3 ms·

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 th

by 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.
      - Mogzol 3y ago
        Maybe I'm misreading the original article, but it sounds like it would also apply to apps distributed only through the regular 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.
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        Developers can adopt the new terms, or not, up to them.
        blokey 3y ago
        Only if they choose the “new” terms, they can stay on the existing terms if they want to distribute through the App Store, as it’s free so the commission change doesn’t matter. Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some of the more brutal privacy invasions they’ve tried)
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Small fraction of users but a huge fraction of the market share (and revenue generation share). Being that the DMA was specifically targeting these two things it seems quite at odds with "A free app like Chrome must pay us millions if it wants to distribute itself instead of using the legacy terms deemed illegal". If they didn't allow legacy terms it'd have a bit more of a leg to stand for opening the markets, same as if it didn't apply to apps distributed via third party, but the way it is now seems a contentious combination.
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      Imagine the new attack vector: You have a mildly successful free/very cheap app. Your competitor starts advertising your app, pushing it up over the 1m threshold and forcing you to start charging (or increase your price) to pay the core charge.
mvdtnz 3y ago
From $99/year to $45,000/month. That's quite a large increase.
- SirMaster 3y ago
  Maybe I am missing something, but can't you still just stay the same as the past? This is only adding new alternative choices, not changing or removing any current systems and methods and prices.
  - layer8 3y ago
    If you want to publish a retro-gaming emulator as a hobby/open-source project, you can’t do that on Apple’s app store. And on a third-party app store you’ll have to pay Apple millions once it becomes popular (which would seem likely).
    - SirMaster 3y ago
      But it's a new thing you couldn't even do before. So the bar is not "raised". It's a new bar. Also, is retro-gaming emulation really that popular in the EU? I don't think I know anyone who does that.
      - layer8 3y ago
        It’s certainly against the spirit of removing “gatekeepers”. Retro-gaming emulators are quite popular here among nerds. I know several people who bought an Anbernic handheld, built a RetroPie, or similar.
    - dzhiurgis 3y ago
      You can always release Super-Duper-Emulator-2
      - layer8 3y ago
        Since apps are still subject to Apple’s review process even on third-party app stores, they are likely to reject this because it obviously circumvents the new business terms (if it doesn’t violate them outright).

by 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.
    - Mogzol 3y ago
      Maybe I'm misreading the original article, but it sounds like it would also apply to apps distributed only through the regular 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.
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Developers can adopt the new terms, or not, up to them.
      - blokey 3y ago
        Only if they choose the “new” terms, they can stay on the existing terms if they want to distribute through the App Store, as it’s free so the commission change doesn’t matter. Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some of the more brutal privacy invasions they’ve tried)
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Small fraction of users but a huge fraction of the market share (and revenue generation share). Being that the DMA was specifically targeting these two things it seems quite at odds with "A free app like Chrome must pay us millions if it wants to distribute itself instead of using the legacy terms deemed illegal". If they didn't allow legacy terms it'd have a bit more of a leg to stand for opening the markets, same as if it didn't apply to apps distributed via third party, but the way it is now seems a contentious combination.
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Imagine the new attack vector: You have a mildly successful free/very cheap app. Your competitor starts advertising your app, pushing it up over the 1m threshold and forcing you to start charging (or increase your price) to pay the core charge.

mvdtnz 3y ago

From $99/year to $45,000/month. That's quite a large increase.

SirMaster 3y ago
Maybe I am missing something, but can't you still just stay the same as the past? This is only adding new alternative choices, not changing or removing any current systems and methods and prices.
- layer8 3y ago
  If you want to publish a retro-gaming emulator as a hobby/open-source project, you can’t do that on Apple’s app store. And on a third-party app store you’ll have to pay Apple millions once it becomes popular (which would seem likely).
  - SirMaster 3y ago
    But it's a new thing you couldn't even do before. So the bar is not "raised". It's a new bar. Also, is retro-gaming emulation really that popular in the EU? I don't think I know anyone who does that.
    - layer8 3y ago
      It’s certainly against the spirit of removing “gatekeepers”. Retro-gaming emulators are quite popular here among nerds. I know several people who bought an Anbernic handheld, built a RetroPie, or similar.
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    You can always release Super-Duper-Emulator-2
    - layer8 3y ago
      Since apps are still subject to Apple’s review process even on third-party app stores, they are likely to reject this because it obviously circumvents the new business terms (if it doesn’t violate them outright).