Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Apple's EU Changes: 'They Think the Rules Don't Apply to Them'

[coredev]

It's not only the letter of the law, but also its intention and meaning.

When it comes to lawyers and judges, it is exactly the letter of the law that matters. Why do you think laws are formulated in this very to the point, explicit legalize we non-lawyers all find cumbersome and hard to read?

...on apps the consumers don't even use.

Absolutely not relevant. The fee is for the install of apps using Apple’s libraries (their code), along with (my guess) basic validation and notarization. If and how something is used - no one cares. Or is your iPhone cheaper because you rarely make calls and stay off social media?

 

[BaldiMac]

First. Opening up iOS will never ruin iOS on any circumstances, because it won't affect you in any ways if you still want to use Apple's services or apps like you do normally. Simply just use the iPhone like you do now already.

I disagree. It could certainly affect me if an app I need or want leaves the App Store. Or if one of the developers I work with have to deal with piracy and mods. Or if any of my contacts installs a malicious or privacy-invading app.

Again, the old way that you want to force on iOS allows for a trillion dollar malware industry.

Take for example game emulators for PSX, PS2, SNES and so on. Why on earth doesn't Apple allow that?

I can think of several reasonable explanations. They don't want to water down the quality of apps by allowing non-native code exectution. They don't want to enable piracy. They don't want apps to be able avoid screen time, bypass privacy requirements and other features.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[jlc1978]

Take for example game emulators for PSX, PS2, SNES and so on. Why on earth doesn't Apple allow that?

I suspect Apple, with deep prockets, does not want to be drawn into a fight over copyright violations and contributory infringement.

There is something called app rating / reviews of such bad apps in a 3rd party app store.

If an app is bad, app rating / reviews will let peoples know about that, so not an issue at all.

That's assuming the store has an honest reviewing system and deosn't wind up like Yelp or othes where reviewers are often worthless.

Not only that, but if your favourite app is going away from Apples own App Store (I doubt that will ever happen though) and over to a 3rd party app store, then you can get it on that 3rd party app store and just download it like you would do on the original app store. And you would still be able to use the app like normal.

Right. Pay again for an app you own, give up personal information and hope they keep it secure and private and not sell it.

 

[Tom-Helge]

I disagree. It could certainly affect me if an app I need or want leaves the App Store. Or if one of the developers I work with have to deal with piracy and mods. Or if any of my contacts installs a malicious or privacy-invading app.

Again, the old way that you want to force on iOS allows for a trillion dollar malware industry.


I can think of several reasonable explanations. They don't want to water down the quality of apps by allowing non-native code exectution. They don't want to enable piracy. They don't want apps to be able avoid screen time, bypass privacy requirements and other features.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Having 3rd party app stores doesn't say there will be piracy or modding of apps there. Apple should be able to remove pirated / modded apps on those legit 3rd party app stores or at least notify the developer of a 3rd party app store if pirated or modded apps of paid apps is on the 3rd party app stores and get them to remove it.

On Android, we don't have any pirated or modded apps on legit 3rd party app pages / app stores. So, I doubt it will be a problem on iOS.

Ofc there is apps that lists a bunch of pirated and modded apps as well. But those are totally different from legit 3rd party app stores.

We have GitHub, GitLab, APKMirror, APKPure, F-Droid and so on for Android. All are 100% legit.

When it comes down to game emulators, then that should be up to the users to decide if they want to use that or not. Emulating a game is not easy and will have performance issues on some levels. But that shouldn't prevent peoples from using those emulators anyways.

I suspect Apple, with deep prockets, does not want to be drawn into a fight over copyright violations and contributory infringement.



That's assuming the store has an honest reviewing system and deosn't wind up like Yelp or othes where reviewers are often worthless.



Right. Pay again for an app you own, give up personal information and hope they keep it secure and private and not sell it.

If someone want to play a Playstation, Playstation 2, SNES game or games from other game consoles on their iPhones, it should be up to the person using that iPhone to decide that. Those games are not possible to buy today, so you have to download them to even be able to use them today. So, in reality, it's not piracy this way when you can't buy them in a legit way today.

Yes, the thing about honest reviews shouldn't be a problem. We have GitHub, GitLab, APKMirror, APKPure, F-Droid and so on for Android where there is no issues with dishonest reviews. And if there is dishonest reviews, it will normally be removed in those legit 3rd party app download sites.

And to the last thing. If you already have paid for an app on the App Store, then you will always have access to it there. If one app goes from the App Store and over to a 3rd party app store and have to pay for it again for the app, then that kinda sucks. But I believe most apps will be available on all types of app stores and not just one.

And a legit 3rd party app store will allow the app developers of apps to have their own payment system. So, I don't see why we can't trust their payment systems in the same way as we trust other types of payment systems in normal grocery stores (example) when we pay with the different payment systems there and when shops around the town or other web shop on the internet uses different payment system as well with no problems at all with that.

 

[JoEw]

VSP isn’t going to be available in the EU for some time. This regulation has zero to do with developers in the EU who would still have to use the US App Store to distribute their apps.

Not what I’m talking about it’s the fact that Netflix, Spotify and YouTube won’t be on the Vision Pro day 1.

This is undoubtedly because of apples strained relationship with these companies. It’s embarrassing.

 

[mcLamer]

I disagree. It could certainly affect me if an app I need or want leaves the App Store. Or if one of the developers I work with have to deal with piracy and mods. Or if any of my contacts installs a malicious or privacy-invading app.

Again, the old way that you want to force on iOS allows for a trillion dollar malware industry.


I can think of several reasonable explanations. They don't want to water down the quality of apps by allowing non-native code exectution. They don't want to enable piracy. They don't want apps to be able avoid screen time, bypass privacy requirements and other features.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If some developer decides to leave Apple's App Store, may be they have a good reason to do so? If that app is so valuable for the Apple App Store, may be Apple would adjust their policies and would be a more attractive to this particular developer? Competition usually brings benefits for consumers which Apple trying to avoid at all costs.

Btw, at least today, having a bunch of Android App Stores, everyone is publishing in Google Play first (and they aren't angels too, believe me).

 

[TechRemarker]

All public companies have a duty to their share holders, and Google and Spotify would also do as little as possible if they were in the same situation. So it seems Spotify's gripe should be with the EU should not make their rules more explicit to favor Spotify over Apple specifically. If that's the EU's intention, they can update the laws accordingly. If it's not then Apple has done what any other company would in the same situation. No matter how much Apple gave up, Spotify and others would have said it was not enough, but then then having already given concessions they would still have to give more. So better to give as little as possible so more room to negotiate latter as needed rather than a race to the bottom.

 

[1291030]

Judging from your post, I'm wasting my breath by replying to this.

But here goes anyways. And before you start reading, dont take my reply too serious, I really dont care deeply about any of the below subjects. I dont hate apple. I dont think they are evil. I love my apple devices, I like parts of the walled garden. But yes, I do think they have shady behaviours and I do think they are in many ways, anticompetitive.

But, they make cool stuff and compared to Google they still represent the lesser evil (also, And the Pinephone is just NOT there)

You do realise it's been the same few companies being quoted in the media, right? Spotify, Netflix, Epic, Hey.

I do realise that you probably think it is, but, immature jabs aside, it's really not the case from where im sitting. There are plenty of examples of unhappy devs and entities outside of that list. For example, the CMA launching about anticompetitive behaviour, 1500 UK based devs seeking class action, match.com public outing the App Store fees as their single largest outgoing, Tinder, and much much more if you dig into it.

Sure the above list might be the loudest, and I suppose geography might also be a factor here.

Let's just look at the last few "controversies".

1) Apple won in their lawsuit against Epic (while Google most notably lost).

Sure. It wont be the last time they are tried though. Also, do keep in mind in their ruling, they did say whilst they didn't find apple was a monopolist in the gaming transitions market (which I can agree with), that they did find that Apple is enforcing anti-steering restrictions which was anticompetitive (something they weren't on trial for).

2) In the patent trial with Masimo, the Apple Watch is now back on sale after Apple disabled the blood oxygen sensor.

Yeah, totally minor.

I suppose if somebody breaks into your house, and steals all your apple devices, and then, years later are caught, you are going think they are totally in the right if they offer to give you your stuff back. Right? 😉

Dude, this isn't minor. They knowingly used patented technology. Its shady. Full stop.

3) The developer for Hey chose to submit his app in a manner he knew would run afoul of App Store review, then used it to drum up attention on social media for his calendar app, while also insulting another creator in the process. It was basically a nothing burger.

Well, this one we agree on. Nothing to see here.

4) Contrary to most people expecting Apple to just cave in to the EU's demands, Apple unveiled their interpretation of how they planned to accommodate the DMA, which was a complete 180 from what everybody here claimed they would do. Of course, the EU still has to sign off on it, but how's that for "think different"? 😉

this is an ongoing saga though isn't it, I wouldn't expect this to be quite over.

5) The iPhone 15 pro launched to a whole slew of controversies last year, but you don't hear a squeak about it nowadays.

Yeah, I'm not sure how relevant this is though. I remember MANY launches that got noisy, NVIDIAs 30 series, Playstions, etc. They tend to be noisy, everybody gets pissed off, and then they calm down again. Personally, the iPhone 15 launch absolutely weren't on my mind when I wrote my post.

6) The Vision Pro is predictably facing a massive wave of cynicism and negativity all the way up to its launch date (and I don't expect this assault to abate anytime soon). There's theories of a massive developer boycott just because a few mainstream apps are available (never mind that numerous other streaming apps will be). In hindsight, Apple launching their own content bundle was absolutely the right move, because it made them less reliant on external parties.

In hindsight? It's not released yet! Don't really want to get into a "my crystal balls are bigger than yours" debate. Let's talk when hindsight is based on evidence, not hypotheses and beliefs.

7) The other thread about the MBP being gimped at 8gb ram is still going strong (I have bowed out since I have already made my case - simply buy what you need).

Sure, I agree with you on this one as well. I know I get raped on price when I buy apple kit, but I like it, so I buy it anyways. Not much point complaining about specs, if you aren't happy with them , dont buy it. Simple.

8) Apple supposedly being behind on AI. My thoughts are that if Apple isn't doing something the rest of the industry is, maybe it's time to take a good look at said industry just to be sure it's not just a pile of smoke and mirrors. Apple usually has a pretty good pulse on what are genuine movers and what are short-lived fads.

Again, the above snippet is basically just your personal view. I have a view, but it's likely to be equally biased as I been working processionally with applied statistic and "AI" for decades, WAY before it was "cool". But, none of us know who will have made the right, MSFT or Apple. Time will tell.

They all strike me as relatively minor issues being blown out of proportion by people with a bone to pick against Apple.

This is all pretty subjective though. Your "relatively minor" is somebody else's "totally unacceptable". And that is ok. It's pretty hard to assign correctness to how you feel about something. If it strikes you as relatively minor, fair. Then to you, it's relatively minor. I can live with that, but I dont have to agree with you.

 

[jlc1978]

And to the last thing. If you already have paid for an app on the App Store, then you will always have access to it there. If one app goes from the App Store and over to a 3rd party app store and have to pay for it again for the app, then that kinda sucks. But I believe most apps will be available on all types of app stores and not just one.

I was responding to a comment about the developer leaving Apple’s App Store, in which case the app would be gone. In that case, it being on an alternate one foes you no good unless that store allows you free access, but why should they?

 

[Beautyspin]

I live in the EU and the "government entity" most certainly does not have my mandate for their overreach

In law

The European Commission proposes and implements EU laws and ensures laws are correctly implemented, evaluated, and updated when needed. Find out more.

commission.europa.eu

It can make laws in certain areas. DMA is one of them.

 

[smetvid]

This guy is so overly dramatic. His entire business model only exists thanks to mobile platforms that Apple created for them. Without mobile devices Spotify would be nothing.

the reality is very few developers and zero consumers are impacted by any of this. It’s only the multi million dollar developers that see their bottom line impacted because of Apple.

i get where he is coming from but he needs to stop the over acting about the topic. It’s getting annoying and I have zero desire to ever use Spotify because of it. Their brand is forever tainted for me because of their stupid muscle flexing competition with Apple. Spotify is a flawed business model and needs to stop blaming Apple. Spotify is low balling the music industry in a way that will likely always struggle to be profitable in a major way. Apple suddenly allowing them to do whatever they want is not going to dramatically change that. They need to stop blaming others and fix their business model.

 

[AppliedMicro]

When it comes to lawyers and judges, it is exactly the letter of the law that matters

It not only the letter of the law that matters before regulators or a court of law. Especially not when…

Why do you think laws are formulated in this very to the point

…the Digital Markets Act is deliberately worded to be interpretable („access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms“, „disproportionate … conditions“, „to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate“ and „duly justified“, „affecting the contestability of a core platform service or other services in the digital sector on a lasting basis due to the creation or strengthening of barriers to entry for other undertakings“. „imbalance between the rights and obligations“, „disproportionate advantage“, „effectively complied with“, „degrading quality“, „unduly difficult“, “undermining effective compliance“) and extendable (by delegated/implementing acts, or when „one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services“, or „one or more practices are not effectively addressed by this Regulation“).

 

[AppliedMicro]

the reality is very few developers and zero consumers are impacted by any of this

There are tens of thousands of developers on the app. While some of the smaller ones may not have the voice to be covered on MacRumors or heard by, they still exist. And Spotify alone has millions of consumers in the EU alone. So evidently millions of people are impacted by this - not zero.

It’s only the multi million dollar developers that see their bottom line impacted because of Apple.

They are multi million dollar developers because their apps are among the most popular ones on the app store have millions of users.

Apple‘s bottom line is padded by millions of customers paying more than a competitive commission rate alone.

 

[Radon87000]

That's wrong on many levels. If my favorite app disappears to go to an alternate app store, my user experience is diminished. Secondly this could be a race to the bottom with scamware, phishware and malware apps.

This is a common misconception but you only need look at Android to see that doesn't happen.

There is no reputed app which can only be sideloaded on an Android phone. You can use your Android just like an iPhone without sideloading any app whatsoever.

The only apps which need sideloading are useful ones like systemwide adblocking which Google does not allow on their store for obvious reasons.

The vast majority of Android users don't even know sideloading is possible because Google makes it hard to discover by burying it in the settings menu, something Apple can also do.

Your favourite app won't disappear overnight just because of a third parry app store simply due to the App Store being viewed as a convenient and reliable source by the average user just like on Android.

 

[Radon87000]

I disagree. It could certainly affect me if an app I need or want leaves the App Store. Or if one of the developers I work with have to deal with piracy and mods. Or if any of my contacts installs a malicious or privacy-invading app.

Again, the old way that you want to force on iOS allows for a trillion dollar malware industry.


I can think of several reasonable explanations. They don't want to water down the quality of apps by allowing non-native code exectution. They don't want to enable piracy. They don't want apps to be able avoid screen time, bypass privacy requirements and other features.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Not a single well made app on Android left the Play Store due to third party app stores so there's that.

There a re a lot of innovative apps on third party app stores like Samsung Goodlock and system wide adblocking which Apple and Google will never allow on their store for revenue reasons.

I also think you guys are making it too complex. Apple does not want to lose control over it's services revenues from the EU which is 30% of revenues as iPhone sales have stagnated. That's all there is to it.

 

[coredev]

Spotify alone has millions of consumers in the EU alone. So evidently millions of people are impacted by this - not zero.

Yes, so far millions of Spotify users have installed the app, have their subscription already, and go on with their lives happily. With this change, if Spotify decides to move to their own (or different) app store, these millions of people are forced to install this new app store just to keep using an App they already had.
True, millions of people are impacted, but I fail to see how it serves them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

if Spotify decides to move to their own (or different) app store, these millions of people are forced to install this new app store

They could download it from Spotify‘s web site, if Apple allowed that.

but I fail to see how it serves them.

For one, they could be able to manage their (cross-platform) subscription in the app.
And subscribe to in-app. Very convenient.

 

[I7guy]

This is a common misconception but you only need look at Android to see that doesn't happen.

There is no reputed app which can only be sideloaded on an Android phone. You can use your Android just like an iPhone without sideloading any app whatsoever.

The only apps which need sideloading are useful ones like systemwide adblocking which Google does not allow on their store for obvious reasons.

The vast majority of Android users don't even know sideloading is possible because Google makes it hard to discover by burying it in the settings menu, something Apple can also do.

Your favourite app won't disappear overnight just because of a third parry app store simply due to the App Store being viewed as a convenient and reliable source by the average user just like on Android.

iOS has a different marketplace than other phone manufacturers due to its deep software Integration..

 

[AppliedMicro]

If my favorite app disappears to go to an alternate app store, my user experience is diminished

Not if that alternate store is more customer-friendly than Apple‘s.

iOS has a different marketplace than other phone manufacturers due to its deep software Integration.

There isn’t anything special in terms of „deep software integration“ with Apple‘s App Store.

You can download and install apps without using the App Store at all, and they‘ll work no differently than App Store apps.

Just download from a website, and install (instead of entering your Apple ID password for the App Store, you trust the developer in settings). Apple so far just doesn’t allow this method for end-user distribution for commercial reasons.

 

[I7guy]

Not if that alternate store is more customer-friendly than Apple‘s.

There isn’t anything special in terms of „deep software integration“ with Apple‘s App Store.

You can download and install apps without using the App Store at all, and they‘ll work no differently than App Store apps.

Just download from a website, and install (instead of entering your Apple ID password for the App Store, you trust the developer in settings). Apple so far just doesn’t allow this method for consumer distribution for commercial reasons.

Anyway we disagree on what this means to me or the average user.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple‘s bottom line is padded by millions of customers paying more than a competitive commission rate alone.

I bet developers would love to go back to the old models where they fronted all the costs of bringing an app to market beyond development costs in hopes of getting noticed and making enough to cover those costs and a profit.

Bring back middle man distributors that controlled access to stores snd where developers were lucky to get 30% of the final sales price.

30% is not an unreasonable markup; and I suspect once all costs are included most developers will pay about the same in total using alternative stores and have fewer sales.

The real beneficiaries of the DMA are the big developers that can host their own app stores and payment methods. For those, Apple should not be expected to host them and get no payments on their App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The comparisons to software distribution decades ago are inane and honestly just tiring.

We're not living in 1994 or 2004, and software for general purpose computing platforms is hardly distributed through brick & mortar stores anymore.

And in the age of the internet, you don't need a central repository to get your product "noticed". I can't remember the last time I've "discovered" an app through Apple's App Store, I'm even more sure that I haven't bought one based on the store offering or reviews alone. I google for information/reviews or read up on them on blogs I trust.

30% is not an unreasonable markup; and I suspect once all costs are included most developers will pay about the same in total using alternative stores and have fewer sales.

Competitors have proven that it can be done for a fraction of 30% (half of it or less - and that includes even Microsoft with their brand recognition).

The real beneficiaries of the DMA are the big developers that can host their own app stores and payment methods. For those, Apple should not be expected to host them and get no payments on their App Store.

Exactly - and neither should Apple be expected to charge for installation of apps they didn't devices they didn't develop, through users they didn't sell to, on devices they don't own or use, downloaded and installed from websites/storefronts they don't operate.

 

[jlc1978]

The comparisons to software distribution decades ago are inane and honestly just tiring.

We're not living in 1994 or 2004, and software for general purpose computing platforms is hardly distributed through brick & mortar stores anymore.

However, it is valid in taht Apple greatly increaed what a developr gets while also significantly reducing upfront costs and risks.

And in the age of the internet, you don't need a central repository to get your product "noticed". I can't remember the last time I've "discovered" an app through Apple's App Store, I'm even more sure that I haven't bought one based on the store offering or reviews alone. I google for information/reviews or read up on them on blogs I trust.

True, but most MR readers do not reresent the majority of iPhone owners, who won't find apps outside of Apple's App Store.

Competitors have proven that it can be done for a fraction of 30% (half of it or less - and that includes even Microsoft with their brand recognition).

Apple does as well for small developers. MS and other big companies can afford smaller cuts and stay in business, I wonder how many smaller store can? I suspect we'll see a few big companies jump into the iOS App Store world, and smaller ones come and go. The question is how much of a price war do they want to get into with Apple?

As I have said, I suspect the big companies may see some benefits but the small developer is likely to face challenges as things move forward, from having to dela with multiple stores, handlling tech support for sideloaded apps that may or may not work as customers expected, the potential of greater piracy causing them to earn less than before. I am not convinced it is going to be the great new world some think it will be.

Exactly - and neither should Apple be expected to charge for installation of apps they didn't devices they didn't develop, through users they didn't sell to, on devices they don't own or use, downloaded and installed from websites/storefronts they don't operate.

And they won't if you don't use their services and limit yourself to sideloading your app. You want to be on Apple's store, you'll have to pay Apple; expecting Apple to host an app for free while the app developer collects all of the revenue outside of Apple is not realistic.

 

[AppliedMicro]

However, it is valid in taht Apple greatly increaed what a developr gets while also significantly reducing upfront costs and risks.

This was certainly true in the beginning, back in 2008. Low barriers of entry, at a commission rate that may indeed have been comparable to brick&mortar stores. Consumer spending patterns have greatly changed since then, with software sales virtually all moving online.

That should lower the cost of distribution and benefit the customer. Even on, no, especially on the most popular (!) apps from the biggest developers.

Apple does as well for small developers. MS and other big companies can afford smaller cuts and stay in business, I wonder how many smaller store can? I suspect we'll see a few big companies jump into the iOS App Store world, and smaller ones come and go. The question is how much of a price war do they want to get into with Apple?

It's a question that can - and according to the EU - should be answered on a competitive, level playing playing field.

At 30% commission, there is most certainly a lot of room, even for smaller players, to undercut Apple. And also for a developer self-publishing / self-distributing, if Apple allowed it.

handlling tech support for sideloaded apps that may or may not work as customers expected, the potential of greater piracy causing them to earn less than before

This "fear" is unfounded. It really is no rocket science. Apps are tested in-house on developer certificates - and they can just as well run on consumer devices. And piracy... so far, apps still need to be signed by Apple. Anyway, if developers don't like it, they can use Apple's services, no problem.

And they won't if you don't use their services and limit yourself to sideloading your app. You want to be on Apple's store, you'll have to pay Apple; expecting Apple to host an app for free while the app developer collects all of the revenue outside of Apple is not realistic.

Fully agree. No hosting, no selling by Apple - no fee.

But Apple, as it stands, still intend to charge the Core Technology Fee - and they don't do it on their own store, when not opting in to the EU developer terms. This is anticompetitive steering and the thing that I hope they'll get investigated for non-compliance.

Again: No hosting, no selling by Apple - no fee.
And also: No junk fees for using Apple "services" that Apple can force them too. Besides... an installation fee isn't a fee on a used service.

 

[jlc1978]

This was certainly true in the beginning, back in 2008. Low barriers of entry, at a commission rate that may indeed have been comparable to brick&mortar stores. Consumer spending patterns have greatly changed since then, with software sales virtually all moving online.

That should lower the cost of distribution and benefit the customer. Even on, no, especially on the most popular (!) apps from the biggest developers.

The assumption is that lower fees equals developers lowering prices. IIRC, that did not happen when Apple lowered teh fees to 15% for small developers; they just pocketed the windfall, so know we have a 15% Apple tax and a 15% developers tax, to use the phrase of choice on MR.

Edit: Deleted garbled text

It's a question that can - and according to the EU - should be answered on a competitive, level playing playing field.

At 30% commission, there is most certainly a lot of room, even for smaller players, to undercut Apple. And also for a developer self-publishing / self-distributing, if Apple allowed it.

The question is one of economies of scale. Can an independent App Store attract enough developers and paying customers to cover fixed costs of running a site on a smaller than 30% commision? That remains to be seen. They could offload costs to developers, or charge an upfront fee for access to the store. I suspect it will be a chicken and egg situation, where smaller stores can't get enough customers for it to be worthwhile for developers and thus customes don't signup.

This "fear" is unfounded. It really is no rocket science. Apps are tested in-house on developer certificates - and they can just as well run on consumer devices. And piracy... so far, apps still need to be signed by Apple. Anyway, if developers don't like it, they can use Apple's services, no problem.

Real side loading would require no Apple signing for sideloaded apps.

Fully agree. No hosting, no selling by Apple - no fee.

But Apple, as it stands, still intend to charge the Core Technology Fee - and they don't do it on their own store, when not opting in to the EU developer terms. This is anticompetitive steering and the thing that I hope they'll get investigated for non-compliance.

It will be interesting to see how the EU reacts. The CTF would seem reasonable if an app doesn't use Apple's payment system but wants to be hosted on Apple's App Strore.

Again: No hosting, no selling by Apple - no fee.
And also: No junk fees for using Apple "services" that Apple can force them too. Besides... an installation fee isn't a fee on a used service.

I suspect a lot of Whack a Mole in the future.