💯 agree. Everyone just want to get a free ride and worse people think that’s a good idea. Meanwhile those poor Apple employee works hard in making sure all their Apps up to Standards are getting zero appreciation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify, Epic Games, and Others Argue Apple's App Store Changes Do Not Comply With DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's assess the outcome of Apple's agreement to determine its fairness. In my estimation, they will experience a surge in popularity initially, driven by curiosity. However, as the less scrupulous apps emerge, their appeal will wane, and eventually, no one will continue to utilize them. Thus, we will return to square one.
Apple relies on open-source software and contributions by non-Apple developers for low-level operations in MacOS and iOS and has for years. I think you're confusing the platform experience as a whole with the individual parts of it.
The platform experience is what Apple effectively monetizes. When you go out and buy an iPhone, that's what you're paying for. As part of that platform experience presumably you also want to browse non-Apple websites and run third-party apps, so you're paying for that as well.
What Apple is doing is effectively billing twice – once to consumers and once to developers. Being able to bill twice on everything is one way to run an extremely profitable business, and would be fine if it happened in a vacuum, but of course it never does.
No, I think you are confusing how software licensing actually works. You are not being billed twice. You are being billed for two entirely different things. As a consumer you are only paying for the hardware and a limited license for USE of the software as specified in your agreement. When you buy or rent third-party software you are entering into an agreement with them to USE their software or service. (The separate appstore agreement) To the extent that the use relies on Apple's proprietary software you pay for that use when you pay the developer through the store and Apple takes their cut. That use is not covered in the fees for the original agreement. In fact, this is why when a developer is infringing on IP, the IP holders sometimes sue the largest customers of that developer to recoup their licenses fees. Theoretically, if a developer somehow manages to skirt paying Apple for use of their core technologies, Apple could sue the customers of that technology to recoup those fees. After all, the customer is using features of iOS in ways not covered by their original agreement.
Do you expect to not have to pay for a weather app because they all use the same API and the phone already has the data on the phone? After all, you paid for the phone, and it included a weather app. Why should the third-party apps have to pay to use the same data form the same source?
Last edited:
Apple can put whatever it wants in the Terms of Service that a consumer agrees to before using a device, but those haven't proven to be enforceable in every situation. Apple hasn't been able to successfully sue users who jailbreak their devices.
This 100%. I'm so sick of people who have literally no idea how app development works thinking Spotify and Epic are in the right here, they're not. They're just two greedy companies who want free access to work others have done. Running an App Store isn't cheap (Epic should know they have one that charges a fee too). Spotify wouldn't exist without the App Store and they already screw their artists constantly so I'm not sure why they think they have a right to talk.
People forget what it was like to develop before app stores existed. You had to build the product, you had to host it yourself (or give it to a publisher which took as high as 98% of the cut! No that's not a typo!), you had to pay for a payment processing system, security, etc and your neck was on the line if a hack happened. Oh and then you had to hope your product was a success.
When the App Store came out it was HUGE for Indies. Only a 30% cut for Apple handling the hosting and payment system? Sign me the hell up! (Now it's 15% if you make less than a million a year).
Epic and Spotify just don't want to pay for the platform they want to host on which is ludicrous. Tell Microsoft you won't pay them for Azure hosting, or tell Amazon you don't want to pay for AWS, or heck, tell Epic you don't want to pay their 15% fee to be in their store and you think it should be free. See how silly that sounds?
I wouldn't categorise it as fear. More of irritation.
First off, I emphasise that I have zero skin in this game (for now), since the DMA will take effect only in the EU (for now), which I don't reside in. The arguments I make are purely academic, for the simple reason that I engage in discussion here because I am more vested in being right than I am in making statements that are rooted in ideology.
Second, assuming Apple's statement about the EU making up only a small percentage of App Store sales is correct, I don't see the DMA as having any sort of noticeable impact on Apple’s financial results. Instead, Apple's plan comes across (to me) as being more about Apple doing what it thinks is right in trying to protect customers (ie: the people who bought into iOS precisely because it was closed in the first place).
Which makes sense when you understand that the DMA was designed to benefit businesses, not consumers. So the two areas are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that companies like Epic benefit by way of being able to offer their own App Store on iOS and charge other developers a cut in exchange for hosting their apps, while there are also end users being negatively impacted at the same time, as evidenced by the examples Apple highlighted in their white paper (eg: inability to readily track and manage subscriptions, or issue refunds).
There is nothing wrong with admitting that the end user could very well end up being affected here. Yet everyone here seems to vehemently insists that it must be a net benefit for both developers and end users, and refuse to admit that there could be drawbacks in the fear that it will invalidate their whole argument somehow. Really? You can't picture a single instance of the consumer being impacted negatively here? It's 100% pure upside for everybody for sure?
With that out of the way...the issues I have are as follows (nothing new here; I have made these arguments in one form or another previously):
1) From what I am seeing, Apple is expected to not only allow EU competitors to leverage the iOS platform but also ensure competitors don’t act in bad faith to harm Apple users (the white paper they published details extensively how they continue to vet apps that go into third party app stores, even as these apps don't earn them any revenue). The DMA should be called out for what it is - an attempt by EU officials to slow down a handful of U.S. companies in order to give homegrown companies a heads-up. The Digital Markets Act could very well be renamed the Spotify Boost Act, given how vocal a certain company has been throughout this entire saga.
I don't know why - something about this (or at least, the way I see it) rubs me the wrong way.
And for what it's worth, it's also amusing to think that the $500 million fine (if Spotify ever sees a cent of it) will do more for their fortunes than over a decade of being in business ever did. It says more about their unsustainable business model than it does about how they are supposedly being screwed over by Apple.
2) In this context, I feel the CTF is not unreasonable. Apple doesn’t think companies should be able to use the Apple ecosystem as they see fit, including acquiring users and generating revenue, and then not compensate Apple for its own work and efforts. On a basic level, I am inclined to agree, which goes back to my earlier statement about being more interested in being right.
I was right about Apple prevailing in their lawsuit against Epic (because it's not illegal to be a monopoly in the US), and while I am not yet willing to bet on how Apple's proposed changes will ultimately pan out, I do stand by my assertion that Apple will give up their App Store cut only kicking and screaming (and this will influence every step that Apple takes with respect to how they choose to implement the DMA). If Apple can't bill them (because those developers won't use iTunes), then the CTF represents a tidy solution, by charging a flat fee regardless of how much, or how little revenue was generated.
Unless any of you have a better idea, and no, expecting Apple to just not charge a single cent doesn't count as one.
This sentiment is not so much borne out of greed, I feel, but conviction. At the very heart of the matter, Apple does genuinely believe that they deserve some measure of renumeration for their role in connecting developers with consumers and enabling a brand new business model where none existed before. I do not think that this unreasonable.
In summary, this is why I feel the DMA is not a good piece of legislation. I don't think Apple will lose all that much because of it. Rather, the issue comes when people who bought an iOS device expecting it to work a certain way suddenly find those perks being stripped away from them (eg: a particular app no longer being available on the iOS App Store because it was migrated over to another App Store), and the funniest thing is - nobody here will even entertain the possibility that there might be stakeholders who don't view this as a net benefit for them.
And that's what I guess irritates me. Your arguments here are borne out of a singular desire to see Apple bleed, nothing more. You do not care about the well-being of the end user in the very least, much as you claim otherwise (you wouldn't be cheering for Epic or Spotify otherwise). And very soon, we shall know who ends up on the wrong side of history. Could be you, could also very well be me.
Time will tell. Exciting times indeed.
Why would Apple roll out significant changes without having discussed them?
It makes no sense to have put in the effort if you werent sure it would get a tick.
Perhaps EU will do a final checkover that what was promised to change has been?
Apple didnt need to sue jailbreakers... they just fixed the loopholes and broke the jailbreak. Much quicker and cost efficient solution
An icon on a home page to a web app is hardly the same as drag and drop app installation
So if you can sideload as easily as you say, why complain about Apple needing open and change things? Surely you can already do all these wonderful things you need to?
Why dont Spotify or Epic do it? Rather than make the EU do their dirty work?
time to give up. people arent responding to your clickbait. maybe they dont get sarcasm that's not marked as such...
No, that’s not the way it works. That’s what the subsidy, but that’s not the way it works.
Epic isn't complaining about the App Store cut, they are complaining that that is the only option. They would like to host their own apps.
Spotify existed before the App Store. And if Apple is so powerful that Spotify couldn't exists without Apple, that would be a reason for regulating the app ecosystem, not against it.
That things were worse in the past doesn't excuse problems now.
Sure, but it doesn't have to be tied to the hardware. From what I gather, most developers like Steam, but they aren't required to use it. They can sell through other app stores or directly to customers, or any combination of the three options. It also allows more flexibility, like cross-platform apps (I can play Steam games on my Mac and my PC), subscription services like Game Pass, discount bundles, etc.
I'd argue that the biggest advantage of a closed ecosystem to indie developers is that it makes piracy much less viable.
Epic wants to have their own store with their own hosting (or paying AWS directly, instead of through Apple), but they aren't allowed to do that.
Of course they want to after they made hundreds of millions.
It’s a testament to apples fore thinking that the App Store is an enabler providing unique access to customers and a complete management system.
I haven't built an iOS app, but I have developed some Photoshop plugins that have been downloaded tens of thousands of times. I am able to distribute them on my own, despite the fact that I used tools and APIs that Adobe developed when I created the plugins.
The users already paid for the development of Photoshop. I made Photoshop into a better tool for tens of thousand of people by extending its capabilities. That helps Adobe, because it makes Photoshop a more desirable platform, which will make their customers more likely to stay in the ecosystem and buy new versions (or continue their subscription).
What about "Apple contractually doesn’t allow it for app distribution to consumers" (in my post above) did you not understand? Apple doesn't allow it in their developer terms. That's all.
👉 From a technological point, you can easily sideload today. Totally. No jailbreak needed either. Which disproves your claim that sideloading would require "a significant change to the OS to allow this to happen".
Apple just doesn't allow it for distribution to end users/consumers as per their developer terms.
No need to change a bit in iOS to enable it. The only issue is the prohibition/restriction in their Terms and Conditions.
It's obviously not really about me doing wonderful things - but developers far more skilled and knowledgeable than I am (i.e. Spotify and Epic).
They'll supposedly revoke their certificate - just as they did with Google and Facebook.
Last edited:
Same.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I don't see any of these companies creating anything from scratch, just trying to opt out of the payment part. They use Apple's frameworks, Xcode, and iOS itself.
You solved a problem for yourself and a bunch of other people, and for Adobe you added value to the product at no cost other than the initial development of the API that you and all other plugin developers use. Everyone benefited from this arrangement.
The same exists on iOS and Android. Neither would be an entirely useable platform experience without third-party apps.
If someone wants to make a Fortnite skin and sell it without giving Epic a cut... Can they?
What you think the user paid for has no bearing on what you are obligated to paid to license the technology used in your plugin. That Adobe let you use their basic APIs for free is a business decision Adobe made. I could very easily create plugins that require me as a developer to pay license fees to use IP or other underlying technologies. In another life I created plugins for Illustrator that required paying a licensing fee to Pantone based on blocks of 1000 downloads. Another required a Postscript license from Adobe directly that was outside the license Adobe granted for the user in the purchase of their software.
I think that Apple owning both the deployment OS and the licensed IP is confusing people's understanding of what is essentially a very straightforward concept. I also think lost in the crossfire is the understanding that Apple has lost a lot of patent lawsuits over the years that require them to pay unit and use costs on key pieces of software IP. So even if they decide to give away access to it to developers for free under certain circumstance it does not change their upstream obligations to the entities they have licensing obligations to.