5 ms·

> 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, b

> 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.

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.