12 ms·

>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store.

>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee. Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. This is the problem with believing their own talking points about "paying 30% for payment processing." So now they'll be paying for actual third-party payment processing, as well as lawyers and accountants to ensure they're complying with Apple's royalty agreements to license their technology.

t-writescode 4y ago
If it's bad enough, they'll switch back to using Apple's store, and it'll be a wash; but, we won't know until competition exists
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
It's very likely, they've tried playing the same games with other jurisdictions, "sure, you can use your own payment processor, and still pay us 27%", but it's very unlikely those tricks will hold up to further legal actions. Fighting monopolies is hard, but the penalties scale up the more games these companies play. They know it too, but all of the **holes running these companies are worried about is cashing out their bonuses and retiring before the regulations finally get things to where they should be.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Surely the people running Apple could have retired a long time ago.
- Despegar 4y ago
  These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    They can charge whatever they want for the phone. They can't levy monopoly fees on every successive purchase.
    - Despegar 4y ago
      I certainly understand why developers would prefer that Apple have that business model, but that's not the one they chose for the iPhone. And these laws don't prohibit it.
      - cronix 4y ago
        Yes it was, they later changed their stance. In the announcement for iPhone, Jobs on stage explicitly stated that all you need to develop an app was html and modern javascript with API's into the phone hardware. And they would basically just be a PWA that would keep the app updated automatically as soon as the developer makes a change, all while keeping the iPhone "reliable and secure." In fact, he was bragging about not having a store "rather than having to go through this complex update process" as a dig at the Google play store. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc
        Despegar 4y ago
        And then everyone realized web apps sucked and demanded that Apple release an SDK, which they did, and the rest is history.
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Early phones ran on incredibly limited hardware and genuinely needed native applications just to do simple things. We've had 15 years of hardware and browser optimization, Moore's law, and development when it comes to mobile hardware. Web apps run just fine now. Hell, many native apps are just web apps via things React Native or webviews.
      - 4y ago
solarkraft 4y ago
Oh okay, so the law has that loophole. Too bad, I thought the EU was serious about it. It's no surprise that Apple will comply as maliciously as they possibly can.
mrtksn 4y ago
It's also huge fun to deal with the regulations and tax systems of 175 countries.
donmcronald 4y ago
> Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. IMO a lot of developers are paying for Apple to have an unreasonable amount of control and the entire point of side loading or competing app stores is to get rid of that because we don't want to be paying Apple to act against our interests. I don't want to pay for Apple to "verify" my app. I want them to use the OS to enforce user granted permissions and that's it.
- etchalon 4y ago
  You're going to continue paying Apple to verify your app. Either you'll pay Apple directly, or the non-App Store will collect the 30% they have to send to Apple.
- izolate 4y ago
  As a developer, I understand this sentiment. As an iPhone user however, I don't want the power to shift to developers, because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine. A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords. If you value openness, then I suggest you use and develop apps for Android.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine. Like how Apple's interests can be at-odds with your own. If developers have control over your device, you're not empowered as a user. > A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords So, give it to them. Our interests are not mutually exclusive, you can make a device with both a walled garden and a developer mode. It's not rocket science, at least when you have 200 billion dollars in R&D cash sitting in your coffers.
    - cmdli 4y ago
      The trouble is that if large tech companies are given the opportunity, they will force users to use whatever is best for the company, not for the user. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with another tech company like Apple.
skissane 4y ago
> >To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Are they going to keep on giving their own apps entitlements they deny to everyone else? (Or even, allow to others, but very selectively.) Or is the EU going to crack down on that as well? I hope.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sidewndr46 4y ago
I don't own an iPhone, but if this is the case then the end result is going to be hilarious. Apple will eventually get a court order to prevent software from a third party store being installed on their devices. Either it will enable copyright infringement or violate some other IP restriction. So this will wind up being a worst of all worlds.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  What's the precedent for that? Windows, MacOS, Android and Linux have all allowed the user to indiscriminately install software, but I've never heard of legislation that tried to reverse that.
- Despegar 4y ago
  I definitely agree it's going to be the worst of all worlds. The current model was the most efficient one for Apple and developers. There will be additional costs for everyone involved (great for lawyers and accountants though). The current model was a virtuous cycle that benefited Apple, developers, and users. High trust from users made them amenable to spending money on software, grew the Apple developer ecosystem, and unleashed a wave of innovation which spawned industries since 2008. Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field. I suspect we're moving into a world where large developers (Spotify/Netflix/Microsoft) will have much more negotiating leverage than a small developer. But that is the 'business as usual' world, which makes this a reversion to the mean.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field. Lmao, you must have missed the news about Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and another few dozen Fortune 500 companies negotiating with Apple under the table. They already do bend the rules for sufficiently large companies, they just won't budge if you're someone that threatens them.
    - Despegar 4y ago
      What the Epic v. Apple antitrust trial showed was that no one actually got better terms than anyone else. If you have evidence of Microsoft, Amazon, or Netflix getting terms that aren't available to anyone else, please link them.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Sounds like it'll be a bit like on Mac with that whole notarization rigmarole.. But on Mac you can bypass it by jumping through some hoops. I guess on iOS you won't be able to until the EU catches up and forbids that too. I'd actually consider iOS again if it were more open so I think this is a really good thing.
- Despegar 4y ago
  The EU is mandating sideloading, it's not mandating Apple do it for free. Until now, developers have been licensing Apple's intellectual property in a bundle through the Developer Program License Agreement. For anyone that goes through the sideloading route, they can expect to enter into a different contractual agreement with Apple to license their technology. Otherwise they're building a web app, which they've always been able to do!
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    What a sham, though. Developers already pay for Apple's IP - When they pay $99/year for their developer license - When they pay royalties on every payment that gets processed - When they buy and promote Apple hardware and software People simply want to remove the payment processing one. If Apple really needs more money to build their amazing intellectual property, they have plenty of ways to bill developers for services rendered. Their current system is undeniably exploitative, and the EU won't stop until that exploitation is alleviated. Apple will stop at nothing to defend their control, but will ultimately be forced to abide by Europe's terms. They're not defying small-fry court orders in the Netherlands anymore.
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      For me as a user it's not about the payment thing at all. It's about being able to do with my device what I want without the manufacturer having to approve it first.
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
Waterluvian 4y ago
There's a universe of FOSS that hasn't needed third-party payment, lawyers, accountants, etc. because they do not perceive the purpose of apps as "making money." That universe doesn't quite exist on iOS, partly because Apple makes it so uncomfortable in ways to attempt. I am hopeful that this shakeup might, in some way, make that easier. I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.
- theturtletalks 4y ago
  It is likely that the use of web-based experiences will eventually surpass the need for app stores. In many cases, the functionality of a website is similar to that of a mobile app. However, Apple's restrictions on the progress of progressive web apps (PWAs) on Safari may slow the transition from app stores to web-based options. In the meantime, it may be worthwhile to consider visiting a website before downloading an app for your next mobile experience.
  - ephimetheus 4y ago
    I have never encountered a PWA where you couldn’t immediately tell it was one. If that ever goes away, then maybe.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      It could easily go away we just have to allow PWAs greater access to native features on our phones.
      - ephimetheus 4y ago
        In terms of raw capabilities, sure. But they will still feel worse since native apps are almost always much nicer to use in my experience.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    I write web applications for a living and while I LOVE how well-featured the browser APIs are becoming, sometimes I just want an app. I don't really subscribe to one camp. There's pros and cons to both.
onion2k 4y ago
They won't, because anyone who starts an alternative app store will provide everything necessary for a small fee. The likes of Epic, Microsoft, Amazon, etc are more than capable.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Yes and you'll still have to pay Apple a 27% commission on digital goods sold even when it's distributed through the Epic store. This is what the parent is talking about not understanding what you're paying for. Hitching your "I don't want to pay the 30% commission" wagon to "Allowing 3rd party app stores and payment processors" is doomed to fail. This has literally already happened https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...
tootie 4y ago
The number 1 thing they are paying for by a mile is reach. Not any particular service offering. Your listing the app store can be nearly as important as your SEO ranking of moreso depending on your business. It's why Google can still charge pretty hefty fees despite not locking users in nor doing all that much for app quality. If you're not in the Play Store, users won't find you.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
But requiring developers to pay Apple in order to get on the iPhone isn't going to fly with the new EU law... right?

t-writescode 4y ago

If it's bad enough, they'll switch back to using Apple's store, and it'll be a wash; but, we won't know until competition exists

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

It's very likely, they've tried playing the same games with other jurisdictions, "sure, you can use your own payment processor, and still pay us 27%", but it's very unlikely those tricks will hold up to further legal actions. Fighting monopolies is hard, but the penalties scale up the more games these companies play. They know it too, but all of the **holes running these companies are worried about is cashing out their bonuses and retiring before the regulations finally get things to where they should be.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Surely the people running Apple could have retired a long time ago.
Despegar 4y ago
These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  They can charge whatever they want for the phone. They can't levy monopoly fees on every successive purchase.
  - Despegar 4y ago
    I certainly understand why developers would prefer that Apple have that business model, but that's not the one they chose for the iPhone. And these laws don't prohibit it.
    - cronix 4y ago
      Yes it was, they later changed their stance. In the announcement for iPhone, Jobs on stage explicitly stated that all you need to develop an app was html and modern javascript with API's into the phone hardware. And they would basically just be a PWA that would keep the app updated automatically as soon as the developer makes a change, all while keeping the iPhone "reliable and secure." In fact, he was bragging about not having a store "rather than having to go through this complex update process" as a dig at the Google play store. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc
      - Despegar 4y ago
        And then everyone realized web apps sucked and demanded that Apple release an SDK, which they did, and the rest is history.
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Early phones ran on incredibly limited hardware and genuinely needed native applications just to do simple things. We've had 15 years of hardware and browser optimization, Moore's law, and development when it comes to mobile hardware. Web apps run just fine now. Hell, many native apps are just web apps via things React Native or webviews.
    - 4y ago

solarkraft 4y ago

Oh okay, so the law has that loophole. Too bad, I thought the EU was serious about it. It's no surprise that Apple will comply as maliciously as they possibly can.

mrtksn 4y ago

It's also huge fun to deal with the regulations and tax systems of 175 countries.

donmcronald 4y ago

> Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. IMO a lot of developers are paying for Apple to have an unreasonable amount of control and the entire point of side loading or competing app stores is to get rid of that because we don't want to be paying Apple to act against our interests. I don't want to pay for Apple to "verify" my app. I want them to use the OS to enforce user granted permissions and that's it.

etchalon 4y ago
You're going to continue paying Apple to verify your app. Either you'll pay Apple directly, or the non-App Store will collect the 30% they have to send to Apple.
izolate 4y ago
As a developer, I understand this sentiment. As an iPhone user however, I don't want the power to shift to developers, because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine. A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords. If you value openness, then I suggest you use and develop apps for Android.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine. Like how Apple's interests can be at-odds with your own. If developers have control over your device, you're not empowered as a user. > A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords So, give it to them. Our interests are not mutually exclusive, you can make a device with both a walled garden and a developer mode. It's not rocket science, at least when you have 200 billion dollars in R&D cash sitting in your coffers.
  - cmdli 4y ago
    The trouble is that if large tech companies are given the opportunity, they will force users to use whatever is best for the company, not for the user. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with another tech company like Apple.

skissane 4y ago

> >To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Are they going to keep on giving their own apps entitlements they deny to everyone else? (Or even, allow to others, but very selectively.) Or is the EU going to crack down on that as well? I hope.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sidewndr46 4y ago

I don't own an iPhone, but if this is the case then the end result is going to be hilarious. Apple will eventually get a court order to prevent software from a third party store being installed on their devices. Either it will enable copyright infringement or violate some other IP restriction. So this will wind up being a worst of all worlds.

smoldesu 4y ago
What's the precedent for that? Windows, MacOS, Android and Linux have all allowed the user to indiscriminately install software, but I've never heard of legislation that tried to reverse that.
Despegar 4y ago
I definitely agree it's going to be the worst of all worlds. The current model was the most efficient one for Apple and developers. There will be additional costs for everyone involved (great for lawyers and accountants though). The current model was a virtuous cycle that benefited Apple, developers, and users. High trust from users made them amenable to spending money on software, grew the Apple developer ecosystem, and unleashed a wave of innovation which spawned industries since 2008. Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field. I suspect we're moving into a world where large developers (Spotify/Netflix/Microsoft) will have much more negotiating leverage than a small developer. But that is the 'business as usual' world, which makes this a reversion to the mean.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field. Lmao, you must have missed the news about Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and another few dozen Fortune 500 companies negotiating with Apple under the table. They already do bend the rules for sufficiently large companies, they just won't budge if you're someone that threatens them.
  - Despegar 4y ago
    What the Epic v. Apple antitrust trial showed was that no one actually got better terms than anyone else. If you have evidence of Microsoft, Amazon, or Netflix getting terms that aren't available to anyone else, please link them.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Sounds like it'll be a bit like on Mac with that whole notarization rigmarole.. But on Mac you can bypass it by jumping through some hoops. I guess on iOS you won't be able to until the EU catches up and forbids that too. I'd actually consider iOS again if it were more open so I think this is a really good thing.

Despegar 4y ago
The EU is mandating sideloading, it's not mandating Apple do it for free. Until now, developers have been licensing Apple's intellectual property in a bundle through the Developer Program License Agreement. For anyone that goes through the sideloading route, they can expect to enter into a different contractual agreement with Apple to license their technology. Otherwise they're building a web app, which they've always been able to do!
- smoldesu 4y ago
  What a sham, though. Developers already pay for Apple's IP - When they pay $99/year for their developer license - When they pay royalties on every payment that gets processed - When they buy and promote Apple hardware and software People simply want to remove the payment processing one. If Apple really needs more money to build their amazing intellectual property, they have plenty of ways to bill developers for services rendered. Their current system is undeniably exploitative, and the EU won't stop until that exploitation is alleviated. Apple will stop at nothing to defend their control, but will ultimately be forced to abide by Europe's terms. They're not defying small-fry court orders in the Netherlands anymore.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    For me as a user it's not about the payment thing at all. It's about being able to do with my device what I want without the manufacturer having to approve it first.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago

Waterluvian 4y ago

There's a universe of FOSS that hasn't needed third-party payment, lawyers, accountants, etc. because they do not perceive the purpose of apps as "making money." That universe doesn't quite exist on iOS, partly because Apple makes it so uncomfortable in ways to attempt. I am hopeful that this shakeup might, in some way, make that easier. I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.

theturtletalks 4y ago
It is likely that the use of web-based experiences will eventually surpass the need for app stores. In many cases, the functionality of a website is similar to that of a mobile app. However, Apple's restrictions on the progress of progressive web apps (PWAs) on Safari may slow the transition from app stores to web-based options. In the meantime, it may be worthwhile to consider visiting a website before downloading an app for your next mobile experience.
- ephimetheus 4y ago
  I have never encountered a PWA where you couldn’t immediately tell it was one. If that ever goes away, then maybe.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    It could easily go away we just have to allow PWAs greater access to native features on our phones.
    - ephimetheus 4y ago
      In terms of raw capabilities, sure. But they will still feel worse since native apps are almost always much nicer to use in my experience.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  I write web applications for a living and while I LOVE how well-featured the browser APIs are becoming, sometimes I just want an app. I don't really subscribe to one camp. There's pros and cons to both.

onion2k 4y ago

They won't, because anyone who starts an alternative app store will provide everything necessary for a small fee. The likes of Epic, Microsoft, Amazon, etc are more than capable.

Spivak 4y ago
Yes and you'll still have to pay Apple a 27% commission on digital goods sold even when it's distributed through the Epic store. This is what the parent is talking about not understanding what you're paying for. Hitching your "I don't want to pay the 30% commission" wagon to "Allowing 3rd party app stores and payment processors" is doomed to fail. This has literally already happened https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...

tootie 4y ago

The number 1 thing they are paying for by a mile is reach. Not any particular service offering. Your listing the app store can be nearly as important as your SEO ranking of moreso depending on your business. It's why Google can still charge pretty hefty fees despite not locking users in nor doing all that much for app quality. If you're not in the Play Store, users won't find you.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

But requiring developers to pay Apple in order to get on the iPhone isn't going to fly with the new EU law... right?