allow desktop style software distribution.