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

[CarAnalogy]

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.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED…well not that shocked. In fact I and everybody else paying attention called that they would do exactly this, or something even more creatively spiteful. They are going to tie this up for court in years playing “Who’s on first?” with the legal requirements, violating the spirit of the law as much as possible. They’re going to wind up getting slapped with tightly worded regulations that really do limit their innovation.

Gotta admire their chutzpah but at some point they have to realize that slaughtering everyone at this battle may cost them a larger war.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Nobody seems to be aware that paying for ANY type of subscription through the internet = 0% commission for Apple. You can still have the app in the App Store with customers paying for the subscription on the internet.

Of course, but the example from @generationrex (a very good one) is a scenario where you CAN subscribe within the app and Apple gets it's 30% of that subscription, which is why in-app subscriptions are typically higher in cost, so as to take into account that 30% loss. Most companies can't just eat 30%. 3%, yes (such as when paying with a CC), but 30% is tough and it just results in higher prices for everyone.

 

[generationrex]

Nobody seems to be aware that paying for ANY type of subscription through the internet = 0% commission for Apple. You can still have the app in the App Store with customers paying for the subscription on the internet.

I am aware of that. But Apple's rules mean that I have to make myself aware of that. As I said in my example, Apple won't even allow an app to tell you that there are other ways to subscribe. You have to do that research yourself. It's interesting that the free speech/free market champions on this forum are supportive of such anti-consumer behaviour.

 

[I7guy]

But this is the core of the problem that people seem unable to comprehend. Of course you should be expected to pay a fee to Costco to sell your brand. But if I want to sell my widget online, on my own website, should I still have to pay Costco a fee? Or anyone for that matter? I designed it, I made it, and I marketed it and I want to sell it and keep the proceeds. If I used tools, I bought those tools. Should I have to, for eternity, pay the tool-maker a fee for everything I make with those tools?

Of course not. But if you want to involve Costco for any reason, you should be expected to fork over something. Costco shiukdnt be expected to allow you to use their name or platform without compensation.

 

[jonnysods]

Wow, so they managed to make a way for it to still be monetized. Pretty slick!

 

[I7guy]

I recently purchased a magazine at Costco. I paid Costco for the magazine. They got their profit margin, just like Apple does for any. Fair enough.

Except that I then subscribed to the magazine. In Apple's world, Costco should get 30% of that subscription for as long as I'm subscribed. Actually, in Apple's world, the magazine wouldn't even be allowed to have one of those subscription inserts. I would have to go back to Costco and tell them I want to subscribe to this magazine.

The magazine has a direct to consumer option that has been in existence for decades. Apple does not offer that option and nor should they be forced to.

 

[gnipgnop]

Among other things, this EU law is attempting to foster the same consumer "choice" we all already have with Mac apps: buy from an Apple managed store or not. If not, Apple doesn't get a big cut anyway... affording the opportunity for developer to charge less but still make more... and their customers getting the same great app for a lower price. There is no guarantee that lower prices will come from this change... but much like history has GOVs always breaking the "sole seller" lock, robust competition pretty much always drives prices down.

Mobile app prices were already significantly lower than desktop/laptop or console.

 

[tomtad]

LOL...you were originally claiming that 100% of subscription revenue was subject to commission and now you're saying that 99% of subscription NOT being subject to commission is a form of unacceptable "friction".

What the hell are you on about?

I originally said that Apple takes a cut from subscriptions in app, which they do.

There are workarounds, such as registering via a browser, but as I said that introduces friction to the process.

 

[Ethosik]

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

It’s not even a barrier which is my whole point it’s just a joke. It’s basically a “Road Closed” sign that covers half the road’s width. Not really a barrier if people can just bypass it. And I certainly don’t want this on iOS.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Best Buy gets between 30-50% of everything they sell.

Do you have a reference to that to share or are you just guessing?

 

[gnipgnop]

Of course, but the example from @generationrex (a very good one) is a scenario where you CAN subscribe within the app and Apple gets it's 30% of that subscription, which is why in-app subscriptions are typically higher in cost, so as to take into account that 30% loss. Most companies can't just eat 30%. 3%, yes (such as when paying with a CC), but 30% is tough and it just results in higher prices for everyone.

Apple only gets 30% in the first year of the subscription. Subsequent years = 15%.

 

[MacBuddyz]

No matter how powerful any company is, once a GOV decides that it has too much of a lock on a market, that lock will be broken. The score in history is probably GOV (towards) Infinity: Corps 0... else some Corp name from long ago would likely be THE lone Corp that owns everything by 2024.

A corp can "technically comply" with a law but ignore the spirit of it, and that might buy them a little more time to maintain their desired hold on a market... UNTIL the GOV amends the law to close the loopholes. That's also how this often goes in history.

We're taking this like this rumor is fact- and it may be- but not seeming to think about what the EU will do next. Hint: it's probably not going to be a "oops, well we tried."

If you think this is over and some kind of victory for Apple, might as well start drafting your outrage posts for a new thread not too far down the road in which the EU announces some amendments to the law in support of the intended spirt of why the law was created in the first place... which is apparently NOT met by what is implied to be Apple's response here.

Like the Lightning lock vs. EU law, this is already over. I have to think Apple knows this too. I doubt this rumor is true... but if it is... I'm absolutely expecting EU amendments to follow soon to address this "moving of the deck chairs" response if true.

The spirit of this law is not "you can buy apps from anywhere else, but Apple is entitled to fully receive the same cut of revenue referenced in any other name." It is "you can buy apps from anywhere else, which may very well cut Apple's cut out of the transaction in full..." EXACTLY as it already is for ALL of us when we exercise options to buy apps for our Macs. If I buy some app through the Mac App Store, Apple gets their retailer cut. If I buy the same app from the Developers store, Developer is acting as their own retail store and keeps that cut for themselves.

Among other things, this EU law is attempting to foster the same consumer "choice" we all already have with Mac apps: buy from an Apple managed store or not. If not, Apple doesn't get a big cut anyway... affording the opportunity for developer to charge less but still make more... and their customers getting the same great app for a lower price. There is no guarantee that lower prices will come from this change... but much like history has GOVs always breaking the "sole seller" lock, robust competition pretty much always drives prices down.

Don't buy an iPhone if it doesn't satisfy you, in a free market you vote with your money, that's what competition is for? Get Android and "pay developers directly". Oh wait, almost no one is buying anything on Android and just pirates all those APKs. Google Play is two times bigger than Appstore but has one third of Appstore's revenue.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Do you pay Costco when you sell the kettle in the first place, or do you get a free ride claiming that people should be able to fill their own water?

All these analogies are busted.

Anti-steering is like telling you, the kettle maker, that you aren’t allowed to put a link to your website on the packaging of the kettle. I don’t think Costco would be thrilled with your packaging having a big sign saying “BUY THIS KETTLE CHEAPER AT OUR WEBSITE” but Apple is going far, far beyond that. If that was the rule, people wouldn’t be immediately taking Apple back to court over their implementation.

It’s like Costco saying fine, you can have the link to your website, but we are going to follow our customers around to make sure that if they do buy anything there we get a cut, and we get the right to audit your books to make sure you’re paying us properly.

It’s that last bit that’s truly outrageous. I’m no business lawyer but I’m pretty sure that is not a standard clause. No company should be declaring the right to audit another private company’s books to make sure they’re getting paid.

 

[spazzcat]

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

You realize have no idea how much you get from Apple as a dev?

• Get app thinning and up to 20GB of on-demand asset storage per app.
  
  
  

  What’s Included - Apple Developer Program

  The Apple Developer Program provides resources for developing and distributing software for Apple platforms.

  developer.apple.com

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Of course not. But if you want to involve Costco for any reason, you should be expected to fork over something. Costco shiukdnt be expected to allow you to use their name or platform without compensation.

So you're saying Apple's current policy of developers fees is flawed (isn't is something ridiculously cheap like $99) and that Apple should be charging developers more for the privilege of developing for Apple and "using" the Apple name (do apps really use Apple's name or do they reference mostly the device it's compatible with?)

 

[spazzcat]

Do you have a reference to that to share or are you just guessing?

Its standard markup in all retail.

 

[gnipgnop]

I am aware of that. But Apple's rules mean that I have to make myself aware of that.

That's how it works in any type of retail. The consumer needs to educate themselves in regards to the products they want to buy. It's like Amazon...you can't assume the price you see on Amazon is the best deal. You need to look elsewhere, either online or in physical stores in order to assess what the best price may be.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

You realize have no idea how much you get from Apple as a dev?

• Get app thinning and up to 20GB of on-demand asset storage per app.
  
  
  

  What’s Included - Apple Developer Program

  The Apple Developer Program provides resources for developing and distributing software for Apple platforms.

  developer.apple.com

Sounds like Apple is practically giving away their developer kit. Maybe they should change that instead of extorting the people that write the apps that keep people buying their products?

 

[MacBuddyz]

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

Consider it an entry fee for your representation on the most lucrative platform.
If dev can't afford $99/yr, idk. It's like 1-5 hrs rate in IT.

 

[andrewxgx]

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.

and then quit china, and russia, and middle east, and oh wait, did the apple stock tanked by 80%?
no, they cant quit any big market.

 

[gnipgnop]

What the hell are you on about?

I originally said that Apple takes a cut from subscriptions in app, which they do.

There are workarounds, such as registering via a browser, but as I said that introduces friction to the process.

99% isn't much friction at all. Spotify achieved that without any in-app communications whatsoever.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Best Buy gets between 30-50% of everything they sell.

I guarantee you they do not.

They get a huge margin on their service contracts and geek squad. I'd be shocked if they made 10% on hardware, I'd suspect it's closer to 5% on most of it.

 

[SoldOnApple]

So Apple will still be able to ban game emulators just by not approving them?

 

[mukiex]

Keep in mind, the rumor on these kinda sites was that Apple's USB-C implementation for the iPhone 15 was going to implement MFi and require certified cables. Did everyone forget that?

It never panned out. Not sure if it was never in development or if the anticipatory EU response resulted in Apple pulling back on the concept.

In any event, we should probably wait for the regulatory-compliant version of iOS to actually release before forming opinions on this.

 

[MNWildFan]

Pretty much what the App Store is now: fees, reviews, full control.

And if you were hoping for App Store freedom, sorry, Apple will never let that happen on their platform.

Yup, like it or not, Apple has been, and always will be, a walled garden (even with this recent development of sideloading, at least in just the EU for now)