5 ms·

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

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 4y ago
Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

hbn 4y ago

Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.