5 ms·

But even if developers opt not to use Apple’s App Store or payment system, they will still be required to pay a “core technology fee” of 50 euro cents per user

But even if developers opt not to use Apple’s App Store or payment system, they will still be required to pay a “core technology fee” of 50 euro cents per user account per year. Alias "the Apple racket fee". How can this be accepted? You don't use any Apple infrastructure but you owe them money. And it's not like phone owners were not paying more than multiple times the real cost of their devices to Apple. Pure greediness in action.

paulddraper 3y ago
If the $1000 for the phone wasn't a "core technology fee" IDK what is...
- kanbara 3y ago
  it’s the price users will pay for the phone, not the price developers pay for utilising apple APIs and services?
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    There are no Apple services being used?
KerrAvon 3y ago
You haven't actually read up on this. They're still using Apple infrastructure, because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware. This isn't totally free ride on Apple hardware. You can complain about that if you like, but unless the EU objects, Apple is still going to attempt to protect users who buy Apple products.
- arccy 3y ago
  apple forcibly inserted themselves to "protect" their ~~users~~ cash cows
  - superb_dev 3y ago
    Good. I want this as an Apple user.
    - visitor4712 3y ago
      I am happy that Al Capone protects me. I feel so much safer in life. And it's perfectly just that this security has a price tag.
    - bsjaux628 3y ago
      Then don't install apps outside the App Store and live you life inside the prison
    - Krssst 3y ago
      Nobody forces you to install apps outside of the App Store. On Android I don't know of any large-scale app that is not available on the Play Store despite 3rd party stores being supported.
- Cloudef 3y ago
  Sounds like mafia
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  > ... because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware. HAHA! That was their choice to do it that way!
  - wpm 3y ago
    Indeed. Very odd choice too. I would imagine providing zero security guarantees or ability to revoke malware would’ve been their first choice.
kanbara 3y ago
it's not about users though. it's about the business relationship between gatekeeper and third parties who want access to the software and APIs and platforms. if you sideload an app you are still taking advantage of apple's UI, user base, API SDKs, etc. and apple did enter into a relationship with its users which it wants to protect, in terms of security, privacy, and functionality of the device. if apple wants to protect the enclave, for example, by ensuring alternate store apps use its APIs, that makes sense. this was never about running arbitrary code on iPhone; that's not what gatekeeper status or the DMA was meant to provide. apple is like 22% of the market in europe. where's all the furor about every other business? the 78% owner also has a lot of issues, but i understand that apple is just so hated for being a company whose products people enjoy that don't get canceled after one year of operation. also, the DMA doesn't say that apple can't make profit. the EU is still a capitalist society, and until there is a regulation that says what companies can and can't charge for phones, developer entitlements, services, then... there's not much to be done. lastly, if there were no fees or hurdles or restrictions for alternate app stores then every single large company (not just gatekeepers) would open one so they could plaster their ads, make their own profit, drive users to their own stuff, and basically capture them in their fiefdom. and the DMA makes no provision as to how alternate markets need to behave. i and probably many many others do not want meta or msft or tencent or whomever to steal data, use underhanded business practices, ship shitty code, and do basically anything they want (that apple nor its users could control or do anything about) and that's just wrong. openness is good, but if the cost is that chrome takes over the world like IE again and that meta can spy on iOS users and drain their batteries like no tomorrow, and force users to use their NFC payment system and secrets manager and whatever other ridiculous crap in order to use their social network, please stop. the DMA has failed if that is the case. we'll head back to the 90s and dumbphone era when you were trapped to use, see, or suffer from terrible and insecure 3rd party applications. the one thing that cannot be argued is how good apple is at data protection and user privacy. please don't ruin that for millions because spotify wants to earn more money.
- Nathanba 3y ago
  yes and if I make toast on my toaster I'm still taking advantage of the UI, technology, research that went into it, the branding and look and the possible customer support if it ever breaks. So I should pay 50 cent per toast. You see... rhetorically it's always possible to come up with something clever to make people believe in a certain reality.
musicale 3y ago
> And it's not like phone owners were not paying more than multiple times the real cost of their devices to Apple Isn't Apple's gross margin closer to 45%? I would also suggest that the "real cost" isn't just component and manufacturing cost, and should include amortized R&D, etc.

paulddraper 3y ago

If the $1000 for the phone wasn't a "core technology fee" IDK what is...

kanbara 3y ago
it’s the price users will pay for the phone, not the price developers pay for utilising apple APIs and services?
- paulddraper 3y ago
  There are no Apple services being used?

KerrAvon 3y ago

You haven't actually read up on this. They're still using Apple infrastructure, because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware. This isn't totally free ride on Apple hardware. You can complain about that if you like, but unless the EU objects, Apple is still going to attempt to protect users who buy Apple products.

arccy 3y ago
apple forcibly inserted themselves to "protect" their ~~users~~ cash cows
- superb_dev 3y ago
  Good. I want this as an Apple user.
  - visitor4712 3y ago
    I am happy that Al Capone protects me. I feel so much safer in life. And it's perfectly just that this security has a price tag.
  - bsjaux628 3y ago
    Then don't install apps outside the App Store and live you life inside the prison
  - Krssst 3y ago
    Nobody forces you to install apps outside of the App Store. On Android I don't know of any large-scale app that is not available on the Play Store despite 3rd party stores being supported.
Cloudef 3y ago
Sounds like mafia
HumblyTossed 3y ago
> ... because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware. HAHA! That was their choice to do it that way!
- wpm 3y ago
  Indeed. Very odd choice too. I would imagine providing zero security guarantees or ability to revoke malware would’ve been their first choice.

kanbara 3y ago

it's not about users though. it's about the business relationship between gatekeeper and third parties who want access to the software and APIs and platforms. if you sideload an app you are still taking advantage of apple's UI, user base, API SDKs, etc. and apple did enter into a relationship with its users which it wants to protect, in terms of security, privacy, and functionality of the device. if apple wants to protect the enclave, for example, by ensuring alternate store apps use its APIs, that makes sense. this was never about running arbitrary code on iPhone; that's not what gatekeeper status or the DMA was meant to provide. apple is like 22% of the market in europe. where's all the furor about every other business? the 78% owner also has a lot of issues, but i understand that apple is just so hated for being a company whose products people enjoy that don't get canceled after one year of operation. also, the DMA doesn't say that apple can't make profit. the EU is still a capitalist society, and until there is a regulation that says what companies can and can't charge for phones, developer entitlements, services, then... there's not much to be done. lastly, if there were no fees or hurdles or restrictions for alternate app stores then every single large company (not just gatekeepers) would open one so they could plaster their ads, make their own profit, drive users to their own stuff, and basically capture them in their fiefdom. and the DMA makes no provision as to how alternate markets need to behave. i and probably many many others do not want meta or msft or tencent or whomever to steal data, use underhanded business practices, ship shitty code, and do basically anything they want (that apple nor its users could control or do anything about) and that's just wrong. openness is good, but if the cost is that chrome takes over the world like IE again and that meta can spy on iOS users and drain their batteries like no tomorrow, and force users to use their NFC payment system and secrets manager and whatever other ridiculous crap in order to use their social network, please stop. the DMA has failed if that is the case. we'll head back to the 90s and dumbphone era when you were trapped to use, see, or suffer from terrible and insecure 3rd party applications. the one thing that cannot be argued is how good apple is at data protection and user privacy. please don't ruin that for millions because spotify wants to earn more money.

Nathanba 3y ago
yes and if I make toast on my toaster I'm still taking advantage of the UI, technology, research that went into it, the branding and look and the possible customer support if it ever breaks. So I should pay 50 cent per toast. You see... rhetorically it's always possible to come up with something clever to make people believe in a certain reality.

musicale 3y ago

> And it's not like phone owners were not paying more than multiple times the real cost of their devices to Apple Isn't Apple's gross margin closer to 45%? I would also suggest that the "real cost" isn't just component and manufacturing cost, and should include amortized R&D, etc.