15 ms·

> 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 acq

> 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 ago
That'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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Is 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 ago
The 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.
- steelframe 3y ago
  > 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. I see what you did there.
- merlindru 3y ago
  > No. It’s a calculated decision. Could you elaborate? I don't get this part -- are you saying they don't include a calc app on the iPad to push iPhone sales?
TillE 3y ago
Yeah this is brutal for any truly free app that risks getting popular. The only exceptions are for "Nonprofit organizations, accredited educational institutions, and government entities", so I guess at least Mozilla will find a way to distribute Firefox. https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  The non-profit doesn't own Firefox, it's the corporation that does.
- lxgr 3y ago
  I wonder if Mozilla will even be considered a nonprofit, given that they have a for-profit subsidiary, and they're not the only nonprofit with that structure.
  - jimnotgym 3y ago
    That is normally considered fine, because the profits from the subsidiary get paid to the non-profit
  - forty 3y ago
    The good thing about open source apps is that they could really be distributed by any non profit that match whatever requirements non profits need to match to benefit from free distribution ^^
- audunw 3y ago
  Wait what? The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy to get around if you’re just developing an app for fun, or for open source organisations to get apps distributed. So what are we left with? Apps where users are the product, like Facebook, and freemium apps where you end up paying to get anything useful done with it anyway. Apps where the parent company is making millions if not billions. Is anybody upset that those guys have to chip in for iOS development? I personally think Apples approach is the lesser of two evils. We don’t pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway. I’d rather it be through fees on apps than more insidious approaches. And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones. And we know that’s a real issue. As long as we pay through app fees the phone makers are incentivised to keep releasing OS updates for old phones.
qilo 3y ago
per month
- ladberg 3y ago
  Nope: > will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold EDIT: I misread, I thought they were arguing that the 50c was per month, not the total number at the end of the calculation.
  - halostatue 3y ago
    Yes. The calculator shows a monthly amount assuming you get your annual-user-device-install spread evenly over the year. It should be showing the annual cost as the total and as a convenience show the average monthly cost.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
Well. It's still $0 USD if you distribute via the App Store.
- errnoh 3y ago
  No, that's wrong. Multiple news sites are getting that wrong but Apple announcement is very clear that the fee applies to even App Store: > 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. source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-changes-to-ios-safari-and-the-app-store-in-the-european-union/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang...
  - rattray 3y ago
    It's opt-in: > 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. So you either choose US/Global Business Model (what we know today), or EU Business Model (what was announced today, with flexibility but high fees). You can distribute on the App Store either way.
- lxgr 3y ago
  It's not, at least not if developers opt into the new terms, which is a trapdoor decision. It's also unclear how long the old terms will remain available, and whether new companies can still sign up for them.
- yreg 3y ago
  It's $99 USD per year.
- matwood 3y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted. Developers are given a choice on the new system or the current. Anyone distributing a free app will stick with the current.
TheCapeGreek 3y ago
Far too many comments are glossing over this. To comply with the regulation they've introduced even more egregious pricing.
- dt3ft 3y ago
  Also known as malicious compliance.
  - natch 3y ago
    Protective compliance. Protect the users from misguided legislation.
    - rvba 3y ago
      Alternative ways to download apps has nothing to do with user protection. All Apple is doing is protecting their pockets.
      - natch 3y ago
        You are mistaken. Malicious apps hurt their users and hurt their brand.
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        somehow the decade of jailbroken apps haven't done that. I doubt being able to search the web for an alt app store would do worse.
        natch 3y ago
        I don’t think you are aware of all the damage that has been done. Being unaware does not make it disappear. For you, maybe, but not for Apple.
        3y ago
kaba0 3y ago
It’s up from $100 USD, which is the yearly fee of a developer account. And you can choose the now-existing model, which obviously makes sense for a free app, so no, it stays 100.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  You're missing the point. The point of this legislation is to open the platform up to competition. These fees accomplish the exact opposite, they ensure that alternative marketplaces aren't viable for freemium apps, i.e. most of them.
natch 3y ago
That’s only if the developer opts into the new needless system imposed by the EU.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwitaway1123 3y ago
So if I develop a Catalyst app for an M1 powered Mac I can distribute it outside of the Mac App Store, and freely use Apple's SDK (as long as I pay the yearly 99 fee to enter their developer program). But if I distribute that exact same app on an M1 powered iPad outside of the App Store, I'll be subjected to a fee if my app goes viral, unless I agree not to profit from it and set up a non-profit organization?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I ran the calculator and basically anything over 1 million installs and you start to incur what is effectively a progressive tax
  - RayVR 3y ago
    You are misunderstanding or misusing the word progressive here... If I have an app that makes $20,000 annually and all of the sudden there's a huge influx of new downloads (with no guarantee of converting to paid), then I am bankrupt. Apple will charge $4,500 to me PER MONTH for 100k downloads above 1 million. If I have 2 million downloads, I now owe Apple $45,000 per month. This means the new structure is incredibly regressive. This will destroy small businesses. I actually could not believe the fee calculator was correct, so I found the section in the terms[0] section 4.1 (A) lays out the fee, which is 0.5 EUR per app install above 1 million installs. This could, in theory, be used as a way for groups of people to target and take down small businesses. These downloads include "redownloads" where a user may delete and then download the application again. I can already see the lawsuits if Apple does not implement mitigations for these types of attacks. 0: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      In fact I’m using it perfectly in line with how the term is used for taxes A progressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes up A regressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes down Regressive does not definitionally mean “bad for the small guy” even though that is a deterministic consequence of a regressive tax However the term progressive in this context is “value free” and simply an indication of the direction of relative increase in percentage given the increase or decrease in the taxable measure In this case the progression is a cliff so not very incremental
yosito 3y ago
From a quick look at that page, that's only the case if you're selling things in your app, not for free apps. And at 2 million installs, you'd only have to be making $0.03 per install to cover that amount.
- rymiel 3y ago
  No. You pay even if your app doesn't have purchases. You pay more if it does.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

cranium 3y ago

That'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 ago

Not 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 ago
Is 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 ago

The 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.

steelframe 3y ago
> 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. I see what you did there.
merlindru 3y ago
> No. It’s a calculated decision. Could you elaborate? I don't get this part -- are you saying they don't include a calc app on the iPad to push iPhone sales?

TillE 3y ago

Yeah this is brutal for any truly free app that risks getting popular. The only exceptions are for "Nonprofit organizations, accredited educational institutions, and government entities", so I guess at least Mozilla will find a way to distribute Firefox. https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

heavyset_go 3y ago
The non-profit doesn't own Firefox, it's the corporation that does.
lxgr 3y ago
I wonder if Mozilla will even be considered a nonprofit, given that they have a for-profit subsidiary, and they're not the only nonprofit with that structure.
- jimnotgym 3y ago
  That is normally considered fine, because the profits from the subsidiary get paid to the non-profit
- forty 3y ago
  The good thing about open source apps is that they could really be distributed by any non profit that match whatever requirements non profits need to match to benefit from free distribution ^^
audunw 3y ago
Wait what? The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy to get around if you’re just developing an app for fun, or for open source organisations to get apps distributed. So what are we left with? Apps where users are the product, like Facebook, and freemium apps where you end up paying to get anything useful done with it anyway. Apps where the parent company is making millions if not billions. Is anybody upset that those guys have to chip in for iOS development? I personally think Apples approach is the lesser of two evils. We don’t pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway. I’d rather it be through fees on apps than more insidious approaches. And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones. And we know that’s a real issue. As long as we pay through app fees the phone makers are incentivised to keep releasing OS updates for old phones.

qilo 3y ago

per month

ladberg 3y ago
Nope: > will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold EDIT: I misread, I thought they were arguing that the 50c was per month, not the total number at the end of the calculation.
- halostatue 3y ago
  Yes. The calculator shows a monthly amount assuming you get your annual-user-device-install spread evenly over the year. It should be showing the annual cost as the total and as a convenience show the average monthly cost.

LeoPanthera 3y ago

Well. It's still $0 USD if you distribute via the App Store.

errnoh 3y ago
No, that's wrong. Multiple news sites are getting that wrong but Apple announcement is very clear that the fee applies to even App Store: > 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. source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-changes-to-ios-safari-and-the-app-store-in-the-european-union/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang...
- rattray 3y ago
  It's opt-in: > 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. So you either choose US/Global Business Model (what we know today), or EU Business Model (what was announced today, with flexibility but high fees). You can distribute on the App Store either way.
lxgr 3y ago
It's not, at least not if developers opt into the new terms, which is a trapdoor decision. It's also unclear how long the old terms will remain available, and whether new companies can still sign up for them.
yreg 3y ago
It's $99 USD per year.
matwood 3y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted. Developers are given a choice on the new system or the current. Anyone distributing a free app will stick with the current.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago

Far too many comments are glossing over this. To comply with the regulation they've introduced even more egregious pricing.

dt3ft 3y ago
Also known as malicious compliance.
- natch 3y ago
  Protective compliance. Protect the users from misguided legislation.
  - rvba 3y ago
    Alternative ways to download apps has nothing to do with user protection. All Apple is doing is protecting their pockets.
    - natch 3y ago
      You are mistaken. Malicious apps hurt their users and hurt their brand.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        somehow the decade of jailbroken apps haven't done that. I doubt being able to search the web for an alt app store would do worse.
        natch 3y ago
        I don’t think you are aware of all the damage that has been done. Being unaware does not make it disappear. For you, maybe, but not for Apple.
        3y ago

kaba0 3y ago

It’s up from $100 USD, which is the yearly fee of a developer account. And you can choose the now-existing model, which obviously makes sense for a free app, so no, it stays 100.

dns_snek 3y ago
You're missing the point. The point of this legislation is to open the platform up to competition. These fees accomplish the exact opposite, they ensure that alternative marketplaces aren't viable for freemium apps, i.e. most of them.

natch 3y ago

That’s only if the developer opts into the new needless system imposed by the EU.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwitaway1123 3y ago

So if I develop a Catalyst app for an M1 powered Mac I can distribute it outside of the Mac App Store, and freely use Apple's SDK (as long as I pay the yearly 99 fee to enter their developer program). But if I distribute that exact same app on an M1 powered iPad outside of the App Store, I'll be subjected to a fee if my app goes viral, unless I agree not to profit from it and set up a non-profit organization?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I ran the calculator and basically anything over 1 million installs and you start to incur what is effectively a progressive tax
- RayVR 3y ago
  You are misunderstanding or misusing the word progressive here... If I have an app that makes $20,000 annually and all of the sudden there's a huge influx of new downloads (with no guarantee of converting to paid), then I am bankrupt. Apple will charge $4,500 to me PER MONTH for 100k downloads above 1 million. If I have 2 million downloads, I now owe Apple $45,000 per month. This means the new structure is incredibly regressive. This will destroy small businesses. I actually could not believe the fee calculator was correct, so I found the section in the terms[0] section 4.1 (A) lays out the fee, which is 0.5 EUR per app install above 1 million installs. This could, in theory, be used as a way for groups of people to target and take down small businesses. These downloads include "redownloads" where a user may delete and then download the application again. I can already see the lawsuits if Apple does not implement mitigations for these types of attacks. 0: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    In fact I’m using it perfectly in line with how the term is used for taxes A progressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes up A regressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes down Regressive does not definitionally mean “bad for the small guy” even though that is a deterministic consequence of a regressive tax However the term progressive in this context is “value free” and simply an indication of the direction of relative increase in percentage given the increase or decrease in the taxable measure In this case the progression is a cliff so not very incremental

yosito 3y ago

From a quick look at that page, that's only the case if you're selling things in your app, not for free apps. And at 2 million installs, you'd only have to be making $0.03 per install to cover that amount.

rymiel 3y ago
No. You pay even if your app doesn't have purchases. You pay more if it does.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]