8 ms·
Far too many comments are glossing over this. To comply with the regulation they've introduced even more egregious pricing.
by 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 agoAlso known as malicious compliance.
- natch 3y agoProtective compliance. Protect the users from misguided legislation.
- rvba 3y agoAlternative ways to download apps has nothing to do with user protection. All Apple is doing is protecting their pockets.
- natch 3y agoYou are mistaken. Malicious apps hurt their users and hurt their brand.
- johnnyanmac 3y agosomehow 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 agoI 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.
- rvba 3y agoWhat damage? Apple losing 30% fee? Money lost for apple is money saved by people. Why are you so invested in defending that company's shitty practices? When someone already paid for their device they should be able to side load apps and use other app stores (without apple taking a 10% or 30% cut). Are you an apple employee, marketer or investor? I bet that 30% cut on every app boosts their profits, but if people own phones they ahould be able to use them whatever way they want. Without apple taking a cut again just because.
- natch 3y agoI’m not any of those, no. But I agree with their stance on protecting privacy. You critics can’t stop thinking it’s only about money. But it’s not.
- lijok 3y agoYou a big user of napster?
- oblio 3y agoProtect the company from losing $10bn per year, more like it.
- natch 3y agoBoth can be true.
- oblio 3y agoAndroid is not overrun by independent app stores. This is a non issue.
- natch 3y agoIt’s nothing to do with being overrun by an independent app store. That is a total red herring. The real issue… stay with me, it’s a lot of words… is that alternative unreviewed or poorly reviewed app distribution mechanisms open a pathway to pervasive abuse via installation of malicious privacy violating apps onto devices of unwitting targets by people other than the targeted device users.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HDThoreaun 3y agoLet’s ban PCs because this issue has been such a huge problem
- halostatue 3y agoDespite the fact that Chromebooks are generally mediocre-to-bad hardware, there are a lot of school systems where this is exactly what has been done for classroom hardware. Even outside of school systems, there is a wide variety of virtual desktop systems where office employees essentially get a fresh install of the OS every morning with their files where they should be — because they can't be trusted to manage a dedicated piece of hardware without adding malware.
- Hugsun 3y agoHow are users protected in this situation? To me this only seems to twist the arms of large companies like epic and Facebook. A small malicious app with thousands of installs can exist completely for free.
- natch 3y agoIt doesn’t completely protect them, as Apple repeatedly states in the document. It simply can’t protect users as much as it could prior to the legislation, is their claim. But it helps mitigate some aspects.
- Hugsun 3y agoWhat I don't understand is how the pricing methods that our parent comment called egregious offer any type of protection or mitigation. Could you elaborate?
- natch 3y agoYes it steers larger app publishers away from utilizing other app stores, which in turn makes those other app stores less enticing, making it harder for other app stores to survive. The app publishers don't have to choose this new pricing. They can stay with the old pricing, if they stay exclusively on Apple's App Store. The reason Apple wants fewer app stores is that if fewer third party app stores survive, then there are fewer app stores with questionable or lacking review processes out there hosting malicious apps. Just to make the connection super explicit for completeness, having fewer avenues for malicious apps is a good thing for user privacy. There are other better ways to do it, like controlling one app store that has only well reviewed apps, but it seems the EU with the DMA left Apple only this bad way. Apple gets other benefits from controlling the App Store, beyond protecting user privacy, don't get me wrong. Money being one, but not in a greed sense, but more because mostly that money pays the costs of running the development program, which are huge costs involving many thousands of Apple engineering salaries, which in turn enables the app ecosystem that benefits everyone. Another benefit is they can minimize the appearance of bad user experiences on their platform, to protect their brand, which they have invested a lot in and care a lot about.
- AOsborn 3y agoI don't think it is egregious at all. Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill. So, now there is the option for alternative marketplaces, the costs have been shifted to those marketplaces. Makes complete sense. It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.
- sunnybeetroot 3y agoI agree, Apple’s servers aren’t free, sending push notifications isn’t free, sending down Apple Map tiles isn’t free. An alternative is you get a side loaded App Store with no costs but you don’t get access to Apple frameworks that cost them money.
- dariosalvi78 3y agoin what way would an alternative store, managed by a third party, be a cost for Apple?
- kaba0 3y agoThe reviewing process done by apple still applies to them.
- dariosalvi78 3y agowhat review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and per install? come on...
- layer8 3y agoA review process which the DMA does not require.
- elevatedastalt 3y agoThe reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do. What a racket this whole thing this is.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThey’ve introduced pricing that their lawyers think is compatible with the regulation (the regulations don’t ban egregious pricing). Frankly, I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they want to risk it or not.
- tovkal 3y ago> I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection No way they can do that, because the second something malware or fraud happens, you can imagine the headlines. Apple advertises the iPhone as a secure and private device. By notarizing third-party store apps, they still have the ability to remove malicious apps.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago> Frankly, I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they want to risk it or not. Apple did not do this because consumers do not value malware and fraud protection nearly as much as Apple would like everyone to believe.
- mh8h 3y agoIt's not that they don't value it. It's more like they aren't aware of the risks.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago> It's more like they aren't aware of the risks. I doubt that. Decades of having to run malware (removal) software on Windows has pretty much guaranteed everyone knows what a virus is.
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoMaybe that's true, and consumers don't know what's best for them. However, we live in a free society, where consumers are supposed to be able to decide for themselves what they value, and spend their money accordingly. Where we do impose regulations to ensure public safety, they are decided by a democratic process. And as imperfect as that process may be at times, it is better than letting a single for-profit corporation set the terms.
- dann0 3y agoHave they? You need to substantiate that claim. 1. Developers can continue to use the existing terms. 2. If a smaller developer elects to use the new terms, they pay less commission (10%) and a 3% transaction fee. That’s 2% less. 3. If they have more than 1 million users download their app, then there is an additional €0.50 Core Technology fee. If the developer is a commercial entity, then yes, they have to pay but in reality, it’s the end user that will have to pay. 3. If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model. 4. If the app is offered by a not for profit, then they don’t pay the CTF. So, the new terms seem better for developers and users in the EU.
- 762236 3y agoYou don't get 1 million free installs if your app is an alternative app store. For the alternative app stores, they pay 0.50EUR for every first annual install.
- GlumWoodpecker 3y ago> 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.
- 762236 3y agoThat says 'from' the alternative app store. The alternative app store itself needs to be installed via Apple's app store, and the wording for that made it sound like you have to pay .50EUR for each first-annual install of it.
- 762236 3y agoI am correct: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/01/29/two-additional-observations-regarding-apples-core-technology-fee https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/01/29/two-additional-...