6 ms·

They'll still get their commission even with sideloading.

can16358p 3y ago
How? If an app isn't installed through App Store it can't be rejected by Apple therefore developer can provide any payment method they want. Am I missing a point?
- joshstrange 3y ago
  In the Netherlands dating apps won their case for third party payment processors but they still have to pay Apple something like 27% (instead of 30%). It's self-reported but you can bet Apple will come after them if it thinks they are fudging the numbers.
  - hbn 3y ago
    Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Presumably, knowing Apple, sideloading will still require your app be signed by Apple and all the fanfare that comes with it. You're now just allowed to have your own storefront and distribute your app through it.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It's not just a change in the distribution channel; the law makes that clear. The outcome the law is aiming at is one where a developer can make and distribute an app without entering into any contractual relationship with Apple at all.
        MBCook 3y ago
        Can you point to where it says that in the law? I haven’t heard anyone show that in the reporting I’ve seen. That may have been the intention (I suspect so) but I don’t think the letter of the law made that clear. Which means it will take either an updated law or a court case to clarify that before it happens. Because Apple is clearly not going to just roll over.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        > The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. That's the user's side. Let's look at the developer's: > [...]Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services. Note the "free of charge".
  - IceWreck 3y ago
    Yes because theyre distributed through the app store. If you distribute via sideloading - Apple cannot claim that they had to incur the costs of vetting each update, distribution, payment processing, security, server maintenance, etc.
    - joshstrange 3y ago
      I would have said the same thing about allowing third-party payment providers but we will see. I have no doubt Apple could come up with some kind of "justification". Do they start charging for Xcode if you don't distribute through the App Store? "Xcode Pro", only thing that can build for sideloading and it costs $X/yr or "Any app built with it must give X% to Apple"?
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Apple's commission isn't for the costs of hosting the app. It's a channel to market cost similar if you were selling a product in Best Buy.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        But that assumes that Apple is the marketplace in the first place. The best way to think about this is in terms of accesories for physical products. Unofficial aftermarket accesories are considered completely legal to make and sell, without paying a dime to the base product's manufacturer. Such should be the case with iOS. Apps are essentially "digital accesories".
        MBCook 3y ago
        The problem is that’s not what the EU law says. This feels a lot like a case where the EU may have wanted Apple to lose all their controls but they didn’t put it in the law. Apple can still charge 30% (perhaps minus CC fees). They can still force you to be a developer in good standing. They can still limit what apps can do via their APIs. Heck they might be able to give App Store apps extra privileges because the developer choose the App Store. If they wanted iOS to look as open as Windows or MacOS they needed to specify that.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Apple already knows who is installing which apps and when they are executed. So they can easily tie it back to the developer and simply bill them. And if they fail to pay the bill, Apple can (a) disable their developer account so they can't sign new apps or (b) add them to the server-side block list that they have been using for spam/malware on OSX for years now.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Sure, but my take is that sideloaded apps will not be able to use: - Notifications (similar to the early sim-hacks when iPhone didn't sell everywhere) - iCloud (storage, etc) - Many of the platform services such as location, contacts, calendar.
  - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
    I hope they are also hyper sandboxed.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      EVERYTHING on iOS is sandboxed. Even Apple’s own software (though some of it gets special carveouts). There is no reason to believe side loaded apps won’t get the same treatment, and every reason to believe Apple has been doubling down on securing and tightening up the current sandbox implementation.
      - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
        My hope is literally: Throw side-loaded Apps into a separate virtual machine with a different iOS, etc. No access to anything other than itself.
- Despegar 3y ago
  Their commission is for their intellectual property (SDK, patents, etc). Payment processing was just another service internalized in their commission to facilitate collecting it. To bypass their commission you'd have to make a web app and not a native iOS app, which is something developers have been able to do since the beginning of the iPhone.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    I suspect there will be an influx of new open-source third-party native SDKs for iOS then.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      How? There is no raw frame buffer access. You can’t draw a single pixel without using Apple’s APIs. You’re still in the sandbox. Maybe you could make headless apps, but that doesn’t seem very useful.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It's not that the apps wouldn't use iOS APIs, it's that the developers wouldn't use Apple tools to develop them. Presumably every iOS developer has an iDevice to test and debug on. The right to use the iOS APIs on-device is inherent in having legal and physical posession of it.
        MBCook 3y ago
        You still can’t get anything to run without Apple’s signature. And there is no way to get that without a dev account which requires agreeing to their terms. Expect side loading to be the same way.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        I answered your other comment which also covers this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35696124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35696124

How? If an app isn't installed through App Store it can't be rejected by Apple therefore developer can provide any payment method they want. Am I missing a point?

joshstrange 3y ago
In the Netherlands dating apps won their case for third party payment processors but they still have to pay Apple something like 27% (instead of 30%). It's self-reported but you can bet Apple will come after them if it thinks they are fudging the numbers.
- hbn 3y ago
  Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Presumably, knowing Apple, sideloading will still require your app be signed by Apple and all the fanfare that comes with it. You're now just allowed to have your own storefront and distribute your app through it.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      It's not just a change in the distribution channel; the law makes that clear. The outcome the law is aiming at is one where a developer can make and distribute an app without entering into any contractual relationship with Apple at all.
      - MBCook 3y ago
        Can you point to where it says that in the law? I haven’t heard anyone show that in the reporting I’ve seen. That may have been the intention (I suspect so) but I don’t think the letter of the law made that clear. Which means it will take either an updated law or a court case to clarify that before it happens. Because Apple is clearly not going to just roll over.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        > The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. That's the user's side. Let's look at the developer's: > [...]Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services. Note the "free of charge".
- IceWreck 3y ago
  Yes because theyre distributed through the app store. If you distribute via sideloading - Apple cannot claim that they had to incur the costs of vetting each update, distribution, payment processing, security, server maintenance, etc.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    I would have said the same thing about allowing third-party payment providers but we will see. I have no doubt Apple could come up with some kind of "justification". Do they start charging for Xcode if you don't distribute through the App Store? "Xcode Pro", only thing that can build for sideloading and it costs $X/yr or "Any app built with it must give X% to Apple"?
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Apple's commission isn't for the costs of hosting the app. It's a channel to market cost similar if you were selling a product in Best Buy.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      But that assumes that Apple is the marketplace in the first place. The best way to think about this is in terms of accesories for physical products. Unofficial aftermarket accesories are considered completely legal to make and sell, without paying a dime to the base product's manufacturer. Such should be the case with iOS. Apps are essentially "digital accesories".
      - MBCook 3y ago
        The problem is that’s not what the EU law says. This feels a lot like a case where the EU may have wanted Apple to lose all their controls but they didn’t put it in the law. Apple can still charge 30% (perhaps minus CC fees). They can still force you to be a developer in good standing. They can still limit what apps can do via their APIs. Heck they might be able to give App Store apps extra privileges because the developer choose the App Store. If they wanted iOS to look as open as Windows or MacOS they needed to specify that.
threeseed 3y ago
Apple already knows who is installing which apps and when they are executed. So they can easily tie it back to the developer and simply bill them. And if they fail to pay the bill, Apple can (a) disable their developer account so they can't sign new apps or (b) add them to the server-side block list that they have been using for spam/malware on OSX for years now.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Sure, but my take is that sideloaded apps will not be able to use: - Notifications (similar to the early sim-hacks when iPhone didn't sell everywhere) - iCloud (storage, etc) - Many of the platform services such as location, contacts, calendar.
- yazaddaruvala 3y ago
  I hope they are also hyper sandboxed.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    EVERYTHING on iOS is sandboxed. Even Apple’s own software (though some of it gets special carveouts). There is no reason to believe side loaded apps won’t get the same treatment, and every reason to believe Apple has been doubling down on securing and tightening up the current sandbox implementation.
    - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
      My hope is literally: Throw side-loaded Apps into a separate virtual machine with a different iOS, etc. No access to anything other than itself.
Despegar 3y ago
Their commission is for their intellectual property (SDK, patents, etc). Payment processing was just another service internalized in their commission to facilitate collecting it. To bypass their commission you'd have to make a web app and not a native iOS app, which is something developers have been able to do since the beginning of the iPhone.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  I suspect there will be an influx of new open-source third-party native SDKs for iOS then.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    How? There is no raw frame buffer access. You can’t draw a single pixel without using Apple’s APIs. You’re still in the sandbox. Maybe you could make headless apps, but that doesn’t seem very useful.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      It's not that the apps wouldn't use iOS APIs, it's that the developers wouldn't use Apple tools to develop them. Presumably every iOS developer has an iDevice to test and debug on. The right to use the iOS APIs on-device is inherent in having legal and physical posession of it.
      - MBCook 3y ago
        You still can’t get anything to run without Apple’s signature. And there is no way to get that without a dev account which requires agreeing to their terms. Expect side loading to be the same way.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        I answered your other comment which also covers this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35696124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35696124