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

[tomtad]

View attachment 2340640

This completely misses the point.

On an iPhone the only App Store you can purchase anything from is Apple's App Store, and it's not even just purchases from there. Any app with a subscription has to go through Apple. I have no choice whatsoever and Apple has the upper hand every time as they either get 100% for their apps/services, or 30% of others. All those examples you've given above you at least have a choice of supplier.

It's plainly anti-competitive.

 

[zorinlynx]

The big test will be when someone tries to release an emulator for sideload installation. If Apple ends up not approving it, we'll know this was all basically for show and that they intend to continue being control freaks.

 

[Ctrlos]

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.

They're not really wrong though.

Sell a product in Costco and you have to pay for inventory storage, shipping, safety regs, taxes and other such charges plus Costco's own commission. This would cost a lot more than 30%.

Apple might be guilty of a lot of things but their App Store commission (because its not a tax) is fair given the QA, hosting, payment processing, promotion and storefront services they provide. Developers are getting value for money. Heck, consider it compared to a musician who gets 10% of an album sale!

 

[seajack0h]

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. 😇

Have you ever walked past checkout at Costco? Solar, HVAC, and window companies sell direct to consumer while paying a fee to Costco to be there.

 

[gnipgnop]

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.

Mobile gaming software generates more revenue than PC/console gaming software combined. That's the reason companies like Microsoft and Epic suddenly became concerned about the App Store and started spending big bucks on lobbyists and lawyers to try and change the system.

And the reality is that indie games that are released for PC/console will also be released for mobile at a lower price. Those games are identical.

 

[ItsASpider]

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.

The DMA already forbids these kinds of practices. It's not just the App Store Apple has to open up, iOS is also covered by the DMA and the EU isn't going to let this slide. This isn't "malicious compliance" this is just "not complying". They've already been told to not pull this kind of crap when they tried to argue that Safari couldn't fall under the DMA because Safari on iOS, iPadOS and macOS were 3 different browsers and neither had the appropriate usage numbers.

 

[Catasstrophy]

Try selling your brand in say Costco and see if you can get away without paying any fees. “Rentseeking” is an absolutely justified term for a justified fee.

That analogy makes absolutely no sense in this context because brands are already allowed to be sold in more than one store. Nobody is trying to force the app store to let them sell on it as your Costco analogy tries to imply.

How about this--
Try renting a house and then having the landlord tell you that it can only be furnished with things he has curated for you to purchase because he gets 30% of every sale from the product manufacturers.

 

[Ctrlos]

This completely misses the point.

On an iPhone the only App Store you can purchase anything from is Apple's App Store, and it's not even just purchases from there. Any app with a subscription has to go through Apple. I have no choice whatsoever and Apple has the upper hand every time as they either get 100% for their apps/services, or 30% of others. All those examples you've given above you at least have a choice of supplier.

It's plainly anti-competitive.

Maybe Apple have been taking tips from Marcelo Bielsa?

 

[canadianreader]

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.

Why do developers have to pay Apple hosting fees when their apps are hosted somewhere else.

 

[TheLisnakFactor]

Yes if it was about security, but Apple wants a piece of everybody else's business. Gatekeeper doesn't include built in rentseeking.

Don't they pay for the developer account and cert? It isn't the same, but its similar.

Apple's fees come from maintaining the App Store, marketing apps on the App Store, app review, etc. It isn't just getting a piece of the pie. Although yes, some of it is.

 

[jarman92]

Omg it’s gonna be so GD funny when Apple announces these rules, especially after Spotify’s barely contained glee in their post about the DMA.

 

[I7guy]

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.

We’ll see where this goes. If a dev wants to sell directly to customers and bypass all ip,all checks and balances and legalities and these regulations enable that - as I said the EU will get what it wants.

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.

As I said direct to customer bypassing g all checks and balances should be banned by law - not enabled by law.

 

[MilaM]

I’m not sure the court challenges involved if the EU keeps trying to craft further micro-regulations. At some point American tech could just leave the EU.

I'm starting to think, that this would not be the worst outcome.

 

[I7guy]

That analogy makes absolutely no sense in this context because brands are already allowed to be sold in more than one store. Nobody is trying to force the app store to let them sell on it as your Costco analogy tries to imply.

How about this--
Try renting a house and then having the landlord tell you that it can only be furnished with things he has curated for you to purchase because he gets 30% of every sale from the product manufacturers.

If you and the landlord enter into that agreement - more power to you.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

This seems very convoluted with very little upsides for users/consumers. 🤔

Okay, we don't know the actual fee structure. But it seems like side-loading under Apple's terms is all the downsides of not getting the app or in-app purchase from the App Store, like no iCloud syncing, no saved receipts, no support from Apple, but also all the downsides of having to pay for the app + a 30%-ish fee to Apple?

Is there some upside that I'm missing?

 

[I7guy]

Ew defending trillion dollar company anti consumer and anti competitive practices gives me the super ick.

Ripping it apart, because, makes me super nervous as well. Because there’s that trickle down effect.

 

[gnipgnop]

This completely misses the point.

On an iPhone the only App Store you can purchase anything from is Apple's App Store, and it's not even just purchases from there. Any app with a subscription has to go through Apple. I have no choice whatsoever and Apple has the upper hand every time as they either get 100% for their apps/services, or 30% of others. All those examples you've given above you at least have a choice of supplier.

It's plainly anti-competitive.

That's not how it works at all. Large subscription based services like Netflix and Spotify just move their subscription payments to the web if they don't want to pay. Apple gets 0% commission and the Netflix/Spotify apps are still downloadable from the App Store.

Spotify already had to provide their financial statements to the EU as part of their complaint and 99% of their iOS subscribers were paying through the web and not the App Store. The other 1% were subject to the 15% commission for recurring subscriptions.

 

[robgreene]

If I sell a Kettle in Costco am I allowed to tell my customers that they can fill it with their own water?

False equivalency. More accurately: if you sell a Kettle in Costco, are you allowed to display a sign next to it that says “Don’t buy the Kettle at Costco! Get it from our website for cheaper!”

And the answer, undoubtedly, is no.

 

[TheLisnakFactor]

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.

But thats my design.. and you can turn that off. Apple can remove that ability to take it off.

 

[MilaM]

False equivalency. More accurately: if you sell a Kettle in Costco, are you allowed to display a sign next to it that says “Don’t buy the Kettle at Costco! Get it from our website for cheaper!”

And the answer, undoubtedly, is no.

Costco can do what they want in their store. But would you support it if there was only one chain that can sell goods where you live? That would be absurd.

 

[BadApe]

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.

The phone is yours, but OS is licensed from Apple and before doing anything you agreed to the EULA, right?

 

[5232152]

Apple trying to circumvent the rules to this extent makes you wonder if they like being punished.

 

[MacBuddyz]

Just pull out, close EU sales and watch Europeans fly to Dubai to get themselves an iphone. 1-2 years and they will be glad to have Apple back on Apple's terms.
One can like or dislike Apple, but if it's free market, state shouldn't get involved in how one uses their intellectual property.

 

[tomtad]

That's not how it works at all. Large subscription based services like Netflix and Spotify just move their subscription payments to the web if they don't want to pay. Apple gets 0% commission and the Netflix/Spotify apps are still downloadable from the App Store.

Spotify already had to provide their financial statements to the EU as part of their complaint and 99% of their iOS subscribers were paying through the web and not the App Store. The other 1% were subject to the 15% commission for recurring subscriptions.

Again misses the point. In order to do that you have to move to the web as you say which introduces friction into the process. Apple services can be signed up to with one tap, yet a competitor isn't able to do that without paying Apple a cut for the privilege.

 

[MilaM]

Just pull out, close EU sales and watch Europeans fly to Dubai to get themselves an iphone. 1-2 years and they will be glad to have Apple back on Apple's terms.
One can like or dislike Apple, but if it's free market, state shouldn't get involved in how one uses their intellectual property.

They should do it. South Korea and China will be very happy.