6 ms·

So 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 throu

So 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?
- simplyluke 3y ago
  > ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc. I think it’s pretty reasonable I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me that we've reached a point where people are considering it very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the power and intent to censor are able to distribute software. The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control the power of individuals using it.
- oersted 3y ago
  > 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? Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they? Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There’s nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of compiling a program, it’s again anti-competitive. And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    > Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they? Oh, ok, so because Apple forces me to buy internet and electricity but not any specific internet or electricity, Apple gets a pass? I'm glad that’s cleared up. Whether something is overpriced is a subjective opinion that we seem to differ on. Still, somehow, I suspect you’ll struggle to provide me an example that can match, say, the latest MBP with an M3 chip in performance and power draw at a lower price. > Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. You call it forcing. I call it not going out of their way to spend resources on developing tooling for a platform other than their own. And yet, despite them not going out of their way to spend resources, many alternatives have developed over the years to create an app for iOS on Windows. Seems like it’s not that big of an issue. I’m not particularly fazed by the notion that I need an Apple device to create an app for Apple devices. But what do I know? Perhaps I got brainwashed after they forced me to buy an iPhone to debug my iPhone apps. > it’s again anti-competitive Is it anti-competitive for a company not to go out of its way to create tooling that runs a competing platform? > And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays You’re contradicting yourself. What is it? Is there zero cost of tooling, and can I pick up a free laptop at my nearest handout spot, or are we to pretend it’s “zero cost” just because there are options on how much I spend? If it’s the latter, where is the line in the sand? Is it anti-competitive that I must purchase a laptop with specific minimal specs to have a smooth compiling experience? Does the line start when I want to develop games, and I have to pull my wallet to buy a decent GPU? I’m sorry; I have difficulty taking any of this seriously. Yes, I will have to make some financial investments if I want to have the tools to create something that is pretty much a given for pretty much anything. And yes, sometimes I’ll need a specific tool for a particular job. Are we to admonish every such instance or only when you feel something is overpriced? Give me a break.
samcat116 3y ago
Where did you get that apps going through alternate app stores would be reviewed?
- modeless 3y ago
  "a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel [...] a combination of automated checks and human review."
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    For what it’s worth, this already happens on macOS for non-app store apps.
    - boucher 3y ago
      There's a pretty big difference between notarization on macOS and what's being described here.
      - rmorey 3y ago
        What would that difference be?
        teg4n_ 3y ago
        The fact that notarization is not required to install an app on MacOS.
        PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
        I'm actually curious whether they're going to allow non-notarization apps to be installed, but keeping it hidden away. But any developer distributing non-approved applications won't ever be allowed to distribute on the app store as well without paying those fees.
        3y ago
rahkiin 3y ago
They cut it to 10%+0.50c (or 30%)
charcircuit 3y ago
>it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install Apple spends billions of dollars to develop iOS and allows a user to exclusively install free apps if they want. This behavior is subsidized by other users doing IAP and buying paid apps. Alternate app stores can also subsidize free apps from the money they make from IAP and from paid apps.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  No, it's subsidized by the thousand+ dollars users spend on the hardware.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- charcircuit 3y ago
  I didn't realize that the fee was for apps and not app stores.
  - nazgu1 3y ago
    Looks like it is for apps (with 1M threshold) and for AppStores app (without threshold).
ankit219 3y ago
It's the standard strategy of making things so complex that no one bothers with it. > Users will be able to download an alternative marketplace app from the marketplace developer’s website. That is, an alternate app store will only be downloaded via the website and not app store. All this when an app developer will have to choose via App Store connect where they want to host the app.
- bredren 3y ago
  Allowing this is the intent, can anyone share examples of similar maneuvers and uptake / outcome?
donmcronald 3y ago
The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. I hope the EU brings the hammer down on them. It's obvious, in my opinion, the goal here is to make the EU version as bad as possible so Apple can "prove" regulation is bad for developers and users. I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side. I thought the app store would flop when they announced they'd gatekeep distribution, but here we are. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers claiming this current development is good for everyone. It seems so obvious that all the platform owners are working against everyone (developers, advertisers, users) and I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.
- dmix 3y ago
  > Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. It does sound very European though.
- Nathanba 3y ago
  Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can import it "illegally" then.
  - kmlx 3y ago
    > For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. the rest of the world also has no problem with the EU confirming it's status :)
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money. The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.
andersa 3y ago
No, apple is not going to continue gatekeeping. However, it seems they will need a proper bitchslap to correctly understand their role here. This post (by apple) is actually ridiculous.
- kj99 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s going to be as easy as you think. The DMA is a rule change for everyone, not a punishment aimed at Apple. If what Apple is proposing is legally compliant with it, then they are going to need to change the rules again for everyone, not just Apple.
  - andersa 3y ago
    It's (to me) clearly non-compliant with its intention. It's now for courts to decide whether that is the case, or for politicians to fix the law to patch this backdoor if there was one. But it will be fixed.
    - kj99 3y ago
      Intention doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the intention is expressed through the law. Not every intention can be, at least not in a state that actually respects the rule of law.
      - andersa 3y ago
        Intention is the only thing that matters. Laws in the EU do not work like in the US where you can get by on a technicality because the wrong grammar was used in the text. If you purposefully interpret the law in the stupidest way possible that will benefit you, don't be surprised if the court disagrees with you.
        kj99 3y ago
        Perhaps the people who thought this would somehow make iOS like the Mac are interpreting the law in the stupidest way possible because they don’t understand commercial law. The EU isn’t a dictatorship. Courts there still follow precedent and legal principles, which means that the law has to be interpreted through the lens of established case law governing commerce, and how the court decides this will affect everyone else going forwards.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

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?

simplyluke 3y ago
> ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc. I think it’s pretty reasonable I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me that we've reached a point where people are considering it very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the power and intent to censor are able to distribute software. The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control the power of individuals using it.
oersted 3y ago
> 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? Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they? Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There’s nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of compiling a program, it’s again anti-competitive. And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  > Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they? Oh, ok, so because Apple forces me to buy internet and electricity but not any specific internet or electricity, Apple gets a pass? I'm glad that’s cleared up. Whether something is overpriced is a subjective opinion that we seem to differ on. Still, somehow, I suspect you’ll struggle to provide me an example that can match, say, the latest MBP with an M3 chip in performance and power draw at a lower price. > Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. You call it forcing. I call it not going out of their way to spend resources on developing tooling for a platform other than their own. And yet, despite them not going out of their way to spend resources, many alternatives have developed over the years to create an app for iOS on Windows. Seems like it’s not that big of an issue. I’m not particularly fazed by the notion that I need an Apple device to create an app for Apple devices. But what do I know? Perhaps I got brainwashed after they forced me to buy an iPhone to debug my iPhone apps. > it’s again anti-competitive Is it anti-competitive for a company not to go out of its way to create tooling that runs a competing platform? > And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays You’re contradicting yourself. What is it? Is there zero cost of tooling, and can I pick up a free laptop at my nearest handout spot, or are we to pretend it’s “zero cost” just because there are options on how much I spend? If it’s the latter, where is the line in the sand? Is it anti-competitive that I must purchase a laptop with specific minimal specs to have a smooth compiling experience? Does the line start when I want to develop games, and I have to pull my wallet to buy a decent GPU? I’m sorry; I have difficulty taking any of this seriously. Yes, I will have to make some financial investments if I want to have the tools to create something that is pretty much a given for pretty much anything. And yes, sometimes I’ll need a specific tool for a particular job. Are we to admonish every such instance or only when you feel something is overpriced? Give me a break.

samcat116 3y ago

Where did you get that apps going through alternate app stores would be reviewed?

modeless 3y ago
"a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel [...] a combination of automated checks and human review."
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  For what it’s worth, this already happens on macOS for non-app store apps.
  - boucher 3y ago
    There's a pretty big difference between notarization on macOS and what's being described here.
    - rmorey 3y ago
      What would that difference be?
      - teg4n_ 3y ago
        The fact that notarization is not required to install an app on MacOS.
        PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
        I'm actually curious whether they're going to allow non-notarization apps to be installed, but keeping it hidden away. But any developer distributing non-approved applications won't ever be allowed to distribute on the app store as well without paying those fees.
      - 3y ago

rahkiin 3y ago

They cut it to 10%+0.50c (or 30%)

charcircuit 3y ago

>it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install Apple spends billions of dollars to develop iOS and allows a user to exclusively install free apps if they want. This behavior is subsidized by other users doing IAP and buying paid apps. Alternate app stores can also subsidize free apps from the money they make from IAP and from paid apps.

tsimionescu 3y ago
No, it's subsidized by the thousand+ dollars users spend on the hardware.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
charcircuit 3y ago
I didn't realize that the fee was for apps and not app stores.
- nazgu1 3y ago
  Looks like it is for apps (with 1M threshold) and for AppStores app (without threshold).

ankit219 3y ago

It's the standard strategy of making things so complex that no one bothers with it. > Users will be able to download an alternative marketplace app from the marketplace developer’s website. That is, an alternate app store will only be downloaded via the website and not app store. All this when an app developer will have to choose via App Store connect where they want to host the app.

bredren 3y ago
Allowing this is the intent, can anyone share examples of similar maneuvers and uptake / outcome?

donmcronald 3y ago

The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. I hope the EU brings the hammer down on them. It's obvious, in my opinion, the goal here is to make the EU version as bad as possible so Apple can "prove" regulation is bad for developers and users. I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side. I thought the app store would flop when they announced they'd gatekeep distribution, but here we are. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers claiming this current development is good for everyone. It seems so obvious that all the platform owners are working against everyone (developers, advertisers, users) and I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.

dmix 3y ago
> Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. It does sound very European though.
Nathanba 3y ago
Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can import it "illegally" then.
- kmlx 3y ago
  > For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. the rest of the world also has no problem with the EU confirming it's status :)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money. The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.

andersa 3y ago

No, apple is not going to continue gatekeeping. However, it seems they will need a proper bitchslap to correctly understand their role here. This post (by apple) is actually ridiculous.

kj99 3y ago
I don’t think that’s going to be as easy as you think. The DMA is a rule change for everyone, not a punishment aimed at Apple. If what Apple is proposing is legally compliant with it, then they are going to need to change the rules again for everyone, not just Apple.
- andersa 3y ago
  It's (to me) clearly non-compliant with its intention. It's now for courts to decide whether that is the case, or for politicians to fix the law to patch this backdoor if there was one. But it will be fixed.
  - kj99 3y ago
    Intention doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the intention is expressed through the law. Not every intention can be, at least not in a state that actually respects the rule of law.
    - andersa 3y ago
      Intention is the only thing that matters. Laws in the EU do not work like in the US where you can get by on a technicality because the wrong grammar was used in the text. If you purposefully interpret the law in the stupidest way possible that will benefit you, don't be surprised if the court disagrees with you.
      - kj99 3y ago
        Perhaps the people who thought this would somehow make iOS like the Mac are interpreting the law in the stupidest way possible because they don’t understand commercial law. The EU isn’t a dictatorship. Courts there still follow precedent and legal principles, which means that the law has to be interpreted through the lens of established case law governing commerce, and how the court decides this will affect everyone else going forwards.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]