22 ms·

A 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

A 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 ago
Is 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 ago
YouTube will not pay that amount of money. There will be deals in the background like usual.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Afaik 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 ago
    And 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
    - Despegar 3y ago
      The Epic v. Apple trial showed that no one got special deals. And Epic v. Google did show Google gave many companies special deals, like Spotify. Ironically that played a big part with the jury deciding against Google.
      - theturtletalks 3y ago
        Apple doesn’t make backhand deals as far as the 30% commission, but they do give special privileges to certain apps.
        threeseed 3y ago
        If you're going to make definitive statements it would help to provide sources. Infuse have said that VP9 is supported on AppleTV which requires the same entitlements as iOS.
        theturtletalks 3y ago
        The Yattee FAQ: What are the differences between using AVPlayer and MPV? AVPlayer is a system player component delivered by Apple. It provides best efficiency, performance and system integrations, but number of playable videos formats is limited. This means for Invidious/Piped videos the maximum resolution you can play with it is 1080p. There's no way to play higher resolution files as they are not provided in the right formats. Obviously, modern Apple devices are more than capable to hardware decode and play these formats. And in fact, Apple seems to be giving special entitlement to Google that allows them to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding. Just remember that next time you hear how Apple treats all developers equally. Source: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-m1-vp9-av1-decoding.2269938/page-2?post=29417159#post-29417159 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-m1-vp9-av1-decodi... It’s from 2020 so it might’ve changed but it proves Apple gives certain apps special privileges. Who knows which other apps are given privileges and to what extent?
        thund 3y ago
        Your sources?
  - lucb1e 3y ago
    Someone I know pays 15% because they're a small business, so that would be one exception
- Hamuko 3y ago
  Why wouldn't YouTube just distribute through App Store like normal? It's not like they are paying Apple per download there.
  - axlee 3y ago
    I think Apple will be a lot more hurt by not having Youtube on their devices than the other way around. Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative. If I was Alphabet, the price would be 0.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative If it isn’t on iOS it isn’t ubiquitous. It’s left the highest-earning viewers on the table.
      - radicalbyte 3y ago
        If Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-haste.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-haste Sure. Most wouldn’t. YouTube and Netflix would lose tens of billions of present value overnight. Hell, Apple might capture a good fraction of that surplus.
        realusername 3y ago
        Yeah sure, people will give up on YouTube and Netflix to use iOS, that's not going to happen. They'll suffer through using Safari to access those and that'll reduce the perceived value of iOS devices for future purchases since it will be seen as clunky and not seamless. Not being able to use YouTube properly is also one of the reasons (among others) of why Windows mobile failed. Youtube is a monopoly and there's no way around it.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Well, that and meta is the very reason behind these changes.
mjburgess 3y ago
Well it's per install. And knowing apple, they might even count an update as an install. I suspect there's a DMA v2 coming, and it's going to be much much harder on them with this behaviour. EDIT: 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 is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with $0 USD revenue this seems obscene
- soegaard 3y ago
  "first annual install"
- KerrickStaley 3y ago
  It says "each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold" which I think means as long as you're updating your app at least once a year, you pay for each device your app is installed on (minus 1 million, which is a rounding error for the biggest apps).
  - shagie 3y ago
    Not device - account. https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#distribution-eu https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#d... > First annual install. The first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge. Multiple devices with one account or new devices over the course of the 12 months are still a single install.
- gumby 3y ago
  They’ve been discussing the implementation with the EU for some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed already.
- jeffxtreme 3y ago
  As an aside, look how clear and well-written this web page is. I'm always blown away by how well the whole Apple ecosystem (even the the developer documentation) is designed
hnlmorg 3y ago
Larger spenders never pay list price. There’s always a negotiation.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Except the price only exists for large spenders in the first place.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Historically, from emails and the such made public through the courts, Apple has resisted making such deals.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    Apple made deals around app permissions. However the economics have changed now. It’s no longer practically free to support iOS. So some companies could make a reasonable argument that supporting iOS is too expensive when only a fraction of their customers do in app purchases from Apple hardware. So from Apple’s perspective, they now have more to lose in not making deals. While app developers have more to lose in supporting Apple. This might just tip the scales into forcing Apple to negotiate on more than just app permissions.
buzzert 3y ago
There is significant cost associated with complying with the ever increasing demands of the EU. I have seen this personally. It makes sense that they have to recuperate this somehow.
- asow92 3y ago
  Many of the companies I work with have completely given up on operating in the EU because of this. edit: Why downvote me for stating a matter of fact?
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago
    Yup. I got asked to block anyone from the EU from using a specific university software. Hope you’re not an exchange student on holiday! Fortunately, they aren’t in business anymore. (For unrelated reasons.)
  - cynicalsecurity 3y ago
    This is good. An app that can't survive without stealing your private data isn't worthy to be on the European market.
    - switch007 3y ago
      You’re happy with only large tech giants existing then. Because lots of regulations are just barriers to entry and allow the existing players to keep playing
      - asow92 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - hnlmorg 3y ago
        The problem is the same argument also works in reverse: few regulations just make it easier for larger players to block smaller players from operating via dishonest business practices. Ultimately existing players always have the advantage. As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)
dave_atx 3y ago
There's also no 1MM install threshold if you list your app on an alternative App Store, which seems like it will kill the attractiveness of using a different storefront unless you're a developer with a an app that has a recurring subscription that's either a) just not allowed on Apple's storefront, and/or b) has an subscription price expensive enough that the $0.50 annual fee is less than the amount of commission you're avoiding from Apple.
- HDThoreaun 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. Sounds to me like developers have to pay the per user fee no matter where the app is distributed.
  - radley 3y ago
    It's only if developers agree to any of the new terms. They still have the "right" to stick to Apple's original 30/15 model and not pay the fee.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Right, but they have to agree to the new terms if they want to do alternative distribution.
      - radley 3y ago
        I'm just pointing out that there's a third option of staying in the App Store and paying 17/10 instead of 30/15, but it also requires the Core Tax.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gigatexal 3y ago
This is what I came here to find out. So it seems Apple will still get their cut. Seems they are nerfing things to make the existing App Store more appealing. But I guess Tim Sweeney won in the EU. He gets his new AppStore so he can charge his own commission on gems and fake tokens. And game streaming seems interesting I guess we will get Xbox streaming gaming on the Apple platform after all.
- gigatexal 3y ago
  50 cents per install per year is hilarious trolling from Apple. Who wants to place bets on who will sue them first over this detail? Will it be the EU? Epic Games?
layer8 3y ago
This also means you can’t provide an app for free anymore if it becomes sufficiently popular. Monetization is the only way.
- TylerE 3y ago
  It just means that the bar has been raised, no? There has been a certain accepted cost of doing business in the Apple sphere for years. They're just changing the price.
  - layer8 3y ago
    Previously you only had to pay the yearly $99 for the developer account, and then could publish free apps to your heart’s content (subject to Apple’s app review process, of course).
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Right. So before the cost was $99 for 100% of users, and now it is $99 for 99.9999% of users, and a higher amount for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction.
      - Mogzol 3y ago
        I think you are underestimating how many apps get over 1M downloads. According to [1], the Google Play Store has over 34000 apps with 1M+ installs, I assume the number is similar for the App Store. So if you have a popular free app, there is a good chance you will hit the 1M install threshold. This change is basically forcing you to monetize your app. Plenty of people can afford losing $99/year for having a free app that isn't monetized. Not many can afford losing several thousand per month. [1] https://www.androidrank.org/categorystats?category=&price=all https://www.androidrank.org/categorystats?category=&price=al...
        danaris 3y ago
        The Core Technology Fee still only applies if you want to either a) distribute outside the Apple App Store, or b) pay the lower 17%/10% commission. If you're already distributing the app for free, then you're not going to care about (b), so this only applies to apps that meet all three of the following criteria: 1. Free 2. Popular enough to significantly breach that 1M install threshold 3. Distributed through an alternative App Store Anyone who has a popular free app out there right now doesn't need to change anything; they'll continue to have exactly the same expenses they had yesterday.
epberry 3y ago
This only applies if these developers move to the new terms it looks like. So these large apps can stay with their existing setups and not pay the fee.
KomoD 3y ago
Not totally clear to me what "first annual install" means
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  If I reinstall an app 10 times over two years it’s 1.00. That’s my guess.
- tech234a 3y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
- radley 3y ago
  *First annual install.* This is the first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge. 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. *One million free first annual installs.* Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. *Fee for each first annual install over one million.* Developers will pay a Core Technology Fee of €0.50 for each first annual install over one million in the past 12 months.
  - KomoD 3y ago
    Thanks, that's much clearer
modeless 3y ago
This means that alternative app stores will essentially not be allowed to distribute free apps, right? As soon as they reach the install threshold they will start owing Apple money. And distributing an update counts as an "install" for the purposes of the fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
- the_duke 3y ago
  The DMA gives realtively broad interpretation power to the the EU commission, so they can potentially shut this down without new regulation required. It's obviously malicious compliance that hopefully isn't justifiable.
- tech234a 3y ago
  Alternative app stores have to pay the fee on every install with no threshold.
  - StayTrue 3y ago
    > One million free first annual installs. Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. [0] [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
    - tech234a 3y ago
      For alternative app stores specifically: "First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps." [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketplace-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketpl...
  - rpgwaiter 3y ago
    If I run an alt app store, why the hell would I give apple a single penny? What are they gunna do, pull my store from their store?
radley 3y ago
> I think this essentially means that large developers pay This actually affects small devs as well. It's not that hard to hit 1M installs for free or inexpensive apps.
- zaphirplane 3y ago
  I would love to easily hit a million installs on a side project app
  - seszett 3y ago
    Maybe not side projects, but I'm running Android and Kde Connect, Home Assistant, Element or Mastodon are all listed as having more than 1 million install. I can't imagine these FOSS projects paying any significant amount of money just to distribute their free apps. OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple.
    - otoburb 3y ago
      >>OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple. VideoLAN (VLC developer) is a non-profit so they are exempt from the Core Technology Fee even if they distribute on an alternate app store. "OsmAnd is developed by a Dutch private limited company, OsmAnd B.V. located in Amstelveen, the Netherlands"[1] so it looks like they would be subject to the CTF if they choose to distribute from an alternate app store or utilize a non-Apple payment processor; or they could stick to the existing business terms and continue as-is in the Apple App Store. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsmAnd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsmAnd
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Then they can distribute on the AppStore for 100 bucks per year.
  - radley 3y ago
summerlight 3y ago
Note that it also include other terms: * Reduced commission: 30% -> 17% * Payment processing fee: No fee to Apple Some big mobile games may opt in this option by removing IAP and using their own payment processor, if "update"s are not considered as "install"s. Looks like Apple is desperate on keeping those apps in their app store?
- rahkiin 3y ago
  It seems updates also count. If they can cover that 50c for every non-paying user with the extra 10% profit on paying users they might switch.
jsnell 3y ago
As far as I can tell, it's a bit more subtle than that. What Apple is doing is offering developers either the old deal (with all its now-illegal restrictions) or the new deal that removes the restrictions but adds the punitive Core Technology Fee. The intent is obviously for nobody with a large app to take the new deal, but for Apple to be able to claim that they've lowered the App Store fees and made allowed alternate stores. I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy into this scheme, but who knows.
- blibble 3y ago
  > I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy into this scheme, but who knows. I think they're quite aware that they won't but that will take half a decade, and in the meantime, Apple will have made another couple of hundred billion dollars
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    The commission can (for example) put an import ban on iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the commission’s interpretation of the DMA. Apple is free to argue their hopeless interpretation in court, but in the short term they will not get away with these delaying tactics.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > The commission can (for example) put an import ban on iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the commission’s interpretation of the DMA. yeah, but they won't the euroskeptics would absolutely LOVE it if they did
  - arlcode 3y ago
    And it's a CYA against shareholder lawsuits. If they give in "without a fight" by following the spirit of the law (or even the letter) they will use a lot of income. Companies are not our friends (not our enemies either) and only form a fleeting alliance if the goal of makeing money aligns with the interest of the user. On this subject, for this company it doesn't.
a1o 3y ago
Per month
mandeepj 3y ago
> There are 2 billion active iOS devices Those are global numbers. So, when counting EU specific revenue, you can't use that number.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
baxtr 3y ago
As I understand this, no app developer is forced to change to the new terms: > New Business Terms for Apps in the EU Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative payment processing.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Well, duh, it's designed to keep every app with reach bound to the Apple App Store.
mcfedr 3y ago
Here's hoping the EU just says no to this bull that Apple are coming up with. The so called "core technology" is sold by Apple to the user in iOS.
- buzzert 3y ago
  It's not, actually. It's the salaries of the engineers who work on the frameworks and OS that underpin the apps these developers are writing. Are you proposing we should go back to charging users for software updates? Personally, I think it makes more sense to take a cut from other people doing business on top of the platform.
  - mcfedr 3y ago
    Yet they managed to do this for years for free when they had their walled garden up and and supposedly offered so much value to developers with their app store and such
  - summerlight 3y ago
    Profit from the iPhone business alone should be much more than enough to pay those OS/framework developers since Apple claims that iOS and iPhone are indivisible/unsubstitutable parts to each other.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    If Apple inexplicably chooses to sell iDevices so cheaply that they can't afford to pay the people who build the software for it, that's their mistake. The EU isn't forcing them to do that, neither are app developers. They've had years to remedy any pricing mistakes they made in the past and price their hardware appropriately. They also pull in billions of dollars every year from their 30% cut on gambling/gacha games, and do almost nothing to earn that (those games have to provide their own updater/CDN because the Apple/Google ones aren't good enough, and those games don't meaningfully rely on Apple/Google for things like quality assurance or marketing.) Apple will be fine even if their Europe-specific cut is halved. Claiming they're going to suffer or be unable to pay employees is simply not supported by any evidence.
orenlindsey 3y ago
What if someone malicious makes a bot to install an app on a ton of accounts? The dev would get charged for every single install.
- SpaceManNabs 3y ago
  This was an issue when people were discussing unity per install fees.
diebeforei485 3y ago
Correct, and this includes app updates but they will only pay once per year. It is per "first annual install", not per install. Given that you have to update apps every year to support new iOS versions, this is essentially an annual tax per user.
bluecalm 3y ago
One thing EU regulators could do is to say "ok but you have to charge the iOS user for it instead of the developer". Then if users accept it - fine, let them have it. The same should go for 30% appstore fee: make it explicit and add it to the user's bill: "1$ for the developer and your card is also charged separately with 30c Apple tax". That would actual competition for the best platform real.
turquoisevar 3y ago
This only applies to install numbers within the EU. It’s exactly what many have said Apple should do to get payment for usage of their IP: split it from the commission. So now you can pay separately for the IP, separately for payment processing and separately for App Store services or a combination of all of the above.
nottorp 3y ago
[flagged]
sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
Eh, we know from the DoJ trial Google is already sending trucks full of cash down to Cupertino every day for search defaults. This may just add a little extra overhead on the next “protection” payment.
kelvinharvy4 3y ago
[dead]

hacktheplanet00 3y ago

Is 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 ago

YouTube will not pay that amount of money. There will be deals in the background like usual.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Afaik 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 ago
  And 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
  - Despegar 3y ago
    The Epic v. Apple trial showed that no one got special deals. And Epic v. Google did show Google gave many companies special deals, like Spotify. Ironically that played a big part with the jury deciding against Google.
    - theturtletalks 3y ago
      Apple doesn’t make backhand deals as far as the 30% commission, but they do give special privileges to certain apps.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        If you're going to make definitive statements it would help to provide sources. Infuse have said that VP9 is supported on AppleTV which requires the same entitlements as iOS.
        theturtletalks 3y ago
        The Yattee FAQ: What are the differences between using AVPlayer and MPV? AVPlayer is a system player component delivered by Apple. It provides best efficiency, performance and system integrations, but number of playable videos formats is limited. This means for Invidious/Piped videos the maximum resolution you can play with it is 1080p. There's no way to play higher resolution files as they are not provided in the right formats. Obviously, modern Apple devices are more than capable to hardware decode and play these formats. And in fact, Apple seems to be giving special entitlement to Google that allows them to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding. Just remember that next time you hear how Apple treats all developers equally. Source: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-m1-vp9-av1-decoding.2269938/page-2?post=29417159#post-29417159 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-m1-vp9-av1-decodi... It’s from 2020 so it might’ve changed but it proves Apple gives certain apps special privileges. Who knows which other apps are given privileges and to what extent?
        thund 3y ago
        Your sources?
- lucb1e 3y ago
  Someone I know pays 15% because they're a small business, so that would be one exception
Hamuko 3y ago
Why wouldn't YouTube just distribute through App Store like normal? It's not like they are paying Apple per download there.
- axlee 3y ago
  I think Apple will be a lot more hurt by not having Youtube on their devices than the other way around. Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative. If I was Alphabet, the price would be 0.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative If it isn’t on iOS it isn’t ubiquitous. It’s left the highest-earning viewers on the table.
    - radicalbyte 3y ago
      If Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-haste.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-haste Sure. Most wouldn’t. YouTube and Netflix would lose tens of billions of present value overnight. Hell, Apple might capture a good fraction of that surplus.
        realusername 3y ago
        Yeah sure, people will give up on YouTube and Netflix to use iOS, that's not going to happen. They'll suffer through using Safari to access those and that'll reduce the perceived value of iOS devices for future purchases since it will be seen as clunky and not seamless. Not being able to use YouTube properly is also one of the reasons (among others) of why Windows mobile failed. Youtube is a monopoly and there's no way around it.
kaba0 3y ago
Well, that and meta is the very reason behind these changes.

mjburgess 3y ago

Well it's per install. And knowing apple, they might even count an update as an install. I suspect there's a DMA v2 coming, and it's going to be much much harder on them with this behaviour. EDIT: 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 is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with $0 USD revenue this seems obscene

soegaard 3y ago
"first annual install"
KerrickStaley 3y ago
It says "each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold" which I think means as long as you're updating your app at least once a year, you pay for each device your app is installed on (minus 1 million, which is a rounding error for the biggest apps).
- shagie 3y ago
  Not device - account. https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#distribution-eu https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#d... > First annual install. The first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge. Multiple devices with one account or new devices over the course of the 12 months are still a single install.
gumby 3y ago
They’ve been discussing the implementation with the EU for some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed already.
jeffxtreme 3y ago
As an aside, look how clear and well-written this web page is. I'm always blown away by how well the whole Apple ecosystem (even the the developer documentation) is designed

hnlmorg 3y ago

Larger spenders never pay list price. There’s always a negotiation.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Except the price only exists for large spenders in the first place.
madeofpalk 3y ago
Historically, from emails and the such made public through the courts, Apple has resisted making such deals.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Apple made deals around app permissions. However the economics have changed now. It’s no longer practically free to support iOS. So some companies could make a reasonable argument that supporting iOS is too expensive when only a fraction of their customers do in app purchases from Apple hardware. So from Apple’s perspective, they now have more to lose in not making deals. While app developers have more to lose in supporting Apple. This might just tip the scales into forcing Apple to negotiate on more than just app permissions.

buzzert 3y ago

There is significant cost associated with complying with the ever increasing demands of the EU. I have seen this personally. It makes sense that they have to recuperate this somehow.

asow92 3y ago
Many of the companies I work with have completely given up on operating in the EU because of this. edit: Why downvote me for stating a matter of fact?
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  Yup. I got asked to block anyone from the EU from using a specific university software. Hope you’re not an exchange student on holiday! Fortunately, they aren’t in business anymore. (For unrelated reasons.)
- cynicalsecurity 3y ago
  This is good. An app that can't survive without stealing your private data isn't worthy to be on the European market.
  - switch007 3y ago
    You’re happy with only large tech giants existing then. Because lots of regulations are just barriers to entry and allow the existing players to keep playing
    - asow92 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      The problem is the same argument also works in reverse: few regulations just make it easier for larger players to block smaller players from operating via dishonest business practices. Ultimately existing players always have the advantage. As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)

dave_atx 3y ago

There's also no 1MM install threshold if you list your app on an alternative App Store, which seems like it will kill the attractiveness of using a different storefront unless you're a developer with a an app that has a recurring subscription that's either a) just not allowed on Apple's storefront, and/or b) has an subscription price expensive enough that the $0.50 annual fee is less than the amount of commission you're avoiding from Apple.

HDThoreaun 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. Sounds to me like developers have to pay the per user fee no matter where the app is distributed.
- radley 3y ago
  It's only if developers agree to any of the new terms. They still have the "right" to stick to Apple's original 30/15 model and not pay the fee.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Right, but they have to agree to the new terms if they want to do alternative distribution.
    - radley 3y ago
      I'm just pointing out that there's a third option of staying in the App Store and paying 17/10 instead of 30/15, but it also requires the Core Tax.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gigatexal 3y ago

This is what I came here to find out. So it seems Apple will still get their cut. Seems they are nerfing things to make the existing App Store more appealing. But I guess Tim Sweeney won in the EU. He gets his new AppStore so he can charge his own commission on gems and fake tokens. And game streaming seems interesting I guess we will get Xbox streaming gaming on the Apple platform after all.

gigatexal 3y ago
50 cents per install per year is hilarious trolling from Apple. Who wants to place bets on who will sue them first over this detail? Will it be the EU? Epic Games?

layer8 3y ago

This also means you can’t provide an app for free anymore if it becomes sufficiently popular. Monetization is the only way.

TylerE 3y ago
It just means that the bar has been raised, no? There has been a certain accepted cost of doing business in the Apple sphere for years. They're just changing the price.
- layer8 3y ago
  Previously you only had to pay the yearly $99 for the developer account, and then could publish free apps to your heart’s content (subject to Apple’s app review process, of course).
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Right. So before the cost was $99 for 100% of users, and now it is $99 for 99.9999% of users, and a higher amount for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction.
    - Mogzol 3y ago
      I think you are underestimating how many apps get over 1M downloads. According to [1], the Google Play Store has over 34000 apps with 1M+ installs, I assume the number is similar for the App Store. So if you have a popular free app, there is a good chance you will hit the 1M install threshold. This change is basically forcing you to monetize your app. Plenty of people can afford losing $99/year for having a free app that isn't monetized. Not many can afford losing several thousand per month. [1] https://www.androidrank.org/categorystats?category=&price=all https://www.androidrank.org/categorystats?category=&price=al...
      - danaris 3y ago
        The Core Technology Fee still only applies if you want to either a) distribute outside the Apple App Store, or b) pay the lower 17%/10% commission. If you're already distributing the app for free, then you're not going to care about (b), so this only applies to apps that meet all three of the following criteria: 1. Free 2. Popular enough to significantly breach that 1M install threshold 3. Distributed through an alternative App Store Anyone who has a popular free app out there right now doesn't need to change anything; they'll continue to have exactly the same expenses they had yesterday.

epberry 3y ago

This only applies if these developers move to the new terms it looks like. So these large apps can stay with their existing setups and not pay the fee.

KomoD 3y ago

Not totally clear to me what "first annual install" means

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Waterluvian 3y ago
If I reinstall an app 10 times over two years it’s 1.00. That’s my guess.
tech234a 3y ago
https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
radley 3y ago
*First annual install.* This is the first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge. 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. *One million free first annual installs.* Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. *Fee for each first annual install over one million.* Developers will pay a Core Technology Fee of €0.50 for each first annual install over one million in the past 12 months.
- KomoD 3y ago
  Thanks, that's much clearer

modeless 3y ago

This means that alternative app stores will essentially not be allowed to distribute free apps, right? As soon as they reach the install threshold they will start owing Apple money. And distributing an update counts as an "install" for the purposes of the fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

the_duke 3y ago
The DMA gives realtively broad interpretation power to the the EU commission, so they can potentially shut this down without new regulation required. It's obviously malicious compliance that hopefully isn't justifiable.
tech234a 3y ago
Alternative app stores have to pay the fee on every install with no threshold.
- StayTrue 3y ago
  > One million free first annual installs. Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. [0] [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
  - tech234a 3y ago
    For alternative app stores specifically: "First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps." [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketplace-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketpl...
- rpgwaiter 3y ago
  If I run an alt app store, why the hell would I give apple a single penny? What are they gunna do, pull my store from their store?

radley 3y ago

> I think this essentially means that large developers pay This actually affects small devs as well. It's not that hard to hit 1M installs for free or inexpensive apps.

zaphirplane 3y ago
I would love to easily hit a million installs on a side project app
- seszett 3y ago
  Maybe not side projects, but I'm running Android and Kde Connect, Home Assistant, Element or Mastodon are all listed as having more than 1 million install. I can't imagine these FOSS projects paying any significant amount of money just to distribute their free apps. OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple.
  - otoburb 3y ago
    >>OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple. VideoLAN (VLC developer) is a non-profit so they are exempt from the Core Technology Fee even if they distribute on an alternate app store. "OsmAnd is developed by a Dutch private limited company, OsmAnd B.V. located in Amstelveen, the Netherlands"[1] so it looks like they would be subject to the CTF if they choose to distribute from an alternate app store or utilize a non-Apple payment processor; or they could stick to the existing business terms and continue as-is in the Apple App Store. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsmAnd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsmAnd
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Then they can distribute on the AppStore for 100 bucks per year.
- radley 3y ago

summerlight 3y ago

Note that it also include other terms: * Reduced commission: 30% -> 17% * Payment processing fee: No fee to Apple Some big mobile games may opt in this option by removing IAP and using their own payment processor, if "update"s are not considered as "install"s. Looks like Apple is desperate on keeping those apps in their app store?

rahkiin 3y ago
It seems updates also count. If they can cover that 50c for every non-paying user with the extra 10% profit on paying users they might switch.

jsnell 3y ago

As far as I can tell, it's a bit more subtle than that. What Apple is doing is offering developers either the old deal (with all its now-illegal restrictions) or the new deal that removes the restrictions but adds the punitive Core Technology Fee. The intent is obviously for nobody with a large app to take the new deal, but for Apple to be able to claim that they've lowered the App Store fees and made allowed alternate stores. I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy into this scheme, but who knows.

blibble 3y ago
> I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy into this scheme, but who knows. I think they're quite aware that they won't but that will take half a decade, and in the meantime, Apple will have made another couple of hundred billion dollars
- zarzavat 3y ago
  The commission can (for example) put an import ban on iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the commission’s interpretation of the DMA. Apple is free to argue their hopeless interpretation in court, but in the short term they will not get away with these delaying tactics.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > The commission can (for example) put an import ban on iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the commission’s interpretation of the DMA. yeah, but they won't the euroskeptics would absolutely LOVE it if they did
- arlcode 3y ago
  And it's a CYA against shareholder lawsuits. If they give in "without a fight" by following the spirit of the law (or even the letter) they will use a lot of income. Companies are not our friends (not our enemies either) and only form a fleeting alliance if the goal of makeing money aligns with the interest of the user. On this subject, for this company it doesn't.

a1o 3y ago

Per month

mandeepj 3y ago

> There are 2 billion active iOS devices Those are global numbers. So, when counting EU specific revenue, you can't use that number.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

baxtr 3y ago

As I understand this, no app developer is forced to change to the new terms: > New Business Terms for Apps in the EU Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative payment processing.

_cenw 3y ago
Well, duh, it's designed to keep every app with reach bound to the Apple App Store.

mcfedr 3y ago

Here's hoping the EU just says no to this bull that Apple are coming up with. The so called "core technology" is sold by Apple to the user in iOS.

buzzert 3y ago
It's not, actually. It's the salaries of the engineers who work on the frameworks and OS that underpin the apps these developers are writing. Are you proposing we should go back to charging users for software updates? Personally, I think it makes more sense to take a cut from other people doing business on top of the platform.
- mcfedr 3y ago
  Yet they managed to do this for years for free when they had their walled garden up and and supposedly offered so much value to developers with their app store and such
- summerlight 3y ago
  Profit from the iPhone business alone should be much more than enough to pay those OS/framework developers since Apple claims that iOS and iPhone are indivisible/unsubstitutable parts to each other.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  If Apple inexplicably chooses to sell iDevices so cheaply that they can't afford to pay the people who build the software for it, that's their mistake. The EU isn't forcing them to do that, neither are app developers. They've had years to remedy any pricing mistakes they made in the past and price their hardware appropriately. They also pull in billions of dollars every year from their 30% cut on gambling/gacha games, and do almost nothing to earn that (those games have to provide their own updater/CDN because the Apple/Google ones aren't good enough, and those games don't meaningfully rely on Apple/Google for things like quality assurance or marketing.) Apple will be fine even if their Europe-specific cut is halved. Claiming they're going to suffer or be unable to pay employees is simply not supported by any evidence.

orenlindsey 3y ago

What if someone malicious makes a bot to install an app on a ton of accounts? The dev would get charged for every single install.

SpaceManNabs 3y ago
This was an issue when people were discussing unity per install fees.

diebeforei485 3y ago

Correct, and this includes app updates but they will only pay once per year. It is per "first annual install", not per install. Given that you have to update apps every year to support new iOS versions, this is essentially an annual tax per user.

bluecalm 3y ago

One thing EU regulators could do is to say "ok but you have to charge the iOS user for it instead of the developer". Then if users accept it - fine, let them have it. The same should go for 30% appstore fee: make it explicit and add it to the user's bill: "1$ for the developer and your card is also charged separately with 30c Apple tax". That would actual competition for the best platform real.

turquoisevar 3y ago

This only applies to install numbers within the EU. It’s exactly what many have said Apple should do to get payment for usage of their IP: split it from the commission. So now you can pay separately for the IP, separately for payment processing and separately for App Store services or a combination of all of the above.

nottorp 3y ago

[flagged]

sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago

Eh, we know from the DoJ trial Google is already sending trucks full of cash down to Cupertino every day for search defaults. This may just add a little extra overhead on the next “protection” payment.

kelvinharvy4 3y ago

[dead]