8 ms·

I 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 d

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
in what way would an alternative store, managed by a third party, be a cost for Apple?
- kaba0 3y ago
  The reviewing process done by apple still applies to them.
  - dariosalvi78 3y ago
    what review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and per install? come on...
  - layer8 3y ago
    A review process which the DMA does not require.
  - elevatedastalt 3y ago
    The reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do. What a racket this whole thing this is.
    - kolinko 3y ago
      Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.
      - tidenly 3y ago
        The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger. The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.
        KomoD 3y ago
        > Google does the same thing They don't block, and you can disable scanning fully.
      - KomoD 3y ago
        > choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware It's not.
      - hu3 3y ago
        Their review process is historically flawed. And where did you heard iOS is free from viruses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware) From the top of my head there's also AdThief and AceDeceiver. Not only that but App store is full of Anti-virus offerings.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - elevatedastalt 3y ago
        I think you are missing the point that they want to impose this reviewing process on the off-brand App Store too
    - AOsborn 3y ago
  - timeon 3y ago
    Just let me install my own app ok? No need for review.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Would you be OK with that if it voided your warranty?
      - boolemancer 3y ago
        As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to be covering, sure.
        bee_rider 3y ago
        Plenty of viruses cover their tracks, and it is impossible realistically to protect a computer from malicious code that is run locally.
      - callalex 3y ago
        How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        They used to, or perhaps there used to be a case. Thankfully right to repair laws prevailed over those silly notions.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 prevailed over those silly notions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
      - 3y ago
  - baobun 3y ago
    The spirit (someone else may fill in with the letter) of the DMA is that this can not be enforced by Apple.
- FateOfNations 3y ago
  All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
  - airtonix 3y ago
    [dead]
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden. >Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services. Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Developers pay for those when they pay for their dev license. (if they don't, then what is it for?)
    - FateOfNations 3y ago
      Previously the "developer licence" was $100/yr + an opaque revenue share that was bundled with distribution and payment processing services. Based on their new alternative business terms, we can better describe what that bundled deal includes (which is still available): • 15% tier (first $1mil/yr revenue and subscriptions after the first year): - 10% distribution - 2% developer platform - 3% payment processing • 30% tier (all other revenue): - 17% distribution - 10% developer platform - 3% payment processing
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>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. The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc. But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking. The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack. >It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate. except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.

sunnybeetroot 3y ago

I 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 ago

in what way would an alternative store, managed by a third party, be a cost for Apple?

kaba0 3y ago
The reviewing process done by apple still applies to them.
- dariosalvi78 3y ago
  what review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and per install? come on...
- layer8 3y ago
  A review process which the DMA does not require.
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  The reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do. What a racket this whole thing this is.
  - kolinko 3y ago
    Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.
    - tidenly 3y ago
      The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger. The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.
      - KomoD 3y ago
        > Google does the same thing They don't block, and you can disable scanning fully.
    - KomoD 3y ago
      > choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware It's not.
    - hu3 3y ago
      Their review process is historically flawed. And where did you heard iOS is free from viruses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware) From the top of my head there's also AdThief and AceDeceiver. Not only that but App store is full of Anti-virus offerings.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - elevatedastalt 3y ago
      I think you are missing the point that they want to impose this reviewing process on the off-brand App Store too
  - AOsborn 3y ago
- timeon 3y ago
  Just let me install my own app ok? No need for review.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Would you be OK with that if it voided your warranty?
    - boolemancer 3y ago
      As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to be covering, sure.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        Plenty of viruses cover their tracks, and it is impossible realistically to protect a computer from malicious code that is run locally.
    - callalex 3y ago
      How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        They used to, or perhaps there used to be a case. Thankfully right to repair laws prevailed over those silly notions.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 prevailed over those silly notions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
    - 3y ago
- baobun 3y ago
  The spirit (someone else may fill in with the letter) of the DMA is that this can not be enforced by Apple.
FateOfNations 3y ago
All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
- airtonix 3y ago
  [dead]
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden. >Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services. Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Developers pay for those when they pay for their dev license. (if they don't, then what is it for?)
  - FateOfNations 3y ago
    Previously the "developer licence" was $100/yr + an opaque revenue share that was bundled with distribution and payment processing services. Based on their new alternative business terms, we can better describe what that bundled deal includes (which is still available): • 15% tier (first $1mil/yr revenue and subscriptions after the first year): - 10% distribution - 2% developer platform - 3% payment processing • 30% tier (all other revenue): - 17% distribution - 10% developer platform - 3% payment processing

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>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. The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc. But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking. The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack. >It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate. except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.