11 ms·

Yeah this is brutal for any truly free app that risks getting popular. The only exceptions are for "Nonprofit organizations, accredited educational institutions

by 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.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  Then why not simply pay for updates instead of squeezing the market?
- jlokier 3y ago
  > The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy [...] I give Apple credit for making this clear rule: Having fewer than 1 million users on iOS in the EU means no fee, and you don't need to worry about status at all. But if you have more installs, I don't think you'll get an easy to get a pass by just by sending Apple a note like "I'm just developing my app for fun" or "My app is open source". Maybe that works, but I wouldn't assume it without testing. If your app has 1 million+ users, it's not at all convincing to say you made it just for fun, even if that's the truth. And we all know some open source apps are written with intent to make a profit, or given away free to promote related commercial activities or reputation, so saying it's open source isn't convincing either. Anecdote: I ran a non-profit org, a hackerspace. Not only was it truly a non-profit organisation, it was legally constituted as such. The members had no legal rights to take any of its funds and resources out, those resources came from members and could only be used for the organisations's stated purpose, and because of this structure no tax was due when its funds grew, as they were primarily from member fees and donations. However, it was not a registered charity. It could have been but we decided the administrative overheads were too high. Unfortunately, we were unable to convince Paypal we were a non-profit despite providing all the organisational documents Paypal requested to prove it (about 10 documents IIRC). This meant we weren't able to use Paypal for significant quantities of funding, i.e. to take membership payments. We could do a tiny amount for a couple of people, but it was capped at a very low limit. If it's impossible to convince Paypal that a formally constituted non-profit qualifies as such, I wouldn't assume it's easy to convince Apple with casual claims, for an app with 1M+ users.
- rany_ 3y ago
  > Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway I'm not sure why I have to mention this, but you could be paying for something and get screwed over at the same time. The issue isn't that Google/Microsoft/etc NEED to make money this way, but that this is legal to do. Also, Windows isn't exactly cheap and I personally couldn't fathom paying more than 100 bucks for an OS and still get treated like crap. I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their users with their current model throughout the device's entire lifetime.
crazygringo 3y ago
But then don't pick the new terms. If you want to continue to distribute your app for free in Apple's app store, literally nothing changes.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  This approach is a gotcha: If you want to distribute Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome for free, this isn't possible under the old policy, and the new policy would mean 'open source web browsers cost half a euro per update'. It's nonsense.
  - natch 3y ago
    But the old policy allows distribution of these apps for free and developers have the option of sticking with the old policy — so I don’t see the problem.
    - greycol 3y ago
      Apples argument that they're complying is about as brilliant as "I don't need a liquor license because I'm not selling beer I'm renting glassess for the time it takes to drink a beer". The only way to get into 3rd party stores is to pay (or be at risk of having to pay) Apple which is not the case if you only distribute through the Apple store, this clearly disadvantages 3rd party stores in comparrison to their own store.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        In general, getting into a 3rd party store is not a good thing, and it doesn’t benefit end-users. I only ever want to see 2 app stores on my phone, the AppStore, and an FDroid alternative full of free, open-source apps. Anything else is good to be disincentivized.
      - natch 3y ago
        This makes it sound like complying is supposed to be a good thing. That’s an unfounded assumption imho.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Truly free apps can remain on the current agreement of 15%/30% without install fee. The new EU stuff is opt-in.
- waffleiron 3y ago
  > The new EU stuff is opt-in. That’s quite absurd, no? "You can pick which terms you want, the ones where we follow the law, or the ones where we don’t. If you pick the ones where we don’t, it’s cheaper for you."
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    The law calls for this choice, the law doesn’t prohibit Apple from offering their preferred option. That said, if you have a an article of the DMA that says otherwise, I’m all ears. It’s a bit hard for me to prove no such thing exists, other than to provide you with the full text of the DMA of course. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
    - yellow_postit 3y ago
      It does seem like malicious and petty compliance on Apples part. But that’s also the expected behavior of a corporation— so the EU just needs to keep up the rule making and clarification.
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  Apple likes fewer skus and more money. I doubt this split world lasts for too long.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Aren't they then subjected to the current AppStore's limitations on open source licenses ? I thought that's what barred many open source programs from getting into the AppStore, and this would be a different but still PITA hurdle.
simonebrunozzi 3y ago
Mozilla has more than $1B in cash, so I don't think that $45,000 or even $1M is going to materially affect Firefox, etc.
- FrozenSynapse 3y ago
  but why should they pay?
I_AM_A_SMURF 3y ago
Depends if they consider Mozilla Corp (a for-profit corporation) or Mozilla Foundation (the no-profit owner of the Corp) the developer of the browser. All the engineers are employed by the corp.

by TillE 3y ago

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.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago
Then why not simply pay for updates instead of squeezing the market?
jlokier 3y ago
> The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy [...] I give Apple credit for making this clear rule: Having fewer than 1 million users on iOS in the EU means no fee, and you don't need to worry about status at all. But if you have more installs, I don't think you'll get an easy to get a pass by just by sending Apple a note like "I'm just developing my app for fun" or "My app is open source". Maybe that works, but I wouldn't assume it without testing. If your app has 1 million+ users, it's not at all convincing to say you made it just for fun, even if that's the truth. And we all know some open source apps are written with intent to make a profit, or given away free to promote related commercial activities or reputation, so saying it's open source isn't convincing either. Anecdote: I ran a non-profit org, a hackerspace. Not only was it truly a non-profit organisation, it was legally constituted as such. The members had no legal rights to take any of its funds and resources out, those resources came from members and could only be used for the organisations's stated purpose, and because of this structure no tax was due when its funds grew, as they were primarily from member fees and donations. However, it was not a registered charity. It could have been but we decided the administrative overheads were too high. Unfortunately, we were unable to convince Paypal we were a non-profit despite providing all the organisational documents Paypal requested to prove it (about 10 documents IIRC). This meant we weren't able to use Paypal for significant quantities of funding, i.e. to take membership payments. We could do a tiny amount for a couple of people, but it was capped at a very low limit. If it's impossible to convince Paypal that a formally constituted non-profit qualifies as such, I wouldn't assume it's easy to convince Apple with casual claims, for an app with 1M+ users.
rany_ 3y ago
> Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway I'm not sure why I have to mention this, but you could be paying for something and get screwed over at the same time. The issue isn't that Google/Microsoft/etc NEED to make money this way, but that this is legal to do. Also, Windows isn't exactly cheap and I personally couldn't fathom paying more than 100 bucks for an OS and still get treated like crap. I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their users with their current model throughout the device's entire lifetime.

crazygringo 3y ago

But then don't pick the new terms. If you want to continue to distribute your app for free in Apple's app store, literally nothing changes.

kevingadd 3y ago
This approach is a gotcha: If you want to distribute Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome for free, this isn't possible under the old policy, and the new policy would mean 'open source web browsers cost half a euro per update'. It's nonsense.
- natch 3y ago
  But the old policy allows distribution of these apps for free and developers have the option of sticking with the old policy — so I don’t see the problem.
  - greycol 3y ago
    Apples argument that they're complying is about as brilliant as "I don't need a liquor license because I'm not selling beer I'm renting glassess for the time it takes to drink a beer". The only way to get into 3rd party stores is to pay (or be at risk of having to pay) Apple which is not the case if you only distribute through the Apple store, this clearly disadvantages 3rd party stores in comparrison to their own store.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      In general, getting into a 3rd party store is not a good thing, and it doesn’t benefit end-users. I only ever want to see 2 app stores on my phone, the AppStore, and an FDroid alternative full of free, open-source apps. Anything else is good to be disincentivized.
    - natch 3y ago
      This makes it sound like complying is supposed to be a good thing. That’s an unfounded assumption imho.

turquoisevar 3y ago

Truly free apps can remain on the current agreement of 15%/30% without install fee. The new EU stuff is opt-in.

waffleiron 3y ago
> The new EU stuff is opt-in. That’s quite absurd, no? "You can pick which terms you want, the ones where we follow the law, or the ones where we don’t. If you pick the ones where we don’t, it’s cheaper for you."
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  The law calls for this choice, the law doesn’t prohibit Apple from offering their preferred option. That said, if you have a an article of the DMA that says otherwise, I’m all ears. It’s a bit hard for me to prove no such thing exists, other than to provide you with the full text of the DMA of course. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    It does seem like malicious and petty compliance on Apples part. But that’s also the expected behavior of a corporation— so the EU just needs to keep up the rule making and clarification.
yellow_postit 3y ago
Apple likes fewer skus and more money. I doubt this split world lasts for too long.
makeitdouble 3y ago
Aren't they then subjected to the current AppStore's limitations on open source licenses ? I thought that's what barred many open source programs from getting into the AppStore, and this would be a different but still PITA hurdle.

simonebrunozzi 3y ago

Mozilla has more than $1B in cash, so I don't think that $45,000 or even $1M is going to materially affect Firefox, etc.

FrozenSynapse 3y ago
but why should they pay?

I_AM_A_SMURF 3y ago

Depends if they consider Mozilla Corp (a for-profit corporation) or Mozilla Foundation (the no-profit owner of the Corp) the developer of the browser. All the engineers are employed by the corp.