5 ms·
When developers distribute their app via non-Apple appstores, they do not use any services of Apple, right? Then how can Apple still charge them? For what? A
by TekMol 3y ago
When developers distribute their app via non-Apple appstores, they do not use any services of Apple, right?
Then how can Apple still charge them?
For what?
And how could Apple force them to pay?
- jeromegv 3y agoThey do use the OS, the APIs, many of them depends on service in the cloud. The App Store is not the only thing apps interact with. And apps still need signing, that’s how Apple still interact with the apps.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe OS is not an Apple service. That is the consumer’s. The ability to write with Apple’s stuff is covered already by the developer fees. It’s fine to pay for the cloud services but those are low value.
- SoftTalker 3y agoSomeone hasn't read their Terms and Conditions Agreement.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe terms not holding up to regulatory scrutiny is exactly the issue.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago> The ability to write with Apple’s stuff is covered already by the developer fees. I think Apple would argue that the developer fee was previously $99 + 30% of app sales, and that the developer fee is now $99 + $0.5 per install.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThen Apple can fuck off
- charrondev 3y agoThey will still have to have their app notarized (basically signing the app). Apple can revoke certificates at any time. After the first 1 million installations they will be charging a Core Technology Fee, which is a flat €0.50 per install. Every installation still needs to talk with an Apple server it seems (not 100% sure on this), so Apple should be able to track it. An app like Spotify is using a bunch of Apple’s technology in their iOS app. UIKit and CoreAudio almost for certain.
- TekMol 3y agoIf Apple has to approve of every app, then what changed? I thought the whole point of alternative appstores is to do away with that?
- kevingadd 3y agoIn theory: * App approval is a lower bar to pass than App Store approval. * Alternative stores can have different policies for which types of content are prohibited or for how monetization works. For example, they could allow R18 media, or accept payment via additional payment methods. * Alternative stores can be cheaper. * Alternative stores could also enforce their own rules that are superior to Apple's - for example you could have a store that guarantees everything on it is open-source and has been fuzzed, and they could promote that on some sort of a security basis. But yes in practice "Apple still gets to decide whether you can put apps on iDevices, and you have to pay them for that" does defeat a lot of the purpose of the DMA.
- cheradenine_uk 3y agoIf the EU is serious about breaking up the monopoly, the notarization requirement is what they will go after.
- robertjpayne 3y agoYou're basically asking the EU to compel Apple to open up their platform and all their R&D that goes into their toolchains to developers for free at no charge.
- kemayo 3y ago> And how could Apple force them to pay? Apple has structured this so that you still need an Apple developer account to release an app (because apps still have to be notarized to run on iOS regardless of where you download them, which is a process they control). So, they're still the gatekeeper, and can impose rules on you to pass through that gate on pain of having your access revoked. Their argument is implicitly that they're allowing what the EU has required them to allow, and so anything else is fair game. In particular, that so long as they're allowing people access according to the EU's requirements, they're allowed to charge them for use of the platform. I imagine that there'll be lawsuits / regulatory action from the EU to work out whether they're right, of course.
- r00fus 3y agoI'm going to ask an inconvenient question - What gives Spotify the right to deploy on Apple's OS & hardware?
- archagon 3y agoUm, it’s actually my hardware. Apple would be remiss to forget this.
- rock_artist 3y agoSpotify, comply with Apple rules (and still available within the AppStore) so technically Apple gave them the right (and also tries to show it as an example of them offering competition inside the store). But the moment a device is dominant in the market and allows third party on the platform it results asking legitimate questions about competition.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoMy phone isnt apples, its mine.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoI can do it too: What gives YOU the right to install an application on YOUR own computer?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]