146 ms·
Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union
- euphoria83 3y agoThis is fantastic. But why a reduction in Apple’s fee for AppStore distributed apps? I hope the rates drop to these globally.
- hjnilsson 3y agoLikely because they anticipate increased competition to the App Store now, and want to pre-empt the attractiveness for developers of moving to the Epic Store or the Facebook Store etc.
- bogwog 3y agoaka competition working as intended
- crazygringo 3y agoI couldn't figure it out -- is it? Payment is now a separate extra 3% and there's the new core technology fee. Maybe somebody more familiar with the details can explain. It's hard to compare when the structures are different like that.
- Lamad1234 3y ago[dead]
- keepamovin 3y agoI like the aggression. This is how Apple has how always worked. Difference is these days you don't have the iconoclast high vis leader who's announcing these policies and a rationale. Just have Apple -- the machine -- doing it, same as it's ever done. If Steve Jobs was still around there might be a PR blitz with some YouTube videos of him doing a very persuasive ad about why the EU is wrong. And why Apple is right. Hahaha! :)
- justinzollars 3y agoThere is no topic more popular on HN than European regulations. Thats a pretty sad state of affairs if you think about it. Personally I'd be interested in blocking every thread like this. Though I don't think these regulations will survive because the EU won't survive. Its like discussing Soviet law. Its totally pointless on a tech blog.
- AzzyHN 3y agoI wish I was European, or I could move there, but the most likely route would probably be committing some crime in the states and then seeking asylum unfortunately
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoSo I won't be able to install a non-WebKit browser on my device outside of the EU?
- ggregoire 3y agoCan EU users opt-out from all that stuff?
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoYes, but they have to opt out of the EU first
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoHey I’m confused, why does everyone hate Apple now? Did I miss a memo? I like their computers and phones. I’m not an iOS developer. Do I still need to get on this band wagon?
- aryehof 3y agoMy take is that Apple are doing the maximum possible to protest their disagreement with consumer protection laws interfering with their ability to do whatever they want. Their announcement has the tone of a spoilt child, with an air of punishment to be applied to EU users and particularly developers. It’s bad faith compliance. Rather than protecting the interests of users, they are more interested in obstructing the DMA and its attempt to promote competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.
- Hugsun 3y agoFortunately, there are quite a few clauses in the original regulation[0], like 31-33, and some clauses in the 50s IIRC, that explicitly mention some of the coercive tactics Apple is employing. Like leveraging other mandatory services provided by Apple to incur fees. [0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC&uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3...
- krzysiek 3y agoMy favorite part: "EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage." I mean it's like saying that having a choice before being educated by one of the parties among the choices is a bad thing and it looks bad.
- patrickmcnamara 3y agoThe wording of the whole press release is hilarious. The tone is so petulant and odd for such a large company haha.
- suslik 3y agoJust shows how triggered their SET is by all this.
- 3y ago
- bni 3y agoIf I wanted hellstew, I would switch to Android
- romanovcode 3y agoThis is just such a sad state of affairs. In the end nobody wins and everyone loses - apple and developers. Now Apple needs to provide the APIs for alternative markets which is a waste of time as well as making more vulnerability vectors and potentially confusing users. And app developers who decided for whatever reason to use their own distribution channel would still have to pay apple on every purchase. What is the point of this change?
- abzu 3y agoAre there any decent alternatives to iOS that won't force me into the cold embrace of Google or some huge Chinese corporation?
- ladyanita22 3y ago"Are there any decent alternatives to the alternatives?"
- abzu 3y agoBasically that, yes. Thanks for refactoring my question.
- niemenmaa 3y agoCheck out Sailfish OS [1]. With the paid version you can also run Android apps. A good review of the os [2]. [1] https://sailfishos.org/ https://sailfishos.org/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbYPoiZh8wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbYPoiZh8wg
- e44858 3y agohttps://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/ https://lineageos.org/ https://lineageos.org/
- abzu 3y agoThanks, I've decided to give grapheneos a try. My new Pixel should arrive soon.
- sevagh 3y agoEverybody in this comment section that has bought an Apple device is complicit in this bullshit. Every single person.
- ho_schi 3y agoRequest Backport to iOS 15. Apply generally the same rules for computer manufacturers. Pre-Installing Windows and forcing them to use it? No. Lenovo allows me to order a system without any operating-system or Linux. And I can spend the saved money to GNOME or other people in need. That should be standard, default shall be operating-system. And for Google. Visiting Google or YouTube and they try lure me to install Chrome. Android must ask if I want a better browser. Like Safari or Firefox. I appreciate a port of WebKitGtk (needs more developers). Actually I would appreciate if the EU generally stops thinking in “free markets” and thinks instead of “free citizens”. If I own something it is mine.
- meta-level 3y agoAs a Thinkpad fan (from Germany, maybe this makes a difference) I have to say that Lenovo usually only let's you buy Laptops without Windows for very crappy machines or if you're a student via Lenovo campus program.
- ho_schi 3y agoThe X13 Gen3 or Gen 4 (both AMD or Intel) are high-end devices. Both allow to ship without operating-system. // edit Double checked that. You can also select the OS for the T14s or T14-Intel. The decision of Lenovo for options are sometimes weird. It looks like that ThinkPads preferred for professional usage likely ship without operating-system. Maybe you look for already built-devices only? Look for the options upon CTOs devices - which makes sense - their built upon request. Sometimes you can also select Fedora or Ubuntu but I think the majority of Linux user prefer to setup the system itself.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoBut you bought it and knew what you would get upfront? You're free to not buy it. I never understood this entitlement. "I want device XYZ to behave like I want." Why buy apple in the first place? There are enough devices that cater to this very preference. The only argument the EU can make is monopolies. And mac is not even near being a monopoly. Not even the i devices are.
- anticensor 3y agoApple should also offer the converse: App Store for non-Apple devices.
- user2342 3y agoIt would be cool, if Apple extended this (or a similar new scheme) worldwide. Then it would be possible to rigorously throw out all garbage and badly implemented Apps from its own store, i.e. make it real shiny quality. Any rejected developer may then still publish their Apps in alternate ways.
- mirekrusin 3y ago...it seems DHH is Chuck Norris class badass? He rants one day, few months later EU creates policy and Apple conforms. Nice reality bending powers.
- olgeni 3y agoi.e. they will keep two product versions around in order to keep screwing the people outside the EU.
- askariwa 3y agoSure, there are some risks with this DMA : https://imgur.com/a/paJP1T7 https://imgur.com/a/paJP1T7 ;-)
- amelius 3y agoIf I buy a product from company A, then want to use it to do business with company B, then what does company A have to do with it? Am I not the owner of my device?
- osense 3y agoAm I crazy, or does this mean the possibility of actually having WebXR on Apple devices in the not-so-distant future (without relying on Mozzila's outdated WebXR Viewer app)?
- jimmySixDOF 3y agoAVP will have a version of Safari with WebXR support behind a flag. It will be interesting to see what happens to anyone who runs a service like that and if/how Apple will come out for their pound of flesh. At this point I am surprised they don't charge telcos for the privilege of offering phone services to what Apple seems to consider a wholly owned and exclusive customer base.
- thewileyone 3y agoWhy is this article timing out for me on Firefox and in South East Asia? EDIT: It was the CloudFlare DNS issue. NVM.
- octacat 3y ago€0.50 for each first annual install per year is extremely expensive for many applications to handle. Especially if people just do installs to check and remove. We had this discussion with Unity already. Could be ok for fortnite though, epic should be pretty happy. Also, who needs apple pay, Poland uses blik payments everywhere and it is just fine (and you have to autorise each payment with an alert from your bank app).
- instagib 3y agoI’m curious how iOS 17.4 may affect side loading currently. “ These safeguards will be in place when users download iOS 17.4 or later, beginning in March, and include: Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review. App installation sheets — that use information from the Notarization process to provide at-a-glance descriptions of apps and their functionality before download, including the developer, screenshots, and other essential information. Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers. Additional malware protections — that prevent iOS apps from launching if they’re found to contain malware after being installed to a user’s device.”
- irusensei 3y agoIt seems good intended EU regulations on the tech sector tend to follow the cookie modal path when implemented.
- stranded22 3y agoAll I want for Christmas is… A different browser engine on my iPad Pro (UK). (Don’t pitch it as a go between from iPhone and Mac, while giving it a essentially a mobile browser engine)
- fennecfoxy 3y agoMan that read was insane with all the "risk" "safeguard". "Sssh, Apple will take care of you. We know what's best for you, don't leave the house it's safer inside. Don't see your friends when I'm not there, I need to keep you safe, you know how you get" Christ, Apple's literally turning into an abusive partner.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- antipaul 3y agoHow do they collect the money from the external payment option and external app stores? How do they know how much those transactions are?
- idonotknowwhy 3y agoI recently visited China, and ended up buying my first iPhone (SE) to go there. The Google/Android situation their is awful. All the Chinese phones have shitty third party app stores, and you can't even install / update your apps without using an international sim or VPN on your international android phone. App store works just fine (filtered but fine). Isn't this change going to allow China to roll out a shitty knock-off app store and make the iPhone experience just as horrible as Android over there? :( And if this lets us run real Chrome on iOS, there goes any need for cross-browser testing for smaller websites (and Google themselves). This would make Firefox even less tested and give Google all the power. Not an iPhone/iOS user myself, but I think this is bad news.
- chj 3y agoEvery android phone maker in China has to curate its own app store, not because it is fun, but google decided to play hard ball. Not saying it's google's fault.
- Cheruii586 3y agoI'm wondering why internet providers don't charge a 'Core Technology Fee' for every link we open on the internet. First 100,000 links free, then just €0.10.
- jimmySixDOF 3y agoThis comment is a needle in a haystack!
- JanSt 3y agotook me 9 minutes to get here
- sub7 3y agoJust imagine Microsoft charging $1 for every .exe installer clicked on in Windows 95. Apple's total failure to build popular new products has forced it to defend/grow it's services revenue in unethical and anti-user ways. The only winners here are $aapl stock holders and at great cost to global progress and fairness. Tim Cook of all people should sympathize with developers everywhere getting it in the ass without consent.
- mrintegrity 3y agoPossibly stupid question, but if I install an "alternative app store", approved by Apple, can i not just use that store to install yet another app store (assuming there would be one) that isn't approved by apple and doesn't care about their restrictions (and doesn't pay apple anything?)
- TheYumasi 3y agoThey require apps to be notarised, so my guess is that this app store from another store would not be, and as such, would not execute on the iPhone.
- camcaine 3y agoThis is a bad move from Apple. Developers, developers, developers. Remember!?
- skeletal88 3y agoI wish people would stop defending apple here. The reason for apple doing something is not that it wants its users to be safe or to protect them. It just wants to make more money by preventing other companies from doing stuff on its phones. This is it. If it would be possible then it would ask for 50 or 79% of sales on the app store, if it could it would take a % of every transaction done in Safari
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dns_snek 3y agoApple has unfortunately replaced religion in certain market segments. At this point Apple could just drain everyone's Apple Pay cards and there still would be a vocal group of people arguing that they're doing everyone a public service by educating them about the dangers of shopping online.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- drooopy 3y agoThis is so unbelievably weird to me. Apple is a multi-trillion(!) dollar corporation whose sole purpose is to generate profit and increase it YoY. Yet people are acting like scary government bureaucrats are trying to persecute their best friend. Some of the comments on places like the macrumors forums feel like people trying to defend a cult.
- ringofchaos 3y agoI can't test my web app on safari as apple won't let install mac os on any other PC. They won't even release safari for other os like android and windows. Now those in non EU countries won't be able to acess other browser's too which will present similar challenge.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoThere is nothing "secure" or "private" about a "smartphone". This is the company that has pushed the hardest for "smartphones". And it continues to do so, making computers people buy from Apple connect Apple's own own computers, the mothership, 24/7, from the moment a buyer turns on the computer for the first time. By default. There is no "security" or "privacy" for the _owner_ of a computer that is locked down so that the _owner_ of that computer cannot control it. There could be "security" and "privacy" for whomever is controlling the computer. That would be Apple. This could even be "security" and "privacy" as against the computer's owner.
- roguas 3y agoGoogle and MS should offer support. While both of them operate app markets they have not went hardcore into ban all other markets, lock platforms.
- bsaul 3y agoWas the EU decision that people should be able to install other app stores, or that they could install apps the way they wanted ?
- orenlindsey 3y agoApple loves to do the bare minimum to meet the regulations. I'm sure they hated having to do this. But, this is still better than not doing it at all.
- Aerbil313 3y agoThey sure have hated it. It's completely in conflict with their vision of what a smartphone should be and how it should be used.
- patrickmcnamara 3y agoTheir vision being that they should be able to extract money from all activity on an iPhone?
- Aerbil313 3y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39037081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39037081
- Xunjin 3y agoI don't think so, this can be interpreted as "malicious compliance". We will need to see the next steps about to be done by EU.
- ecf 3y ago[flagged]
- ryaneager 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ahartmetz 3y agoA browser engine is indistinguishable from any other app feature, maybe except if it has a JIT compiler. So the complexity is like allowing, say, emulators with a JIT feature. Big fucking deal.
- Rucadi 3y agoWhat complexity does bring allowing an app into your store? Apple is the one gatekeeping
- tomtheelder 3y agoSurely the only added complexity is in blocking other browser engines.
- ladon86 3y ago> Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party web browser — other than Safari — as their default. Reflecting the DMA’s requirements, Apple is also introducing a new choice screen that will surface when users first open Safari in iOS 17.4 or later. That screen will prompt EU users to choose a default browser from a list of options. Any idea if this means you can actually choose a different browser, or are you choosing a different WebKit wrapper (e.g. the current version of Chrome on iOS)?
- insane_dreamer 3y agoWonderful; now devs have to support a plethora of browsers on iOS instead of just one -- the same shit-show as on the desktop.
- lacerrr 3y agothey have to do that anyway, or did you forget all the non-iOS mobile users?
- pathartl 3y agoI would imagine this doesn't open up the opportunity for other engines.
- fredoralive 3y ago"New frameworks and APIs for alternative browser engines — enabling developers to use browser engines, other than WebKit, for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing experiences."
- ryaneager 3y agoThey state the exact opposite in the second sentence of the article. Please, at least read the opening paragraph before commenting.
- olliej 3y agoSo I'm guessing you didn't read the article then?
- kaladin-jasnah 3y ago> This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage. How will users be able to understand the options in front of them unless they are presented with it in the first place?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- duxup 3y agoI honestly thing this is a hard thing to solve. You can't make people care and constant notifications are just fucking horrible / doesn't help IMO. And I'm honestly not sure most people would understand anyway ...
- hot_gril 3y ago"Do you accept cookies?" I wish there were a non-browser-extension way to auto-accept.
- v7p1Qbt1im 3y agoOr auto-reject.
- idle_zealot 3y agoIt would've been so nice if the EU had required there be an automated way to choose Accept All and Only Necessary options. They could've even reused the existing DNT header!
- kklisura 3y agoWhat would be even nicer if companies just respected DNT header without any govs involvement, right?
- 3y ago
- ssklash 3y ago> Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users. What a line...
- dmitrygr 3y agoWhat factual objections do you have? Apple can control the safety of their SW and cannot vouch for not-their-sw, so from Apple's point of view this is 100% accurate.
- tmpz22 3y ago> Apple can control the safety of their SW and cannot vouch for not-their-sw, Isn't this the main argument for a locked down app store? That Apple CAN ensure the safety of third party apps on its store?
- olliej 3y agoYes, and literally the whole point of this law is to remove that gate.
- addicted 3y agoLet’s not forget. This is also the exact same argument Apple used for not having an App Store in the first place and only allowing web apps. The chutzpah of using this argument to keep the App Store locked down when Apple used the same argument to not have an App Store in the first place is incredible.
- addicted 3y agoThe DMA introduces zero risk. Users are absolutely able to use the Apple App Store, Safari/Webkit, etc like this as they did before. So no, Apple isn’t factually correct. In fact, it’s very possible that Gecko or Blink have more secure engines than WebKit. It’s very possible someone can create an App Store that is even more vetted than Apple’s and eliminates scam apps and games whose only purpose is to separate you from your money. So it’s not only not accurate, it’s probably diametrically the opposite of accuracy and is false.
- kaladin-jasnah 3y agohttps://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#browser-alt-eu https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#... > To help keep users safe online, Apple will only authorize developers to implement alternative browser engines after meeting specific criteria and committing to a number of ongoing privacy and security requirements, including timely security updates to address emerging threats and vulnerabilities. This criteria seems arbitrary. Doesn't this allow Apple to arbitrarily prevent competitor engines like Blink and Gecko?
- anon25783 3y agoAbsolutely! That's how the "walled garden" business model works.
- KolmogorovComp 3y agoI don’t think it will used against Blink and Gecko for obvious compliance reasons. But this clause will help Apple pressure them to keep security updates timely (which is a good things for the users). On the other hand they will likely use this to deny all ‘niche’ browser engine without a structured organization behind them (think Ladybug, maybe servo etc.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toyg 3y agoApple patch their browser twice a year at best; Firefox gets updates every month, plus security ones. Apple is hardly a model of virtue in the sector.
- madeofpalk 3y ago> A new version of Safari shipped 17 times in the last 28 months — version 15.0, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 16.0, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 17.0, 17.1, and now, today’s Safari 17.2. https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-safari-17-2/#updating-to-safari-17-2 https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-safari-17-2... Yes, not as frequent as monthly releases, but Apple shipped 7 Safari updates on iOS in 2023. https://webkit.org/blog/13691/webkit-features-in-safari-16-3/ https://webkit.org/blog/13691/webkit-features-in-safari-16-3... https://webkit.org/blog/13966/webkit-features-in-safari-16-4/ https://webkit.org/blog/13966/webkit-features-in-safari-16-4... https://webkit.org/blog/14154/webkit-features-in-safari-16-5/ https://webkit.org/blog/14154/webkit-features-in-safari-16-5... https://webkit.org/blog/14416/webkit-features-in-safari-16-6/ https://webkit.org/blog/14416/webkit-features-in-safari-16-6... https://webkit.org/blog/14445/webkit-features-in-safari-17-0/ https://webkit.org/blog/14445/webkit-features-in-safari-17-0... https://webkit.org/blog/14735/webkit-features-in-safari-17-1/ https://webkit.org/blog/14735/webkit-features-in-safari-17-1... https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-safari-17-2/ https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-safari-17-2... Did you notice the new Safari 17.3 Apple shipped 3 days ago?
- beeboobaa 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IntelMiner 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- skaushik92 3y agoI read that as "expanding protections to reduce (privacy and security) risks ..." but I guess you're reading it as "expanding protections to reduce (privacy) and (security risks) ..."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- segasaturn 3y agoSadly no information here about the mechanisms for how alternative app stores will work, which is the most interesting part for me. Will the .ipa format be standardized like .apk and will we be able to make iOS apps without having to use macOS?
- winterqt 3y agoNo, you'll need to install through an approved alternate marketplace. See https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#ios-app-eu https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
- nonethewiser 3y agoApple approves apps on their marketplace. Apple approves alternative marketplaces. Apple approves all apps on all marketplaces.
- Yujf 3y agoAnd charges for all apps on all marketplaces
- anticensor 3y agoreads like levying to me
- jagged-chisel 3y agoApple inherits the earth
- htk 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seatac76 3y agoThe tone of the release is really something. So much shade.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nixass 3y agoI wanna know when I'm gonna be able to use native Firefox with addons enabled instead of Safari-coated unusable crap
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- moffatman 3y agoIn notarization rules, no executable code download is allowed
- kevincox 3y agoBut they say that browser engines are allowed. So can they JIT?
- tech234a 3y agoYes
- kevincox 3y agoHow can the OS tell the difference between downloading JavaScript and JITing it vs downloading compiled code and running it?
- post_break 3y agoThey look into the app as a human vs looking at the code. iDOS 2 is a great example. Banned for doing that exact thing.
- kaba0 3y agoAn App is not just code, it is an entity within the OS with permission system, metadata etc all attached to it. A JIT compiler is not above the App’s sandbox permissions.
- riscy 3y agoWhether runtime generated or downloaded from the internet, you cannot run instructions directly on the processor without requesting executable virtual pages in memory from the OS. Executable pages are also a major security vulnerability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIT_spraying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIT_spraying
- rany_ 3y ago> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review. Does anyone know if notarization is something you could turn off? If you can't, then I'm pretty sure the EU won't like this; obviously "malicious compliance."
- turquoisevar 3y agoThis falls squarely under the exemptions for security reasons under article 6 sub 4 of the DMA. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
- julkali 3y agoThe key here is "proportionate". Notarization surely adds to the security of the platform, but it may be misused by Apple easily ...
- diffeomorphism 3y agoThe "duly justified" might not be that far reaching. Sure, notarization seems like a valid cause, but there is no reason why it should be exclusively the provider of one specific app store who offers notarization. In particular, if it happens that it is more onerous or restrictive on non-Apple stores, that justification starts looking very shaky.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kranke155 3y ago“It’s very dangerous but we will allow our users to download and install apps from the internet”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- neogodless 3y agoRelated article from theverge.com https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132487 Apple is allowing alternative browser engines in iOS 17.4 – but only in the EU
- olliej 3y agoLooking forward to being required to use Chrome for basic browsing. I already see numerous sites that with chrome variations on the old "we only support IE", but at least until now devs had to at least allow at least one other browser. Now they'll just say "here's a link explaining how to install chrome".
- ivanjermakov 3y agoMost of these websites should be accessible using user agent spoofing.
- olliej 3y agoWhich we know from the IE dominated era does not matter, people just switch to the browser they have to use. The overwhelming majority of users do not know what a user agent string is, let alone how to change it they just see an increasing number of sites saying "you need to use IE/chrome". Moreover, again from the IE era - and we already see this with chrome - people make their sites work in IE/Chrome and then label any browser doing something different as broken so as people are increasingly forced to use chrome the degree to which spoofing does not work steadily increases.
- ivanjermakov 3y agoTrue, it works in cases where you have to use the website, e.g. for work. But generally I would avoid such websites as much as possible.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- winterqt 3y ago> To qualify for the [MarketplaceKit] entitlement, you must: > [...] > Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users. Just let us sideload IPAs, please.
- stefan_ 3y agoI must have missed this section in the DMA! All I want is a F-Droid-esque store with sane apps. You know, open source apps, centrally built. No in-app-purchases and Chinese geotracking framework for something that is 25 lines of code to talk to some bluetooth gadget.
- jagged-chisel 3y agoWho’s going to curate that?
- sureglymop 3y agoTake a look please: https://f-droid.org/en/about/ https://f-droid.org/en/about/
- kaba0 3y agoYou just need a non-profit behind (or a government) and it should work just fine, they are exempted from the fees. The ruling is mostly there to prevent google and meta from creating alt stores (which is a benefit to us).
- buildbot 3y agoI have sideloaded IPAs now, on iOS 17.3. Altstore.
- winterqt 3y agoSure, but your apps have to be renewed every 7 days (or 365 if you have a developer account).
- mjburgess 3y agoApple had a chance to embrace the DMA, even to save face, and become a (albeit mandated) champion of these changes. Instead, they've gone for hostility and pettiness and, no doubt, fully intend to maliciously comply. > The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari And it will be the last time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rahkiin 3y agoPlease no needless notifications all the time..
- thebradbain 3y agoSeparate any discussion about the "tone" of the article, could someone who is better at reading between the lines better than I explain the changes to Out-Of App Store payments? Is it a 10-max 20% fee to Apple, no matter the distributor, in the EU? Or are those rules only for the App Store, and anything else won't be touched by commissions to Apple?
- semiquaver 3y agoThe latter.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoIt sounds like the percent fee is for apps downloaded from the app store plus the 3% if you use apple payment processing. Then theres a .5 euro annual fee per user over 1 million no matter which market the app was downloaded from.
- Kab1r 3y ago> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. This seems unusually high. I would expect that a large number of apps meet this threshold. Am I correct in thinking this applies to apps that aren't monetized?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoIt's high - but it's not that crazy. Assuming this doesn't count updates - the service is probably costing Apple €0.10 on average. Apple has a very hefty margin on everything it sells. If each update costs €0.5 - I suspect this is going to lead to a massive decline in European apps. That's simply too expensive for almost every app. There's probably less than 1000 apps this would make any material money off of. This is just another way for Apple to try to tax Facebook, Google, and a handful of other big apps.
- joshstrange 3y agoI don't think it includes updates. From the calculator [0]: > The first time an app or game is installed by an Apple account in the EU in a 12-month period. [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
- internetter 3y ago> A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app. It does
- foliveira 3y agoThe first of either an install, reinstall or update in a 12 months period. It does not apply for every single update
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoI wonder what happens if you travel from the US to EU and then back. Will you be able to install alterative browser while in EU and then it gets blocked?
- Pandabob 3y ago> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. If I'm reading this right (and I did double check this with ChatGPT [0]) if you have an app with two million unique installs annually, you owe Apple 500 000 euros. That seems to include free apps as well. [0]: https://chat.openai.com/share/905c5c45-657b-477c-a746-0468dd7747a7 https://chat.openai.com/share/905c5c45-657b-477c-a746-0468dd...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BlueTemplar 3y agoOh, wait, is this the Unity situation again ?!?
- bgirard 3y agoIs there any record of another browser engine being summited to the app store and the outcome? AFAIK when I worked at Mozilla I'm not aware that Gecko was ever submitted even though I saw a working local build.
- yellow_lead 3y agoThat's a good question, I don't understand how this is enforced either.
- stefan_ 3y agoThere is (was?) no mechanism for JIT, so even if there was a working local build, it wouldn't be a competitive browser engine.
- johncolanduoni 3y agoEven the WebKit wrapper browsers (including Chrome and Firefox) didn’t have access to JIT until iOS 8 when WKWebView was introduced. UIWebView is in-process and not allowed to use JIT.
- toyg 3y agoWhat would have been the point? It was explicitly forbidden.
- bgirard 3y agoIANAL but I speculate that having explicitly rejected competition could hurt Apple in certain legal proceedings?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shippintoboston 3y agoThese changes are the definition of Malicious Compliance, I hope the EU goes down hard on this bullshit
- Spivak 3y ago> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review. > Authorization for marketplace developers... > Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. Amazing. All this regulation and hand-wringing to just to make it exactly the same developer experience as before but now you can click the download button in another app. Plus now every app not just ones that use IAP for digital goods is gonna get a $500k annual fee once they hit 2M users. The EU really showed em who's boss.
- crazygringo 3y agoI've got to say, this whole thing is... clever. I'm not defending Apple here, but I am saying that the way they seemed to figure out policies to comply with the letter of the law while making it seem pointless for a developer to switch to a third-party app store... well, it definitely does make Apple look smarter than the EU, that's for sure.
- Spivak 3y agoRight?! It's a masterclass in being petty. They seem to know exactly what screws government's won't turn and built the "not-app store" on top of them.
- user_7832 3y agoIf it really is as it sounds, I give the EU one month max before they "fix" this. The EU doesn't like it when large corpos purposely use loopholes to go against the spirit of the law.
- crazygringo 3y agoNot even close. These things take at least a year or two to analyze and draft and debate and redraft and so forth. Then even when they're passed, there's a year or more to give companies time to enter compliance. Not to mention that there isn't necessarily the political impetus or appetite to revisit it right now -- they passed the DMA, now other things have higher priority. The idea of "fixing" this in just one month isn't how anything happens -- it would take multiple years if it happened at all. The EU simply does not move anywhere near that fast -- not legislatively and not in the courts either.
- kmeisthax 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SushiHippie 3y agoWill Apple Users also have the option to use other search engines in Safari than the default ones? Or is this something that the DMA does not cover?
- bogwog 3y agoI thought this was already possible, albeit with extensions. Kagi for example has an extension for iOS users.
- SushiHippie 3y agoYes, but these extensions work by intercepting the search results to your default search engine e.g. google and then redirectin that to kagi.com. For example you type in "hacker news" it will first redirect to https://google.com/search?q=hacker%20news https://google.com/search?q=hacker%20news the Kagi extension will intercept this and redirect you th https://kagi.com/search?q=hacker%20news https://kagi.com/search?q=hacker%20news but this is often a hit and miss and the Kagi extensions had/has many problems. Which all could be easier if one could just select Kagi as a search engine natively in Safari.
- KerrickStaley 3y agoA significant part of this announcement seems to be the €0.50 "Core Technology Fee" that Apple will now charge for "each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold". I think this essentially means that large developers pay €0.50 * (num apps they publish) * (num devices each app is installed on) per year. There are 2 billion active iOS devices [1], so I think that for the biggest apps like YouTube the fees could be in the hundreds of million USD per year. 4 of the top 5 most downloaded apps of all time [2] are published by Meta (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp), and I think they will pay this fee for each app? [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/02/apple-two-billion-active-devices/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/02/apple-two-billion-activ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)#Of_all_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)#Of_all_time
- hacktheplanet00 3y agoIs it just me or does the Fee Calculator with the existing business terms not calculate the current 30% fee? https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
- BonoboIO 3y agoYouTube will not pay that amount of money. There will be deals in the background like usual.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoAfaik there are currently no exceptions to apple's 30% fee. There are some apps, like netflix, that dont have to provide a link to subscribe, but I think thats the biggest exception.
- theturtletalks 3y agoAnd there won't be since Google just got caught giving Spotify a lower rate and now face anti-trust issues. That doesn't mean Apple doesn't give certain apps certain permissions. AFAIK, Apple gives Google special permission to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding [0] and that's just what we know of. Whether you like it or not, we're heading towards a future where Apple and Google choose who wins and who loses. A good app built on merit will never be able to compete. 0. https://github.com/yattee/yattee/wiki/FAQ https://github.com/yattee/yattee/wiki/FAQ
- jgrizou 3y agoIs this going to make web Bluetooth work via Chrome on iOS?
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoWhy isn’t that possible right now? Couldn’t they just code the Bluetooth side and put a bridge on top of Safari to it? Pretty sure some apps exist already that do this.
- tech234a 3y agoYes [1] [1]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1431447 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143144...
- TobyTheDog123 3y agoWhat are the chances the United States (and others) follow suit? For startups, I assume most will continue to live on the App Store lest they force their users into two different experiences based on their location.
- ckorhonen 3y agoThe problem with the US, and we're already seeing it play out with things like CCPA (California's GDPR-like privacy legislation), is that it is difficult to get momentum and bi-partisan support for sweeping changes in Congress. It either is watered down or gets deadlocked, so you end up in a situation where you have patchwork legislation, often conflicting in scope, state-by-state. I wouldn't expect much to change in the short to medium term.
- crazygringo 3y agoRight now, very slim. It's not in line with how the US views antitrust, and there isn't any real demand from voters. But it depends how this plays out in Europe. If 95% of popular apps stay on the App Store, then there will continue to be no appetite for change in the US. But if suddenly Europe is getting different, better apps than Americans are, there might be popular demand to change things. But in that case it's still easier to see Apple making the changes out of public demand, rather than US legislation. The most likely change in the US I would expect is Apple deciding to let Chrome and Firefox distribute their own browser engines in the US, if Chrome with a Chrome engine becomes popular in Europe and provides a lot of features Safari doesn't.
- darkwizard42 3y agoMy take is this will follow in the US IF a few large states make rulings on this and higher courts decline to hear appeals. Ex. GDPR -> CCPA -> most companies just did compliance anyway for the US because of California's size
- 911e 3y agoThey are way too kind, they should disable iMessage and iCloud for any alternative App Store due to "security issues" and call it a day, we don't need a meta store, they should have just let us install IPAs to avoid all that
- kjkjadksj 3y agoYou can already do all that on macos yet its somehow not a security issue and just how computers work in general there, and is somehow this huge security issue on mobile by apples marketing of the issue. The cognitive dissonance makes no sense. You’d have to gaslight everyones experienced with personal computing since its inception to make it make sense. Its solely about locking down the device to enforce their 30% cut because it started out that way. If they released desktop OSs today and not decades ago they’d try and pull this crap too
- alexsereno 3y agoYea and if the UX and safety are actually better consumers will pick the better, safer option in the whole. It’s like wow I have my entire life’s financial documents on my Mac but somehow downloading Firefox via Safari on my iPhone is so risky and unsolvable.
- bearjaws 3y agoNot to mention, you cannot install Chrome on a non iOS device via the app store. It has to be done via Safari. So every time you see a Chrome MacOS user, they actually have successfully navigated the tReAcHeRoUs waters of gasp downloading something.
- BuckRogers 3y agoThis can destroy the product experience. Worrying about browser engines was always misguided. Letting 5 people use Gecko will be fantastic until Gecko is so irrelevant that even those people give up. Vendors like Microsoft having a large userbase attracted to good, reliable software to counter another browser’s overt influence was always the solution. It’s all about users. 25 million people on Firefox is not enough. Neither is 5,000 that switch their rendering engine in iOS. Firefox needs users for relevancy, not its own engine. To be clear, I’m not outraged by this EU edict. I’m saying it’s irrelevant and misguided as most regulations are.
- timeon 3y ago> as most regulations are This is bit too vague. For example, thanks to regulations most people do not need to work 12h a day.
- TheCaptain4815 3y agoSo disappointed with the per install charge. Now the hoards of censored/banned apps still won't see the light of day on IOS.
- mmastrac 3y agoApple needs a Microsoft-2000s-era slapdown to put them in their place. Regardless of your thoughts on the situation, a mega/giga-corp flaunting the spirit of the rules is a bad sign for the future.
- olliej 3y agoSo we're agreed that playstation, xbox, and Nintendo stores should also be regulated in the same way?
- mmastrac 3y agoYes, 100%. But the size of the corp dictates the priority of the action. That puts Apple and Microsoft at the top of the list.
- hot_gril 3y agoEach of these platforms' value propositions from earlier days was that some day it'd profit from its own controlled ecosystem. This is how they got investment. Apple and Nintendo in particular each held out a long time protecting the brand. There'd be no point in doing that if you're forced to support the competition anyway. And in each of these markets, users have other options if they want full hardware control. Clearly it wasn't a priority for many of them.
- mmastrac 3y agoThere's a long runway from "early market" to "total domination" to make money for investors. Nobody is shutting down the ability of limited or emerging markets to extract value, but once you reach Apple's size it's an entirely different story.
- hot_gril 3y agoThe runway is less than one human generation, or less than a home mortgage period. Some of these ventures are unprofitable for a decade. If an investor isn't thinking domination early on, they're thinking of getting it to the point where another investor would think that.
- astlouis44 3y agoAbout time. Can't wait to see this roll out worldwide! With users able to access bleeding edge browser technologies like WASM and WebGPU, developers and users will finally get an alternative to native apps.
- axlee 3y agoA clear sign that good anti-monopoly regulations result in a better world. Less rent-seeking from Apple at the expense of smaller software developers, more agency for users when it comes to choosing their browser engine. I am sorry for non-EU consumers.
- wvenable 3y agoApple has found a way to comply with the letter of this law but not the spirit. Although there are a few good results from this legislation and Apple (alternative browser engines), Apple has otherwise managed to mitigate nearly everything else to where there will be no significant difference for end users or developers.
- andylynch 3y agoThey certainly have. Even re: browser engines, they are saying alternative ones will only be permitted in the EU.
- multimoon 3y agoI would argue that the regulation seems pretty ineffective since it was clearly too vague to force any change productive to the average end user. You can only get things through “approved marketplaces” where apple still has to notarize and still collects a fee. This new “core technology fee” is also concerning. The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an android level of openness, and it seems to have failed at that and apple has made the experience altogether worse in retaliation. For the record - I’d love to have side loading on my phone. I’d love to be able to load IntelliJ on an iPad, but it is not the place of a government to regulate how a company is able to use their own platform that they developed with their own money and tools. It is not a monopoly, android exists so there is still user choice. Are we going to start worrying about the inability to download doom to your Samsung fridge because it doesn’t offer user choice? I’d argue that this isn’t a good example of an effective anti monopoly regulation, it’s a good example of how government regulation tends to just result in things being worse and more complex as everyone enters a race to sidestep.
- drooopy 3y agoTheir entire response is so petty. Borderline unprofessional in its tone, really.
- nomel 3y agoCould you quote an example?
- drooopy 3y agoSure: "This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage."
- mvdtnz 3y agoRead the article?
- nomel 3y agoI asked because I didn't have the same opinion of the interpretation of the tone. I read it more directly, as factual statements. Ideally, making a negative statement around an opinion is best followed with an example for the basis of that opinion, if others may not share it.
- user_7832 3y agoIt's the corporate equivalent of throwing a tantrum. A far cry from the professional image they try to project.
- Agingcoder 3y agoI had the same feeling, and was very surprised. It’s like a child being told there are rules ( I’m not saying whether the rules are good or not ).
- toyg 3y ago
- Readerium 3y agoKey facts to note: * Apple has 22 percent market share in EU [1]. * EU Economy is 15 percent of World Economy [2]. * EU population is 5.5 percent of World Population [3]. [1] https://appleworld.today/apple-now-has-22-of-the-smartphone-market-in-europe-excluding-russia/ https://appleworld.today/apple-now-has-22-of-the-smartphone-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union [3] https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/key-facts-and-figures/life-eu_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BlueTemplar 3y agoWeak. What happened to Schrems 2 de facto banning GAFAMs (and other companies from rogue states like the USA) in the EU ? Instead they are legitimizing these companies ?!? (Also, we'll never see serious competition from EU companies as long as these giants are allowed to operate here... and also just buy any potential competition.)
- panzerboy 3y agoI’m wondering if these new regulations apply to Switzerland as well.
- layer8 3y ago> The new capabilities will become available to users in the 27 EU countries beginning in March 2024. So no.
- tkems 3y agoThis seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-priced lawyers think this up. Also, what is this Core Technology Fee for all apps? Maybe Apple has been losing money on the App Store infrastructure so they want to make it up? Or is this just a bid to try and keep as much control as possible? Seems that Apple wants to go into this kicking and screaming... As someone in cybersecurity, I understand the need for secure apps, but I think Apple has been going about it in the wrong way.
- acdha 3y ago> This seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-priced lawyers think this up. You know how every few weeks there’s an article about something dodgy in an alternate Android store which the scammer never even bothered to submit on iOS? There’s a real problem here and these seem generally like solid technical moves but paired with heavy handed language which reminds me of the way so many websites put up those “look at all the cookies the mean old EU is making us tell you about!” warnings. Notarization in particular seems like a good move for avoiding the common problems around impersonation or silent alteration of binaries, and I think the browser engine requirements are justifiable solely by looking at how many popular Electron apps take months to patch critical vulnerabilities.
- timeon 3y ago> reminds me of the way so many websites put up those “look at all the cookies the mean old EU is making us tell you about!” warnings. "so many" shady websites
- cubefox 3y ago> You know how every few weeks there’s an article about something dodgy in an alternate Android store which the scammer never even bothered to submit on iOS? Every few weeks there is an article about that!? That doesn't happen. It's a non-issue. Likewise on MacOS or Windows. I suspect these scenarios in the comments here are just made up by Apple fans to create FUD.
- nonethewiser 3y agoIt has become absolutely impossible for alternative with Apple on this. They are loving these regulations.
- ljm 3y agoI remember when Riccitiello announced per-install pricing for Unity last year and it, quite literally, cost him his job
- gigatexal 3y agoUnity didn’t have an App Store with 3B devices.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y agoUnity didn't have a monopoly on PC gaming or installing software on PCs.
- gigatexal 3y agothat too
- threesevenths 3y agoUnity also announced that it would retrospectively apply to all developers who already publish games. Apple is apparently going to let developers remain in the current model or opt into the new one, and if that is correct, makes a difference here.
- atlasgcx 3y agojust want to point out that 1 "update" is also considered 1 "first annual install". So essentially you need to pay for previous acquired members/installs. Like for facebook, assuming they have a force update this year, then they need to pay for every iOS install even if it occurred before.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- supermatou 3y agoFirefox hardcore user here -- and someone not at all versed in anti-monopoly laws. Could someone explain why the EU forced Apple to allow alternative browser engines in their own eco-system ("walled garden")? It's theirs, shouldn't they do whatever they want with it? It's not like there aren't any alternatives to iOS - Android is excellent and you can use many different browsers on Android. So... where's the problem?
- dharmab 3y agoThe EU has a law called the Digital Markets Act. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... The EU's position is that a company is large and influential enough, with an entrenched market position, it does not get to "do whatever they want" because of the harm that causes to the economy overall. A monopoly is not a criteria for this.
- supermatou 3y ago> a company is large and influential enough, with an entrenched market position, it does not get to "do whatever they want" because of the harm that causes to the economy overall. I'm not sure I understand: this would be applicable if Apple was the only provider of phone/mobile OS. But... Apple is just one of the players; if I was adamant that Firefox - which, again, I've been using for the past 20 years - is the only browser I want to use on mobile, I'd simply give up on iPhones and buy something else. So, again, as long as I have a choice, where is the problem?
- toyg 3y agoYou'll still have the choice to just use Safari and Apple AppStore products, so nothing is changing for you as a consumer. But other consumers will now have more choices. So why is that a problem for you? Btw, Apple is not "just one of the players". Them and Google completely control the mobile computing software market. Both them and Google are now required to stop abusing their position.
- darrenBaldwin03 3y agoIt's actually getting really hard to like Apple
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mjburgess 3y ago> https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-... 2,000,000 installs acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees, even if you don't make any money That's up from $0 USD.
- cranium 3y agoThat's one sharp jump... I wonder how many unknowing developers will get a real scare after receiving the bill for something they don't even use.
- airtonix 3y ago[dead]
- zigzag312 3y agoNot just installs, updates too [0]. 2,000,000 updates acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees per month! I hope the EU fines them for blatantly trying to circumvent the law, and makes it a reoccurring monthly fine until they properly comply with the DMA. [0] "A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, ..." https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
- fennecfoxy 3y agoIs it a one time fee for the "first update of the year outside of the first install year" though? I mean it's still all bullshit. How are they even justifying these fees if the app is being distributed entirely outside of the app store? So weird.
- nofunsir 3y agoThe penalty being hefted by truly popular free apps, this seems clearly aimed at protecting Apple’s investment into their own free apps, such as: Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Garageband, Why? Because if you affect one aspect of Apple’s carefully crafted business model, you touch many more. For instance, the fact that there’s no good free calculator on the iPad is bonkers. Why is it bonkers? Did Apple go “oopsie, we never got around to finishing the iPad calculator app.” for years? No. It’s a calculated decision. Another example, why did Apple never have a weather app for the iPad UNTIL they bought out their best competition, which happened to be web-based? Apple factors in everything. Will X push more sales of Y product or Z service? Will the fact that this feature is randomly not present in this set of devices help sell more mac/iPad/iPhone? Apple loses more than the face-value (which is a lot) of their App store control. They lose a portion of control over their less-tangible business model. If this wasn’t the case, they’d still be selling iPods.
- ljm 3y agoThis press release could not be more passive aggressive. Barely a sentence goes by without a petulant remark about gasp being regulated by a system of governance that doesn't pander to big business.
- mrtksn 3y agoI kind of enjoyed their passive aggressive bitchy tone, it reminded me of sosumi[0] iPhones have become great with the EU forcing the USB on them, the new capabilities are making me consider a new iPhone despite my iPhone 14 Pro is still excellent. I really want to be able to film directly on external SSD for example. I think with the DMA, EU is making Apple a favour again by saving them from themselves. Although sales are still great, other brands are doing amazing things and Apple lacks in some areas. I think its very possible that if the developers find ways to do interesting things with iPhones outside the Apple's walled garden, we can see another golden age for iPhone because many things that Apple doesn't allow are simply due to brand protections. Apple can sell more iPhones and people can do questionable things(porn, crypto etc) on their phones without blaming it on Apple. The iPhone has become great but boring, even one can argue that its forcing SV culture over people all over the world. When you don't have to ask Apple employees what you can do on your phone, actual original things can come up. Apple might lose a bit control and revenue but might become the impartial platform of an exciting future. Still there are some unclear stuff though. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
- user_7832 3y ago> sosumi Apple of the past was the underdog, complete with a more aggressive attitude. Today's apple is the largest (tech?) company in the world, with a highly "refined" corpo-speak sheen. If they were still small their tone might've been funny (eg dbrand), but coming from a company that no longer plays nice (see: walled garden and anti consumer practices), it just feels cheap and petty.
- mrtksn 3y agoI still enjoyed it. The libertarians are probably freaking out but that's why we have a government, to keep companies in check.
- remix2000 3y agoCould this mean that third-party apps will be able to use MAP_JIT?
- nerdjon 3y agoAs a user, for now I am glad this is only in the EU. I am not looking forward to how this will degrade the user experience in favor of "choice" for User, when in reality its choice for the developers and Users have to follow. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this was really necessary from a User prospective. The only argument I will buy is the limitations in what could be on the store like Adult apps, emulation, and similar. Which is valid, but not something requiring a separate store. The day that an app requires me to install a separate App Store to use is the day my smartphone becomes less useful and I stop using that particular app. Being on the App Store has benefits to me as a User, particularly when it comes to privacy and billing. Do we really need to bring up just how much companies like Facebook pushed back on the app tracking bulletin and the scary popups many apps put up to try to convince you to allow them to track you? Or the dark patterns that many companies continue to engage in regarding billing? Right now we are dealing with Cable companies complaining about yearly notices of renewal and being able to easily cancel, and you are going to try to tell me that companies won't find a way to abuse this? Literally today I was trying to cancel a task management app that I mistakenly signed up on the web instead of through the app, and I have to email them to do so. But they are more than happy to let me increase the cost of my subscription with a single click. So no this is not about choice for Users as this continues to be framed as, my choice was to go with an iOS Device in the first place for this walled garden. In the coming years the choice will be more and more made for me by developers. There is basically zero chance that Facebook, maybe Amazon, and companies big enough to try it won't jump at this chance when they have a big enough name to be able to leave the App Store and other developers can just piggy back on that.
- paxys 3y agoDo you consider your PC "less useful" because there isn't a single app store for all your software, a single browser engine, a 30% surcharge for all your spending etc.?
- nerdjon 3y agoMy PC is a single purpose device, and that is for gaming. Which considering I use Steam for many of my games (not all) that 30% commission is already there. The reality is many people use their PC's far differently than they use their phones. When my PC was my primary computing device many of the things I use and pay for on my phone either simply didn't exist, or I would never dream to pay for them. Also you are missing the point, my phone becomes less useful because I flat out refuse to hand over access to my phone to a company which wishes to abuse that privilege of an alternative store. If they were going to act the way I want them to act, they would have no reason to use an alternative store.
- barbazoo 3y ago[flagged]
- GeoAtreides 3y ago> Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users. > new risks the DMA poses to EU users Oh wow. Just wow. Thank you based Apple for '''protecting''' the EU users from the bad, evil Digital Marketing Act. You are so awesome and great! Truly evil stuff this DMA, you can read more about it here: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- duringmath 3y agoHow the EU is getting away with all these restrictions targeting US businesses is beyond me
- Neil44 3y agoHow US businesses think they can operate in the EU without being subject to their laws is beyond me
- duringmath 3y agoThat's not how global free trade works, these laws weren't already established they were added to specifically target American companies which must be in violation of several WTO ordinance.
- alainv 3y agoThat is a very strong assertion. Please provide the WTO ordinances in question and/or case law. Unfounded assertions do not add to the discussion. Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?
- planb 3y agoHuh? Apple is free to stop selling iPhones in the EU
- kingsleyopara 3y agoJust like EU customers are free to buy a different phone… oh wait
- modeless 3y agoSo Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers fees[1], even when distributing through alternative stores. In fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install after the installed base passes 1M (updates count as "installs"). They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run. Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide. Clearly they feel that their service doesn't justify the fees in a competitive market (even though any competition will be minimal with the anticompetitive measures they're still clinging to in these changes). The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines. [1] On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.
- turquoisevar 3y ago> So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers fees[1] To a much lesser degree, but yes. The DMA explicitly allows for this. > In fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install after the installed base passes 1M (updates count as "installs"). This is misreading. Alternative stores would only owe a CTF for their own store being installed (no threshold). The free apps within the store are subject to the threshold and are to be paid by the developers of said apps. > They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run. Yes. Pretty much. Apple will require a letter of credit of $1M for any potential alternative store, this is in part for liability reasons and in part to better ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc. I think it’s pretty reasonable, but yes, it is a hurdle for community run or grassroots alternative stores. > Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide. Your premise is off. They claimed, the agreement structures it as, and the courts accepted, that the commission was primarily to pay for Apple’s IP, with services being secondary. Whether something reasonable or not differs from reasonable mind to reasonable mind. So I can’t make any judgement calls on that. But the way they’ve restructured the fees for the EU definitely suggests a consistent logic on the part of Apple. They still offer the 15% commission for small developers and renewals after the first year and 30% for big developers. Alternatively they offer a fee structure that is split with an a la carte character. Namely: - 10% or 17% commission for small or big developers respectively for the use of App Store services - 3% payment processing fee if you use Apple’s IAP payment processing - €0.50/install for each unique install in a year as Core Technology Fee (i.e., for use of IP) after 1M installs in a given year With the last few, the IP fee, not being optional. Which makes sense because all apps use Apple’s frameworks and other IP whether you use their payment processing or App Store services or not. So I don’t see a lie on the count of subjectivity and on the count of consistent logic. > The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines. A while back there was a daemon found that fulfills this job. I believe it was called countryd and it uses a combination of cellular network, account data, WiFi country code and the like. > On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple. The annual fee is negligible and spent as soon as you start submitting a a build or two per month. The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle because there’s always cost in tooling involved. Whether you buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that point why stop there, why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?
- w4rh4wk5 3y agoSo, long story short, I won't be able to simply side-load an app on iOS like I can do with Android today, can I?
- tomashubelbauer 3y agoThat's what I wanna know. How do I build an XCode project completely offline, not signed into my Apple ID on anything, not paying the 99 USD fee and just AirDrop it to my phone or whatever. I am hoping DMA brings this ability and lets me make personal apps just for myself. Reading this gave me the impression Apple Apple is complying in ways which might not give me this ability. I remain confused as to what the actual status of this is.
- anfilt 3y agoSame because if sideloaded apps require this notarization that negates the whole point sideloading. Notarization still requires apple to review the app from reading the post by apple. If they don't like the app they can refuse to notarize it defeating the whole purpose of sideloading. This still allows apple to decide what apps can and can't be installed on devices they do not own!!! IF this turns out to be the case.
- vdaea 3y agoI want to be able to install pirated IPA files so I can, for example, use Spotify Premium for free. I have always been able to do this with APK files on Android. Will I be able to do that on iOS after these changes are in place? AltStore is a bit annoying to use. From other comments I am suspecting this won't be possible so this new regulation is the worst of both worlds: we will be forced to install 3rd-party stores for some apps but we won't be able to install any app we want outside of stores. And on top of that, one of those browser selection popups whenever we set up our device.
- jallasprit 3y agoHighly recommend reading some of the actual text from the regulation: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
- roamerz 3y ago[flagged]
- sourcegrift 3y agoSo the user has to be at the whims of a dominant player anyway. And if so, why do you prefer the whims of Apple?
- roamerz 3y agoI buy Apple products because in my opinion, they work on my behalf to protect my interests better than the other options available to me. I think they have been leading in this area and by virtue of competition have pushed other vendors to do the same. I can’t imagine Android based devices would be nearly as privacy focused today if it weren’t for users moving to the Apple ecosystem in search of better security.
- cherryteastain 3y agoYou have degoogled Android options like GrapheneOS that are far, far better for your privacy than Apple devices.
- roamerz 3y agoThat is likely true and I was in that game for awhile but tired of the effort required and the limited hardware that would be fully functional and reliable as a production device. With Apple it’s just easier and I can focus on other areas of life and just use my phone as the tool it is rather than spending untold hours making everything work. Truth be told there was a time in my life when I actually enjoyed fiddling with that but I got my fill and am on to other priorities. There is only so much time in the day.
- ssbash 3y agoGrapheneOS devices lack push notifications, and lot of other features that make it unviable for most users. Making exceptions like installing the Aurora Store or microG, defeat the point of a degoogled phone. iOS can’t be hardened it to a 0 telemetry state like GrapheneOS, but it is a fully featured OS. It strikes the right balance for general consumers, and prosumers like myself.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reacharavindh 3y agoWish list: A push notification app that allows users with self hosted stuff to send push notifications for free without Apple’s blessing. Open source browser with ublock origin
- kevincox 3y agoI heard that Apple now supports WebPush. So you should be able to use this. You may need to set up the subscription in Safari but IIUC after clicking the notification you could be redirected to an app.
- henryfjordan 3y agoCheckout https://pushover.net/ https://pushover.net/ I paid $5 once, years ago, and can push notifications to my phone from my custom little self-hosted stuff.
- gabrielgio 3y agoI use telegram for that.
- MR4D 3y agoI wonder if side-loaded apps with have green icons. Seriously though, I expect Apple to do something to differentiate them.
- layer8 3y agoMaybe a green dot instead of a blue one when they are new/updated.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago"For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates" Jesus. Not only is Apple serving us a shit sandwich with this press release, they're telling us it's filet mignon, for our own good. Is anyone who has been in tech for the past 25 years or so not completely disillusioned with the state of tech as a business? The "tech optimism" of the late 90s seems like another universe. It feels like every single big tech company is only worried about their business and profits, service to the user be damned. They're all "evil", rotten to the core, 100%, across the board. New technology (and I'm not talking about how we usually refer to it as Internet/silicon tech these days) used to be about making people's lives better. I think the piece of tech that I most value these days is probably my dishwasher. So much other tech is just actively hostile - think of the HP CEO's recent announcement that we should all owe HP money per page. Like there is a person on the planet who wants that. As someone who's worked in tech since the .com boom, my disillusionment is on the verge of depression. I'm honestly ashamed at the forces I've contributed to, even if only a minuscule bit.
- fsflover 3y ago> my disillusionment is on the verge of depression. I'm honestly ashamed at the forces I've contributed to, even if only a minuscule bit. Not everything is lost yet. You can support small companies going against the stream, including Purism, Pine64, System76 and more.
- seydor 3y agoyou're a large number of years too late
- crazygringo 3y agoI don't know what tech optimism of the 90's you're talking about. That was the era when people called Microsoft "Micro$oft" because they thought it was so greedy and evil. I don't see anything having changed at all. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
- seydor 3y ago
- meindnoch 3y agoSo if enough EU people install a free app, the developer will be liable for €0.50 per install? T-thanks EU!
- user_7832 3y agoHow is the EU responsible for something Apple did?
- layer8 3y agoOnly if you agree to the new terms in order to publish on an alternative app store. And surely you mean “thanks Apple”.
- kiwijamo 3y agoErm it's Apple who has made this decision not the EU.
- arlcode 3y agoExpect that to be challenged by the regulator/courts Obvious malicious compliance
- KomoD 3y agocorrection: thanks Apple
- user_7832 3y ago> Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users. It's hilarious how much a trillion dollar company can act like a petulant child when they get worried about losing their financial grip.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- wepple 3y agoThey’re 100% correct though
- Scharkenberg 3y agoThe DMA poses big risks to Apple's profits.
- wvenable 3y agoThey are correct that there are new risks but there would also be new benefits for consumers. Apple has done a very good job of mitigating the risks and the benefits to their advantage.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- layer8 3y ago> iOS apps on the App Store will pay a reduced commission of either 10 percent (for the vast majority of developers, and subscriptions following their first year) or 17 percent on transactions for digital goods and services. So we’ll still not be able to purchase Kindle books from the app, it seems.
- filleokus 3y ago> […] enabling developers to use browser engines, other than WebKit I'm afraid this announcement will turn out to be disastrous for the open web as we know it. Even if some enthusiasts now will be able to use Firefox proper, the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over night. After this I guess the rendering engine market share will be roughly 80/20 Chromium/Webkit with Gecko as some rounding error. For how long will it be defensible for the average company to test their site on anything but Chromium?
- jayflux 3y ago> the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over night. No it won’t. The majority of “normal” users aren’t even aware their “chrome” app isn’t real chrome, so why would there be a mass install of a different browser? Some will yep but the mainstream aren’t going to change their habits over this. Your average person isn’t going “damn I wish I could have a different rendering engine on my phone”. Over a longer period of time we’ll see some interesting changes, but nothing is going to move the needle in the first few months or even first year.
- graphe 3y agoIf they allow desktop extensions then I can see it happening.
- filleokus 3y agoBased on the data I've seen, about 15-20% of iOS users on mainstream popular (top ≈30) websites in Sweden use Chrome. I'm not sure how representative this is of all of EU. Those 15-20% will be "lost" overnight, or as soon as Chrome drops Webkit on iOS (which is what I meant by overnight). Maybe it was pessimistic of me to assume Chrome will more than double its user base with the new browswer-picker-modal "overnight". But I would be surprised if it's not noticeable. Normal people will see it and go "Oh that's the logo I click to get the internet on the PC in the study, let's try that, maybe all my football bookmarks will be synced".
- sircastor 3y agoIt's not unreasonable to say that once they can, Google will issue an update to Chrome that replaces the WebKit version with the Blink version wholesale. That whole group applies (as far as I can tell) only to EU users. I don't use Chrome (Brave - I know, it's still Chromium) but every chance they get Google tries to get me to switch to Chrome proper.
- joshspankit 3y agoNo company should be allowed to both sell the hardware and run the store for 3rd party content. Edit: Actually I realize my thoughts on this are too emotional and my words aren’t coming out in a way that clearly communicates the issues I see.
- endisneigh 3y agoWhy not? Don’t use it if you don’t like it.
- thih9 3y agoWhat does this mean in practice? 1. Will banned categories like emulators, apps with adult content, or apps competing with apple’s products be available for iOS? 2. One step further, what about apps using internal apis?
- akmarinov 3y agoSeems like they will yeah > Unlike App Store review, notarization will not enforce quality or content standards. But the publishers of those emulators will need quite a bit of money to keep up with the Apple Core Technology fee
- thih9 3y agoThe fee is half a euro per user per year, so a subscription of one euro per year should solve this.
- akmarinov 3y agoNot if 10 million people download the app, see that you want 1€/year and delete it. Then you just owe Apple a lot of money
- TillE 3y agoA simple non-subscription paid app (say €2.99) makes way more sense, and you almost certainly won't have to worry about ever reaching a million installs.
- legitster 3y agoMicrosoft's: "We look forward to continuing to work with the European Commission to finalize our compliance obligations." Google: "While we support many of the DMA's ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, the new rules involve difficult trade-offs, and we're concerned that some of these rules will reduce the choices available to people and businesses in Europe." Apple: “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings." Android and Windows have lived in the chaos of open platforms so much that they can shrug off most of these regulations. Apple's entire business model is being a walled garden.
- ilikehurdles 3y agoI look forward to having 6 different app stores and launchers installed mostly apps I open once a month.
- speedgoose 3y agoI look forward to have emulators and ads free video players without having to go through cumbersome workarounds to install the apps.
- oblio 3y agoYou do know this doesn't happen on Android, right? There is the option to do it but in practice it barely happens.
- PrayagBhakar 3y agoI look forward to having Cydia as an AppStore on my phone again
- Avamander 3y agoI look forward to having uncensored versions of apps that don't force idiotic American puritanism on me. Who knows, maybe I'd also like to use a proper Python interpreter once in a while or a torrent client.
- deleted 3y ago
- chipweinberger 3y agoDo you need to use an app store? Can you install software yourself?
- amusingimpala75 3y agoI’m just as much a Firefox fan as anyone, and I use Firefox exclusively on desktop, even going around explaining the benefits, etc. to others. That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this spreads beyond the EU, that’s practically handing Chrome a monopoly on a silver platter. What’s to stop them? I would just like to retroactively reply to the objection that the government can just antitrust regulate Google. Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free market, I would like to point out how long it took the EU to implement these changes since Apple started these behaviors. If Chrome does obtain a monopoly, we’re looking at years before the government even does anything.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y ago>That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this spreads beyond the EU, that’s practically handing Chrome a monopoly on a silver platter. >Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free market. So, free market is fine until free market(the users that will install and use Chrome because it's better than Safari) does something you think it's bad.
- kingsleyopara 3y agoThat’s assuming the free market is what drives users to chrome and not: This browser is unsupported, switch to Chrome now
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3y agoThis is not assuming anything, Chrome has the market share it has because it's an better browser than any alternative.
- amusingimpala75 3y agoYeah this is what I was intending. I don’t have a problem with individuals using Chrome (I think it’s a bad choice overall but it’s their choice). However “YouTube works best in Chrome” and “GMail works best in Chrome” because they depend on some tracking API, it’s not really the choice of the user anymore. Good thing WebDRM got delayed ‘cause I don’t want to install Chrome just to use my banking app.
- shmerl 3y ago[flagged]
- a1o 3y agoI don't understand, with this core technology fee I can't sell a game that is finished, only a service as it would otherwise have a possibility of it generating a continuous fee when selling it through the app store.
- layer8 3y agoIt’s easy to understand: Apple really only wants apps that make them money.
- kaba0 3y agoI mean, they are a company, what did you expect? Nonprofits are exempted from the fees, so an open-source app store could be possible. Win-win for everyone (except other companies, but isn’t that the point of capitalism?)
- layer8 3y agoIt means that you have to set up a nonprofit for your weekend hobby project. The reality is rather that the hobby project is unlikely to happen due to this. And in Europe there is a slightly different perspective on companies and capitalism. “Making money” is not taken as a blanket justification for anything. Companies have social responsibilities, and there is a balancing of company and consumer interests.
- turquoisevar 3y agoHeck of a weekend hobby project if it manages to pull in over 1M unique installs on iPhones in the EU alone. Might want to make it your day job in that case.
- kaba0 3y agoA single nonprofit can create an alternative app store, and distribute any open-source app from within - this is pretty much how f-droid works on android. I just don’t see how is it a negative change — eu citizens get more choices, while the eu laws won’t be turned against apple itself (a metastore would benefit no one, but meta).
- newbie578 3y agoApple must be crazy with their per install charge fee. I am impressed at how obtuse Apple is, and the level they are going to be petty. The hammer will only fall harder.
- toyg 3y ago"Yay, finally! Thanks EU!" <checks where he lives> "... Fuck Brexit with a rake ..."
- librish 3y agoImportant to note - "New business terms available for apps in the EU — to reflect the DMA’s requirements for alternative distribution and payment processing, Apple is also sharing new business terms for apps in the EU. Developers have a choice to remain on Apple’s existing terms or adopt new terms that reflect the new capabilities." So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved.
- singularity2001 3y agoSo for developers it's either stay with Apple 100% or leave?
- yreg 3y ago> So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved. The new terms are very appealing to the vast majority of developers. Most of us don't have 1M+ installs a year. They are unappealing to the likes of Facebook or YouTube.
- m3kw9 3y agoAnd where are the pitch forks now that came out when Unity tried to charge per install fees? If you accidentally went viral on the AppStore you could go bankrupt
- nickmain 3y ago> Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not be able to switch back to Apple’s existing business terms for their EU apps. This seems like an understated gotcha.
- 85fce 3y agoMarketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoWhy don't mac apps have a "Core Technology Fee", just think these things fall completely apart when they have a whole platform sitting there without these things.
- HenriTEL 3y agoThat really is the elephant in the room IMO. How can it be so terrible from a security perspective on one platform and ok on another one? Is my laptop really that different from my phone? People may have different usage but they both contain sensitive data and are meant to be used in public places. We just operate one with a touch screen and the other with a keyboard + track pad.
- igornadj 3y agoThe argument is a phone is a critical tool, an issue affecting your phone is much more dangerous because you may need to use your phone in an emergency. That is Apple's argument for why ios and macos are different.
- HenriTEL 3y agoThat makes sense. I'll also grant that one of the most effective security measure is to deny by default and only allow stuff explicitly (with a single, controlled app store in this case). Personally I think the reasons for those security measure are not worth the freedom limitations and I guess that's why I've never been a fan of the apple ecosystem.
- neop1x 3y agoOf course. If Apple stopped supporting app installation from other sources than App Store on Mac, I am sure lots of customers would leave the platform. Developing and installing apps is the main feature of a computer. Apple emerged from this, from BSD and UNIX background, they are still using mostly Linux servers, yet they are taking this away from their users and force them into their "secure" stores which they control fully. EU should fight this and if Apple doesn't want to complain, they should leave EU market. There will also be less electronic waste in the end...
- akmarinov 3y ago> If you take the EU iOS market share of 33.3% and the number of EU citizens (448 million), you get ~150 million That seems way too low out of 2 billion devices as per Apple to cause any splintering of iOS, it seems to be. Devs will be targeting the lowest common denominator and also iOS usually goes as the US goes, so other than the EU getting a couple of neat alternative apps - this won’t amount to much in the grand scheme.
- abhinavk 3y agoOther countries might follow.
- kingsleyopara 3y agoCitizens != Devices
- m3kw9 3y agoIf I’m a dev in the us and the app goes to the EU AppStore will I be charged with per install fee?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- user2342 3y agoCan anybody explain: do the possibilities of alternate distribution modes and fees (optionally) apply to all developers worldwide or only to EU based developers? I.e. is it developer based or App based? And furthermore, I - as an EU based developer - have an App that is currently distributed worldwide. After agreeing to the alternate fees, they are only applied to the portion of sales from EU customers. Customers in the rest of the world are handled with the standard fees?
- 1f60c 3y agoI love Apple, and I'm frankly shocked that they would put out this statement in its current form. In the opening paras, their barely-contained rage is palpable, and sentences like > Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party web browser — other than Safari — as their default. make me wonder if anyone proof-read this thing at all. That said, this is a good day for EU users, and I applaud everyone who worked so hard to make this happen. The notarization requirement seems quite reasonable, and honestly better than I expected.
- TillE 3y agoIt's a very Steve Jobs tone, much more so than anything I can remember from Apple in recent years.
- titaniumtown 3y agoVery well put. I honestly didn't know how Apple was going to announce or implement these changes, but they are definitely not happy!
- coryfklein 3y agoThe tone seems completely professional? I'm not sure where you're reading the "palpable rage" from. Because they used the word "already"? I'm not seeing it.
- darkhorse222 3y agoIn the byline: > For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates ... >Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users. ... >The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats. That being said I agree with them, the reason android is a buggy, low quality piece of crap is because of their lack of control over their platform. Apple should be able to closely guard the apps that get on users phones because its Apple that will be judged, not the app. We're going to see lots more malware for sure. Lots more dark patterns. I'm not surprised they resent it.
- user2342 3y agoIs the "Core Technology Fee" applied to free Apps? Example: I make a free App that gets very popular but has a rather seasonal character. Then there is a possibility, that many users will reinstall the App each year for a short time. Then I would have to pay the 50ct per install each year?
- urbandw311er 3y agoYes but only if you sell it via a third party App Store. If you continue to sell it in Apple’s you won’t have to pay the 50ct.
- alphabettsy 3y agoOn one hand Chrome on the iPhone is a win for choice. On the other hand Chrome gaining further marketshare and having a browser monopoly seems bad. I guess we’ll see what happens.
- Apocryphon 3y agoSounds like the hypothetical AppStoreKit idea I suggested- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=apocryphon%20appstorekit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If only Apple had deigned to try this before regulators appeared.
- hank_z 3y agoIt appears that these changes are not coming to UK. I wonder how UK users feel about it.
- Kelteseth 3y agoWhy would they, when they left the EU years ago?
- anfilt 3y agoLooking through the comments here and I didn't see it. Does anyone have any idea how apple is going to track installs outside the app store? Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed even people sideloaded it? Also will iOS launch an un-notarized app that you side load? Probably not knowing apple, but if it won't I am not sure I consider that side loading in my opinion. This is because then that code still has be reviewed by apple to get notarized. This still gives apple the power to reject apps it does not like which negates the whole point of side loading.
- crazygringo 3y ago> Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed even people sideloaded it? What Apple is implementing isn't sideloading at all -- it's enabling third-party app stores that will track everything the same way Apple's store does, and using Apple's newly provided APIs.
- chatmasta 3y agoPresumably, their "approved app stores" will be required by Apple to only distribute notarized apps. And developers will pay per-install at notarization time.
- LoganDark 3y agoOf course this is only available in the EU. Why would Apple compromise its monopoly position everywhere else? Just like how Windows also only allows you to override Edge in the EU. It's starting to get on my nerves that these basic freedoms are being locked to specific regions. It's obvious why it happens, but it upsets me as a consumer.
- drewg123 3y agoMaybe this has already been answered in a downstream thread, but I think it deserves its own thread... For applications delivered via a 3rd party store, how is Apple going to (a) identify them, and (b) count their installs so that it can charge its 0.50 per install fee?
- arlcode 3y agoThey'll put that as a requirement to get notarized ans spin some yarn how that is required to maintain "basic security". I hope the EU will put an end to that real quick.
- spiderice 3y agoFrom the press release > Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review Shouldn’t it be pretty trivial to track installs of Apple is notarizing every app? Even if the installs are from other sources?
- rahkiin 3y agoFor a marketplace to install an app they call the MarketplaceKit installApp() api. Apple can track this as it 1) then points to a url of the marketplace storage 2) the item is notarized and contains thus developer id that needs to pay
- matt3210 3y agoPer install is the worst model and Apple knows that. This is definitely retaliation for being forced to allow sideloading.
- chinathrow 3y agoThe don't even allow sideloading...
- instagib 3y agoSee: https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ 2 apps, re-sign weekly maximum. 3 if you do it without AltStore. Unlimited with a $99/yr developer account.
- matt3210 3y agoIt looks like, while allowing sideloading, apps must still be signed by apple (notarized). Why do playstation, nintendo, and xbox not need to allow sideloading?
- popcalc 3y agoI'm sure this is one reason many people moved over to PC gaming in the last decade.
- matwood 3y agoAnd how can consoles get cuts of revenue when games are sold? It's all about licensing and contracts. Why does Epic get 5% on every game sold using their engine? Same reason. How can publishers sell licenses to libraries with a fixed number of checkouts and time? Same reason. And, this is the reason Apple will point to when demanding their 30% or per install fee. PCs are the exception in this world.
- NekkoDroid 3y agoBecause under the DMA rulings they do not qualify as Gatekeeper Platforms IIRC
- xvector 3y agoBingo. And this is the problem with the DMA. Protectionist and gerrymandered. Why isn't Spotify part of the DMA? Who knows!? Ask any musician and they'll tell you it should be.
- NekkoDroid 3y agoI am p sure what you should rather be mad at is Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group. Spotify also has competition (more than 1) in Apple Music, Amazon Music and YouTube Music (and Deezer?), at least those are the ones I always see popping up and being used/talked about. There are then places like Bandcamp that provide something similar, but not the same.
- 3y ago
- _cenw 3y agoThis is the epitome of malicious compliance, and it doesn't even seem very compliant in how the "core technology fee" and the built-in hard dependency on Apple notarizing is handled. Apple will get slapped for this.
- bni 3y agoThats just great, more popups to dismiss, mandated by the EU
- matt3210 3y agoWhy is Apple subject to these rules but not game consoles?
- _cenw 3y agobecause game consoles are not phones, the most common and often sole general purpose computing device people own?
- sureglymop 3y agoGame consoles should be also. So, you're asking the right question but I hope you're not trying to make the point that Apple shouldn't be.
- etaioinshrdlu 3y agoIf we buy a phone in the EU and bring it to the USA, do we get sideloading in the USA?
- natch 3y agoJust had a glance so far, but it’s great to see Apple pulling no punches in public here.
- gtvwill 3y agoAh yes apple the shining bastion of what's best for the consumer. /s Easy fix. Don't make apple apps.
- nprateem 3y agoI suspect they're charging $0.50 on alternative app stores as well as their own to be able to give something during the inevitable negotiations with the EU: "OK we'll stop taxing other stores, just let us keep taxing ours" Straight out of the claim-enormous-damages playbook to anchor the figure higher.
- beders 3y agoI expect Apple to continue to provide a secure platform. I will not use any other app store for that reason. I like the wall around Apple's garden.
- edhelas 3y agoWe literally call it the Stockholm Syndrome
- yreg 3y agoPeople who disagree won't like your comment, but it is a legitimate view. I'm all for side loading, but at the same time I would like Apple to have enough drag to force the big players (e.g. Meta) to continue to publish on the App Store and follow the rules.
- fayazara 3y agoI hope this also opens up all the PWA capabilities as well
- Unfrozen0688 3y agoAndroid phones like Samsung and Oneplus etc are good now. Why put yourself through this? For iMessage?
- mattmaroon 3y agoAh so their new tactic is to try to scare everyone into not using the new things they’re forced to enable. Guess that’s all that’s left.
- leoh 3y agoDoes anyone know if the letter of the law requires Apple to support users abroad who are EU citizens?
- zarzavat 3y agoI’m also curious about this. Say you install a non-Apple App Store app in the EU, then you go to Turkey, what happens to the app you installed? Does it stop working? Does it get updates? What happens to the alternative store?
- Aeolun 3y agoIt already doesn’t do this. You can stay on the app store you are on, or switch to the app store for the country you are in. You can even temporarily switch, install a bunch of stuff, and switch back, but doing so is extremely onerous, as I think you need to cancel all your existing subscriptions and payment methods, as well as empty your balance (not sure of specifics, done it exactly once years ago).
- zarzavat 3y agoAt present yes but there were some rumours that Apple was going to apply strict geofencing to the new changes, over and above what they currently do, for example using GPS to ensure you are in the EU.
- makeitdouble 3y agoCurrently the only requirement to join an app store is to have a valid payment mean in the store country (including gift card I think?) Most people I know juggle multiple store accounts (one in each country) and switch the app store account when they need new apps only available on the other side.
- otoburb 3y agoApple provided a fee calculator so that people can run their own scenarios: https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
- mcfedr 3y agoYet another win for Brexit
- sergiotapia 3y agoDoes this mean I will now be able to install a random .app just like I can on Android with .apks?
- dzaima 3y agoOf note is that starting a marketplace takes a stand-by letter of credit of €1,000,000 [0], so no getting around the core technology free by just starting a bunch of marketplaces. [0]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketplace-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketpl...
- singularity2001 3y agoCould a non-profit meet all requirements? Free Developer Association NGO?
- rahkiin 3y agoAccording to the docs, an NGO has special fee waiver of they want to, but then all apps they distribute must also be of fee-waived organizations like NGOs. So there could be a marketplace of just NGO apps with 0€ fee. In the EU, on iPhone only.
- theodric 3y agoAm I the only one that thinks the EU is gonna take one look at this, determine that it's anticompetitive and completely at odds with the spirit of the law, and take a giant shit on Apple's head? I don't think governments like when anybody but them internalises externalities-- particularly not crawling bureaucratic horrors of over-regulation like the EU. (I'm an EU subject, incidentally.)
- Ekaros 3y agoTime to split software from hardware. I think that is entirely reasonable step for EU to take.
- MBCook 3y ago[flagged]
- Aerbil313 3y agoThe worse thing is once a single engine dominates, implementation will be the spec and no one will be able to create an alternative engine again.
- MBCook 3y agoAnd after an anti-trust ruling to fix things, it will be normal again right? Just like how MS is no longer the vast majority of PC sold since the anti trust trial. Right? Right?
- bitpush 3y agoWhat a strange take. How can you say that don't like one company making too much control while advocating for giving too much control to another? Fair competition and level playing field is the only way users get the most benefit.
- MBCook 3y ago> Fair competition and level playing field is the only way users get the most benefit. THAT’s the problem. We don’t have that. Google is the default search engine for the VAST majority of users. Plus Gmail is incredibly popular. And Google Docs, Sheets, etc. Google Maps is king on the web. And they use every single property to push users to download Chrome. In top of they can they can break other browsers on their properties whether purposely or through inaction. And that can drive people to Chrome too. So it’s not a level playing field. Google is already the vast majority of the browser market. The only thing holding them back was Apple’s policy. Which is now gone in the EU and likely many other places soon. I contend this will have a huge unintended consequence for the web. I don’t think Apple should be able to control browsers. But I don’t think Google should have unfettered access either. And if you do that in the wrong order you screw everyone. And that’s where we are.
- dev1ycan 3y agoI love how they keep crying all over the news about LE SECURITY RISKS!!11 yeah man, every single person knows there's security risks in anything online, don't care. Do you also complain about security risks related to roads hence why you don't even cross a road?
- aranelsurion 3y agoOh but trust me this is "for your own good". - signed with love, The Corporation.
- tonoto 3y agoApple ambassadors comes in 3, 2, 1.. to defend even this ridiculous fee that Apple plans to introduce. "..but what about Google.."
- kaba0 3y agoRidiculous fee for for-profit companies that want to sell their software for free, aka where you are the product? Sorry, I won’t be crying that no MetaStore will be financially possible. But an FDroid alternative can work, and that’s the only thing I wanted (and many end-users who didn’t even know they wanted it)
- tonoto 3y agoF-Droid or just give me a repository. Something of the sort pkgsrc to let me install the tools I want to have on my phone.
- cush 3y agoClassic Apple malicious compliance
- ssalka 3y agoMake jailbreaking great again
- dangoodmanUT 3y agoa lot of hot takes inbound... oh wait already 782 comments
- zmmmmm 3y agoIt feels like there is an almost unprofessional level of snark in the way this is written. I assume Apple is banking on consumers siding with them on it but I have to wonder about the wisdom of doing that. The EU seems to be very unafraid to take on big tech, and i wouldn't want to be the company that triggers them to decide to make example to deter future malicious compliance.
- elevatedastalt 3y agoEU governments love to take on big tech, but does it reflect in the actual populace?
- beejiu 3y ago> but does it reflect in the actual populace? Does that matter?
- elevatedastalt 3y agoYes, because the comment I replied to was talking about the consumers (aka the populace. > I assume Apple is _banking on consumers siding with them_ on it but I have to wonder about the wisdom of doing that
- izacus 3y agoYes. The populace votes and supports this widely.
- rvba 3y agoYes. Apart from getting things cheaper, there are multiple reasons from country to country (people prefer to not share private data, generic dislike for big tech, pirate party)
- kachnuv_ocasek 3y agoMostly yes.
- munk-a 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leokennis 3y agoThese forced changes feel like adding a “disable ABS and traction control” button to a car. Great from the perspective of race car drivers. But my 70 years old parents ARE going to press that button and they ARE going to have a digital car crash because of this. I’m already looking forward to the “I lost my bookmarks!” call because they chose a different browser and the “my battery is dying so fast!” call because they sideloaded the new Facebook app with unprecedented crap in it from Facebook’s marketplace.
- bagels 3y agoIt was already hard to make money on iOS, especially for low priced apps. This seems like it would completely eliminate popular ad-free and low cost free apps?
- Nathanba 3y agohopefully this has the opposite effect of what Apple intends and ruins their app ecosystem. Non-EU developers hopefully also stop developing apps for Apple.
- jordansmithnz 3y agoI have a free utility app for school kids with an install base in the multiple millions. I don’t make much off it, but many users find it helpful. It’s most popular in the EU. So… if I’m understanding right, I need to take the app down, or start charging an up front fee to school children? Nice one Apple. I hope I’m allowed to add a pop up explaining to users why the app will now incur a mandatory charge. The best way I can interpret this: it only applies to new downloads each year. In that case, it’s still concerning —- what happens if there is a surge of downloads? I’m on the hook for $50k overnight? And if updates are included in this number like some comments here suggest, users aren’t going to get any bug fixes. Wow. HN, please tell me I’m interpreting this wrong.
- pcammeraat 3y agoNo. Just do not switch to the new terms and keep the terms you are using now.
- wvenable 3y agoFrom the developer FAQ on Apple's site: > Developers who don’t want anything to change can stay on the exact same business terms available today — continuing to share their apps on the App Store alone, and to use the App Store’s secure payment processing. https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#faq https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
- jordansmithnz 3y agoThanks -- this is a relief. I hope it lasts though, I could see Apple deprecating this option in a few years, once most apps have adopted the newer terms.
- mk89 3y agoIf I understand it right, Apple was clever. The serious issue is for apps having more than 1 million installs (YouTube, Zoom, Slack, Outlook, Amazon, etc.). Strong "coincidence": these are the companies you don't want to allow to create alternative stores to, because they have their own payments methods: how long would it take Amazon, Google or Microsoft (the only one without a payment service, AFAIK) to run their brand new "Google/Amazon Store for iOS"? Probably they have it already half baked there waiting to be released. Now, they will have to either accept to use the App Store "way" (the current way, so all good) or pay huge fees for their own apps. Will they do it? Is it worth it? I am very curious! Alternative, smaller stores for smaller apps, instead, will be there and should be OK, as long as the apps don't exceed 1 million installs in a year (which is a lot, I guess). EDIT: I missed Meta Pay, apparently another payment method from one of the companies with the most downloaded apps. Yeah, it seems really that Apple doesn't want other stores from big companies.
- rahkiin 3y agoApp installs through alternative stores can not use the ‘1 million install credit’ that comes with the apple developer program. As in, you pay from the first install. (Except as ngo)
- FateOfNations 3y agoNo, that's only for the alternative store app itself. Epic will have to pay the €0.50 fee on the first install of Epic Games Store but not on the first million installs of Fortnight.
- robocat 3y agoAlso steam/valve?
- mk89 3y agoI would say yes. They definitely want to "demotivate" big players from running the show. If they do, they'll have to pay huge fees, so it's a big win for Apple.
- chupchap 3y agoWhat happens if Google or Meta pulls all its apps from the store?
- SpaceManNabs 3y agoHow well does the EU respond to malicious compliance?
- pxoe 3y ago>To qualify for the entitlement, your app must: Be available on iOS in the European Union only kicking and screaming. i mean, yes, that is "complying". but it is ridiculous. and, am i getting this right, just gonna create a bunch of "[browser name] EU Edition" apps, which is just gonna be wonderful. users can look forward to having something like Chrome (International) and Chrome EU (limited EU edition) be installed side by side, i guess. can we look forward to "[browser name] [country name] edition" per each country that'd fancy to have itself some regulation similar to that? that'd be so many browsers! dozens, hundreds! what an optimal solution.
- wvenable 3y agoThe app store hides apps that aren't available in your region -- even now.
- Hugsun 3y agoLast time I checked (~7 years ago) they didn't even share reviews between regions. It was infuriating in Iceland where for obvious reasons all but the most popular apps had less than 5 reviews.
- bhelkey 3y agoEU users should still be able to install the international versions of the apps, no? This they would see APP and APP (EU Edition).
- wvenable 3y agoI assume if you built an EU version of an app with, for example, your own browser engine then you wouldn't make the other "International" version available. What would be the point?
- bhelkey 3y agoIf you already have an international version, why would you prevent EU users from installing it? If you don't have an international audience, it wouldn't make sense to build two visions. But I imagine many apps want to target users outside the EU.
- jl6 3y agoThis reads like a masterpiece of passive aggressive malicious compliance.
- andersa 3y agoIt seems Apple has misunderstood their role here. They are to not be involved at all in transactions between other businesses delivering software to people's phones, just like we have done for every other general purpose computer. They will need a second, even stronger slap to finally understand it. Actually insane that they believe they will get away with this garbage.
- andersa 3y agoI am not a lawyer and not interested in reading hundreds of pages to figure out whether this is already non-compliant with the DMA, but it is clearly non-compliant with its intention, so I trust it will be fixed.
- londons_explore 3y agoLuckily laws in the EU are mostly enforced by the intention of the law, not the exact wording. Therefore I'm fairly confident that they will be found noncompliant. That might take many years though, allowing Apple a few more years profits.
- threeseed 3y agoCourts in EU and US have all agreed that Apple is well within its rights to charge a license fee for use of their technologies. No different to companies like Epic or OpenAI. And I would have doubts that any regulator would want to get into the business of deciding what is a fair percentage to charge for an SDk or API.
- janaagaard 3y ago[flagged]
- natch 3y agoProtective compliance. Not malicious. Protecting their users in as much as is possible given the ill-conceived DMA.
- gigel82 3y agoStockholm syndrome, look into it, seek therapy.
- kelthuzad 3y agothis is malicious compliance no doubt about it, I hope that the European Union brings down the hammer on Apple for this.
- pkilgore 3y agoWhoever wrote this did a great job of causing me to visualize the sneer on their face as they did so. Toddler level pouting + just Ivy League levels of "we know what's good for you more than you do".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- londons_explore 3y ago> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. Can't imagine that flying with the EU... The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came with a license for iOS)
- suslik 3y agoThat is why this should’ve never been about sideloading apps, but mandating a right to have root access.
- Cort3z 3y agoHow are they doing to be able to track this? If there is an alternative App Store, I would assume they don’t share their download numbers with Apple. Is Apple going to track all apps running in iPhones?
- Slartie 3y agoThey already do, and surely they continue to do so in the future, regardless of where the app came from. So finding out these numbers should be simple from a technical standpoint.
- insane_dreamer 3y ago> The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came with a license for iOS) The user paid for the technology in the phone, but the dev didn't pay for use of Apple's IP to build their own product which they are offering to users. I don't see regulators being able to challenge this (nor is it particularly unfair).
- mil22 3y agoThey may not like it, but the question is: is it actually illegal under the new DMA regulations as they are currently written? The DMA is 66 pages of legalese, otherwise I would have read it to find out: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
- occz 3y agoVery blatantly trying to circumvent the spirit of the law. Nothing a lawsuit for 10% of global annual revenues can't solve, though. I truly hope the EU puts down the law here and let Apple know how the find out-phase of their little gambit feels.
- sircastor 3y agoDoes anyone do anything but comply with the letter of the law? I think most companies do their best to continue doing business the way they have been. Most entities will take the path that benefits them the most. The law can't (and shouldn't) dictate ethics or morality. The spirit of the law is undefined, it's abstract and ambiguous. If an entity isn't judged for obeying the letter of the law, how can we have faith that we'll all be treated fairly? It's easy to call foul when its someone you don't like doing something you don't like. If a compliance law doesn't result in the compliance we desire, the law was poorly written.
- shortsunblack 3y agoSpirit of the law is defined. It's the first handful of sentences of any European regulation. And courts can and do rule in favour of lesser parties. If the legislature has made a clerical mistake in writing the law, the court can disregard the mistake (a technicality) and rule in the lines of the spirit of the law.
- mmmmmbop 3y agoSo obviously the new terms are worse for almost all business cases. That said, it's interesting to look at cases where they might be better. If you have a F2P game app averaging 50€ revenue per user per year and you introduce a limitation to 1M users, you can avoid the Core Technology Fee and end up with 0€ fees, as opposed to 15M€ yearly fees under the current terms.
- spacebanana7 3y agoThe Kindle store might also do well under these terms. If the average user buys a couple of books per year on it, avoiding 30% may be worth €0.50
- squeaky-clean 3y agoIf I'm reading it correctly, it would reduce the 30% fee to 17% unless you only distribute your app on third party app stores. > Reduced commission — iOS apps on the App Store will pay a reduced commission of either 10 percent (for the vast majority of developers, and subscriptions following their first year) or 17 percent on transactions for digital goods and services. I'm also not sure what the 10% fee applies to. Apple doesn't charge a fee if you're purchasing physical goods, only digital goods (that's why you can buy a paperback book on the Amazon app but you can't buy a Kindle book on the app). Isn't everything that could be purchased through an in app purchase or subscription a digital good or service?
- sircastor 3y agoThe current commission rates are 15% or 30%, with the latter applying to sales greater than $1M in revenue. I believe those rates are reducing to 10 and 17% respectively. If the arduousness of setting up a store, and complying with all the various components of that is a stick, this is the carrot - we'll charge you less for keeping in the App Store.
- stygiansonic 3y agohttps://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna... One of the requirements for third party App Store use by developers is maintaining a standby letter of credit of 1M euros from an A rated financial institution Edit: was mistaken, this is a requirement for the operator of a third party App Store.
- EasyMark 3y agoThis seems like something that the EU org pushing for opening up the iphone to more stores as egregious and they would commence with fining apple. No?
- Angostura 3y agoI think this is an interesting by Apple. They bid to remain the gatekeeper, ensuring a degree of control against malware on the platform. Either the EU says yes, or when the EU says no, Apple can tell consumers who are cross because they have been infested with a nasty "well, we wanted wanted to provide protection, but we weren't allowed to - tough luck"
- mil22 3y ago"Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not be able to switch back to Apple’s existing business terms for their EU apps." from https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#distribution-eu https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#... I have not seen this important aspect mentioned yet. Once you have opted in to Apple's new business terms, you will be locked in to those terms forever. Because of this restriction, given the ridiculous €0.50 per year per install fees, no developer who hopes their new app will one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.
- mthoms 3y agoYou're right - this clause needs more scrutiny. This is a poison pill (and a smoking gun in terms of malicious non-compliance). There is no good reason for this rule except greed and spite. Notice that this draconian rule is per developer not per app like one might expect. What utter nonsense.
- mil22 3y agoGreat point, I will revise my statement to "no developer who hopes any app they ever create will one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.".
- mthoms 3y agoIt seems there's some contradicting information. The main page linked by this very thread says "and/or": "Developers operating under the new business terms will have the option to distribute their iOS apps from the App Store and/or alternative app marketplaces." I believe this is relevant section of the agreement addendum: >5.5. Application Transfers - Once You agree to this Addendum, Your Applications cannot be transferred to an Apple Developer Program membership that has not signed this Addendum. https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna... So, it does look like it's one or the other.
- bhpm 3y agoI’m confused at the all comments here that suggest Apple didn’t vet these changes with the EU before announcing. Tim Cook met with the EU regulators at Apple Park last week. The changes that are being implemented have been in the works for literally years.
- Aeolun 3y agoIf that is the case we need to overhaul the EU parliament.
- mil22 3y agoMeeting with regulators != vetting changes before announcing.
- bhpm 3y agoSo what do you think they talked about? The weather?
- mil22 3y agoI don't know - I wasn't there. Were you?
- sircastor 3y agoThis is the point. Neither the EU legislators nor Apple Execs have time to waste on a casual meeting. Assuming that it was not about compliance is kind of ridiculous.
- mil22 3y agoHaving a meeting about compliance != vetting changes before announcing. For example: * Apple says "here's our proposed new framework." EU regulators say "We don't like it." Apple replies "Too bad, we're going to do it anyway, and we are confident we are in line with your regulations." EU regulators say "If you do that, we'll sue you." Apple replies, "OK, we have good lawyers." End of meeting. * Apple asks the EU for more specific details on how the EU will approach various provisions, without actually revealing any concrete details of what they were planning. * Apple requests the meeting with the EU regulators, to reassure them they are going to take action before the March 4th deadline and that they have a detailed plan in place to meet the new regulations, but then does not actually reveal any specific details in the meeting and instead talks only in generalities. These are all possible contents of such a meeting. Just because you know they had a meeting on the subject of the new regulations, does not mean you can assume Apple was vetting their changes and getting EU approval before announcing. There are a great many things that are not that, and just because you can't think of them, or I can't think of them, does not mean they did not happen. Unless you have direct or indirect knowledge of what happened behind those closed doors, which have not been reported in the media or elsewhere, you are not entitled to make any assumptions.
- londons_explore 3y agoIf I were in Apple's shoes, I would have taken another tack... 'Your iPhone is currently in Apple-only mode. To allow installation of apps not reviewed by Apple, you must disable this mode. Doing so requires a device reset and some apps may only function in Apple only mode'.
- actionfromafar 3y agoHaha, the nuclear option. I love it!
- sircastor 3y agoIt's an interesting idea, but that ends up being a tech support nightmare for Apple. Some website or random friend says "Download this App - you just have to switch into non-Apple mode" and your non-tech-savvy friend doesn't have the experience to consider this suspect. Apple has to deal with that rather than the website or the friend.
- flenserboy 3y agoApple needs to have two versions of iOS, & sell their phones with a choice for users. One phone is iOS as is, with perhaps even more security baked-in. The other is open, Wild West like so many here are demanding. The kicker is that the version on the phone cannot be changed to the other: the Wild West phone has to be regarded as compromised from the start, & Apple can easily market it that way. "They're both the same great phone. But you can only trust one of them." Let the market decide. I'm pretty sure which way consumers would decide, a direction which would in no way please the state actors looking to get a toehold on the data in every iPhone. [Edited typo]
- gigel82 3y agoWho's the "you" in "you can trust"? If it's the DRM assholes looking for remote attestation and other ways to take ownership away from device owners, then that's an amazing outcome in my mind. If you're implying that device owners can no longer trust their own devices, that's a weak argument that 50+ years of PC (emphasis on the "personal") industry can help invalidate.
- quenix 3y agoMost "old-school" x86 TPM-less PCs can't really be trusted in the same way as a patched, up-to-date iPhone though.
- sashank_1509 3y agoHonestly seems like a good solution. Users will most likely prefer the walled garden experience but if some don’t they can just buy the other iPhone.
- gigel82 3y agoMy only hope is that some of the Apple fans start to see through the thick veil of PR bs and realize Apple is just as bad (if not worse) than the other tech assholes / technofeudal lordship wannabes of Microsoft, Google et al.
- _lvbh 3y ago1. Is the UK considered part of the EU? 2. Can I sideload my own apps or do I still need a developer license?
- oblio 3y agoBrexit.
- pointlessone 3y ago[flagged]
- Yaina 3y agoSo if Mozilla wanted to ship Firefox with Gecko on iOS, they would need to maintain that, but only for the EU, while maintaining a WebKit version for all other markets. Oof.
- dotnet00 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mil22 3y agoLuckily, the EU included substantial anti-circumvention provisions in the DMA. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the excerpts from the regulations below, it seems likely the EU would have grounds to open legal proceedings against Apple's new rules. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... "Article 13: Anti-circumvention 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design. 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement."
- iSnow 3y agoThe 0.50EUR per-install fee is just obvious malicious compliance. Will be interesting to see how fast the EU reacts to that.
- codexb 3y agoWhat did the circumvent?
- kaba0 3y agoI’m fairly sure Apple did consult a bunch of lawyers, and actually talked through the eu about it.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago... in order to calculate likely fines so they could decide whether they'd still make a profit. Looks like they're happy to pay fines to maintain their monopoly. /flagrant-speculation That would be following the Microsoft playbook when it comes to corporate crime in the EEA/EU.
- matkoniecz 3y ago
- alkonaut 3y agoI don’t like the idea of having N different app stores no matter how bad the one App Store is. Just having one App Store and no silly monetization rules would be great. I download the Netflix app for $0 and my business with Netflix is done directly with them after that. And Netflix can pay Apple some reasonable fee for hosting and reviewing the apps themselves. Apple have already lost the AppStore they just haven’t realized it yet. They should try to rescue the 1 good store before the app market is fractured with side markets. Eventually it’ll affect the perception of their hardware and that’s a worse place for Apple than just losing the entire app tax.
- thefz 3y agoAnd now thanks to Apple's malicious compliance is going to be even worse for everyone
- alkonaut 3y agoThe EU is luckily different from the US in terms of following the spirit of laws rather than using technical loopholes. Hopefully any attempt to be in malicious compliance should result in the same penalty as noncompliance.
- mbs159 3y agoSo you also think that on Windows PCs, you should only be able to install programs from the Windows Store?
- kmlx 3y agoa bit of a silly comment. a PC is not a phone. a phone is something very personal, something you can lose very easily (and a lot of people do), something that you use all the time outside your home (on the street, on the bus, etc). a PC isn't that.
- krthr 3y agoA phone is, in fact, a computer
- edandersen 3y agoDoes this apply to iPad OS too?
- bloppe 3y agoEuropeans: We need you to allow some open competition on iOS. Apple: How about we re-write all the rules while maintaining absolute control.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- edandersen 3y agoDoes this include ipadOS?
- ChilledTonic 3y agoThis won't make a major difference for consumers, especially in the app stores. Even if Apple opened the flood gates with no restrictions for alternative stores on their platform, little if anyone is going to migrate away from the App Store. Look at Android, where alternative app stores have existed for years with little adoption. You have three kinds: 1. Open Source Markets (F-Droid), These are great for free apps but if you sideload this on your dads phone all you'll get are texts like "Where do I get YouTube" 2. Megacorporation Bazaars (Amazon App Store), this means nothing to developers except who you pay your exorbitant fee to, with the added problem of less eyes on your actual product (which users will go out of their way to install an alternative app store?) 3. Sketchy Side Markets / Piracy Stores (APKPure): These will be the main ones people choose to download under the promise of "free apps", and Apple is right to be nervous of the security of these. People will brick their phones trying to get free Robux. If you don't understand how bad these get I recommend downloading APKPure and using it as your primary app source for a month. Aurora store does not count, since it is simply an alternative UI for apps hosted on Google Play. Maybe, maybe, if people can buy apps directly in browser on a developers site, people will do that. But not many. I appreciate the EU moving towards more open market legislation but this in particular is just window dressing. It'll be just like Cookie Notices - ignored, and everyone moves on.
- nrabulinski 3y agoIt’s so surreal to me how every time apple comes up on HN there’s so so many people coming to defend them and applauding them for what they’re doing when, like in this example, they’re clearly trying to manipulate and do whatever they can to seem as if they’re complying while essentially making the situation worse
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tracer4201 3y ago[dead]
- somethoughts 3y agoAt this point Apple should release an phone which has an M2 chip and runs full blown OSX but with a phone sized form factor. Then just port a phone app and have some touch enabled features for developers to design a UX for phone sized screens. Maybe call it the MacPhone Pro and have the same level of security/customizability/install your own store as a full Mac. That way Apple can keep the iPhone/iOS branding as the OS for customers that just want a phone that works, is fully iOS wall gardened and don't want to tinker/potentially see blue screens. Then let the market decide. Perhaps the MacPhone would actually be more popular.
- sleight42 3y agoNever going to happen. Apple has steadfastly avoided risks of any one of their product lines cannibalizing sales from the others. Otherwise, your iPad Pro would be an MacPad Air or such already. Apple has demonstrated their determination to control what is usable on the iPads and iPhones while also controlling the marketplace for same.
- RichEO 3y agoI’ve noticed this as well and it’s a little disappointing from Apple. Steve was really forward thinking when he let the iPhone kill the iPod. Im not sure that modern Apple would allow this to happen.
- btmiller 3y agoWhat’s it matter what the market decides? The EU will just step again and do the only thing they know how to do.
- sensanaty 3y agoThat thing being listening to the citizens living within EU borders who don't want gatekeepers like Apple & Google fucking them over with no recourse? Y'know, the market you've mentioned. If Apple doesn't like it they can just close up shop in Europe, nobody's forcing them to operate there. Such a shame for them that the Brussels effect is a thing :)
- cbeach 3y agoThe EU has a haphazard record on technical regulation, but their requirement for alternative app stores is decent IMO. Apple and Google have a chequered history of cherry-picking which social networking apps are allowed on their platform, based on content in those apps. Some apps may, for cultural reasons, have the lion's share of toxic content, such is the nature of a free society where cultures are allowed to differ. But users should be free to decide what apps they consider "toxic," because peoples' definitions of "toxic" differ. Free speech is a first amendment right because it's a fundamental pre-requisite of a free society. Why should two corporates in California (subject to all the political biases that exist in that state) be gatekeepers of freedom of expression and association for the rest of the world? If a corporate chooses what opinions and discussions are "appropriate" for us, then our thoughts and worldviews are subtly shaped by the whims of that corporate. It wouldn't be so bad if there were multiple corporates who differentiated their approach, but unfortunately we've seen Big Tech acting in concert on certain issues (certain apps that were banned), and that should concern us all. They may suppress rightwing views today, but we can't predict what Big Tech will deny us access to tomorrow. Tomorrow's target might be something we value (but is inconvenient for the Big Tech establishment) If you're on the left-hand side of politics, try to imagine a world where two companies in Wyoming controlled your access to information and discussion. And an app was banned if it was seen to be too leftwing... too "risky" and "disruptive" to "public order?" I understand Apple's arguments about the integrity of its ecosystem, and for what it's worth, I value Apple's vertically-integrated and curated approach. But I lost a lot of faith in Apple when they started cherry-picking social networks. Now I recognise that users need a side-channel so they can choose to sacrifice a degree of safety in order to retain access to free speech. Reading Apple's announcement doesn't fill me with confidence though. "Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers." Inevitably, this means that if a developer dares to build a marketplace that hosts a free speech app, Apple can simply refuse to allow the marketplace to run on their phones. Big Tech will not relinquish control without a fight.
- HHaan 3y ago[dead]
- herunan 3y agoWhoever was in charge of the language for this did a great job. I know some may disagree, but if I were Apple that’s exactly how I would word this announcement.
- squigglydonut 3y agoI think that providing hardware as well as gatekeeping installs with fees is double dipping. Users want to use your hardware because of the great software that runs on it. Don't bleed your developers.
- squigglydonut 3y agoProviding hardware and gatekeeping installs with fees is double dipping. Users want your hardware because of the cool software that runs on it. If you depend on 3rd parties to make attractive software don't harm the developers!
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThis malicious compliance shows the problem with the regulator superpower fantasy when it comes to software and platforms. With hardware, the EU can demand adherence to standards like USB-C. With software and terms of service, the EU can ban specific things, and Apple can come up with other terms to keep control of the platform.
- woutr_be 3y ago> With hardware, the EU can demand adherence to standards like USB-C. Not picking sides here, just curious; if a better standard comes along, do we all have to wait for the EU to turn it into a law before companies can change to that new standard?
- amadeuspagel 3y agoGovernments have enforced standards for a long time. There's always that tradeoff. Standardization has benefits, and at some point the government says that a standard is "good enough".
- sensanaty 3y agoYou can install whatever plug you want on your device - as long as it also has a USB-C plug on it too. So if you come up with a truly revolutionary new plug and the market at large adopts it, then there's no reason the EU won't approve of it being the new standard. The point of the standards is to ensure consumers aren't being fucked over by proprietary plugs that are incompatible with all the other devices out there, like what Apple was doing, not to enforce some arbitrary limit that says USB-C is the final form factor plug we'll ever be using
- AYBABTME 3y agoOn the other hand, antitrust lawsuits have been extremely effective historically at changing company behaviour. See MSFT.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoMicrosoft is an american company, which is why a lawsuit by the american government with the threat of breaking it up worked. The EU can't break up Apple. Apple is calling the bluff here.
- jamborine 3y agoMy take? This whole situation is like a game of 4D chess where everyone's trying to be the smartest in the room. Apple's playing the long game, the EU's laying down the law, and the rest of us are just here munching popcorn, watching the drama unfold. It's like, "Oh, you're gonna charge for that? Cool, cool, cool, but remember, there's always a bigger fish." And let's not forget, in the end, it's usually us, the consumers, who end up footing the bill, one way or another. So grab your popcorn, folks, and let's see how this corporate soap opera plays out!
- jayjay12389 3y agoOkay, so Apple's doing a bit of the ol' switcheroo with the rules, and the EU is like that strict teacher who sees everything. It's like when you were in school and thought you could sneak a text under the desk, but the teacher had eyes like a hawk. Now, Apple's trying to be sneaky and the EU's like, 'I don't think so, buddy.' It's all legal jargon and big words, but basically, it's a game of cat and mouse, except the mouse is a tech giant and the cat's got a whole continent backing it up. Gonna need more than cheese to get out of this one, Apple.
- Bricklace 3y agoAlright, let's break it down. Apple's new rules are like when you finally get the freedom to eat ice cream for breakfast, but then realize you have to buy the ice cream yourself. Everyone was excited about alternative marketplaces, but now it's like, 'Surprise! There's a cost attached.' It's a classic 'be careful what you wish for' scenario. You wanted more options? Great, but now you've got to deal with the real world where things aren't always as free and easy as they seem. It's like discovering Santa isn't real all over again. Welcome to the grown-up table, alternative marketplaces.
- squeaky-clean 3y agoIt's more like you get to eat ice cream for breakfast, but in addition to having to buy the ice cream yourself, you still have to pay the waffle house down the street a fee whenever you get a new flavor of ice cream.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago> For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates Wait a minute, did the EU tried enforcing key escrow or something? > The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats. Ah, I see. Apple gate keeps everything for our own good. Nothing to do with money. Nothing at all… Now I have a relative that for some reason always gets their computer full of malware. Had to reset their Android phone last week, presumably for this very reason. Nobody has any idea how that stuff gets in, but with him, it always does. We started to jokingly accuse him of getting to shady web sites, but he won’t admit to anything. Anyone knows someone like him, and how they might be helped? Besides locking his computer like we would a child, that is.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- martimarkov 3y ago[flagged]
- xyst 3y agoWording of press release seems more like anti-regulation propaganda, and fear mongering. Look past it all and will see it’s just a desperate attempt to hold on to their profits in wake of the App Store exodus.
- nojvek 3y agoSo not really open. Still need Apple’s permission and pay their tax to run something on a device you purchased for ~$1000.
- midtake 3y agoWhile it will be nice to ship hobbyist apps through a third party channel, it will only be a matter of time until app users are bullied into installing third party stores. For the normal user it's less of a "choice" than it is for the technical user. The average user wants to play games on their phone and will submit to any breaches of privacy in order to do so. These average users are the parents, siblings, and children of most technical users. The average app is spyware even on the App Store and I only see it getting worse with these loosened restrictions. That said the content on the App Store is already pretty bad privacy-wise, this is more of a money issue and whether Apple deserves to get paid for their role as an app channel.
- kibwen 3y ago> it will only be a matter of time until app users are bullied into installing third party stores This is a silly meme. On Android, which allows third-party stores, nobody is being bullied into installing any of them.
- turquoisevar 3y agoAnd yet enough people do it to the point that Android makes up more than 50% of all infected devices by virtue of Trojanized banking apps and the like being distributed via third party stores.
- jjcon 3y agoAndroid has 72% marketshare so even your made up stat would suggest it is safer than iOS
- bfelbo 3y agoThe only way to play Fortnite on Android is by installing the Epic Games app directly from their website. That’s many millions of users who’ve already had to install a third party store to play a popular game.
- alephaleph 3y agofwiw Amazon tried doing that (and maybe they're still trying?)
- firecall 3y agoInteresting that they’ve attributed a quote to Phil Schiller! Rolling out the big guns! I’m guessing this has significantly rattled Apple’s cage. > “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow.
- nuker 3y agoNext morning Facebook removes its app from Apple Store and directs users to sideload the app, because it needs those sweet permissions that were denied before. Apps outside official app store may force you to enable permissions it does not really need, refusing to work without it. Apps in official store should work with the permissions approved by the store. The “should” is enforced by the store.
- lm411 3y agoRegardless of these changes or the pricing, I expect there will be very very few third party app stores created. For a simple reason: Most iOS users don't want it and won't use them. If your app isn't available in the main store, the vast majority of users simply won't install it. The exceptions would be perhaps extremely popular games like FortNite / Epic.
- acdha 3y agoThe most interesting what-if question to me: will Facebook go for it and move their apps into a Meta store and then try to push people over? They lost enough money from the App Store privacy policy changes that I’m sure they have thought about it very carefully.
- sircastor 3y agoI haven’t checked, but I’m certain that even if you host on a third party store you still have to follow the privacy policy of apps on the device. Having a third-party store just means you can sell apps with different terms than the AppStore.
- acdha 3y agoYes, I don’t think it’d change the OS rules for things like having to ask to use the microphone or badging when location services are in use, but I was thinking about things like the disclosures about data resale and tracking which cost Meta a fair amount of money. This again is an interesting angle for the EU context where things like the GDPR are protecting user privacy. Would Meta be aggressive there, or simply bide their time trying to get other governments to mandate the same platform openness for devices but without the GDPR?
- alexnewman 3y agoSo I want to release an open source software app that does a better job at tracking browser history. The frontend and backend are both open source. However, I want to charge money to use my backend if they don't wanna run own. Could I be impacted by this?
- hackyhacky 3y agoDo these changes apply only within the geographical borders of the EU, or do they apply to EU citizens everywhere? EU data protection laws, if I'm not mistaken, apply to all EU citizens, so I'd imagine that these do too. If that's the case, I wonder how Apple plans to selectively enable access based on citizenship.
- throwaway67743 3y agoMonopolist scum being monopolist scum, I really hope the ecj grow a backbone and remove apple from our lovely union
- RONROC 3y ago[flagged]
- EMIRELADERO 3y agoWhat makes me almost certain that the DMA Commission will not approve of most of the requirements is the following reporting requirement on the DMA compliance report[1] that Apple will be required to file with the regulator: "n) where applicable, all actions taken to protect integrity, security or privacy (e.g., data access, data retention policies) pursuant to the relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and why these measures are strictly necessary and justified and there are no less restrictive means to achieve these goals" As a bonus, just to really hammer it in: "o) any type of market analysis or testing (in particular A/B testing), business user surveys or consumer surveys or end user consent rates that have been carried out to estimate the expected impact of the measure on the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925" [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/document/download/904debdf-2eb3-469a-8bbc-e62e5e356fb1_en?filename=Article%2011%20DMA%20-%20Compliance%20Report%20Template%20Form.pdf https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- w4 3y agoAs someone with a Vision Pro preorder and a developer account, this stuff is really souring me on taking the device seriously as a development platform. I abandoned iOS development for the web in the 2010s because app review roulette made it too unreliable and stressful to build software on iOS. I had a few semi-successful apps, but it was simply not worth dealing with Apple's opaque review process and restrictive rules to access a limited userbase with bad unit economics. I could make more money building the same software elsewhere with fewer headaches. I'm very excited to play with new interaction modalities on the Vision Pro, and the device itself looks amazing, but all of this recent news from Apple is not making the Vision Pro seem like an attractive place to think about developing a serious business. It's a shame - I've been a diehard Mac fan for 20+ years, but feel increasingly concerned about their approach here. I hope they change tack.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NorwegianDude 3y agoSo to summarize: You can create your own app store, but Apple controls it, and it will cost you. You can create your own app store, but only you can publish to it. You can use your own payment method, but Apple must be allowed to collect data and a large fee from every payment. You can distribute apps that Apple approved in your app store, but you have to give Apple the data and pay per install. Not even Google is close to that amount of data collection and greed...
- xvector 3y agoYou can always just not get an iPhone. But in the EU, they'll regulate the direction you can wipe your ass.
- vel0city 3y agoTBH they should really mandate bidets.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- apapapa 3y ago> Not even Google is close to that amount of data collection and greed... Yet Apple is the one claiming to be protecting your privacy... At least Google is somewhat honest Ok apple fanboys. Down-vote all you want if you want to ignore the truth.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BD103 3y agoThere's a lot of talk about Apple trying to circumvent this, but there actually are some good things from this. For instance, Firefox on Mobile can now use the Gecko engine instead of WebKit! (I think it's still Gecko?)
- extraduder_ire 3y agoAre they going to explain why this is only coming to the very latest version of iOS? They still operate the same appstore on devices that can't run that iOS version. Devices which still even get security updates occasionally.
- sircastor 3y agoI suspect that the USB-C law, the DMA only requires new releases to comply. The iPhone SE, for instance, didn’t need to comply with the USB-C mandate as its an existing product.