7 ms·

The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

27 points by LucidLynx 3y ago

comex 3y ago
> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple. (It’s per year, not per month.)
- jeffgreco 3y ago
  Also of note, updates count as downloads.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    They count as downloads but the count is download/per-user/per-year. Still not going to be cheap but yeah. If you have 2M users and you ship 1 update or 1,000,000 new updates in a year you just pay $0.50/user (for 1M of them, since the first 1M is "free").
    - nmcfarl 3y ago
      However on the flip side a user can be someone who downloads your app, pokes at for 10 minutes and deletes it. Not something I would call a user, but for apples purposes it works.
      - realusername 3y ago
        Working on an app, I'd say that's 50%+ of the installs that are done this way.
  - hmottestad 3y ago
    It's 0,5 USD for every install after the first 1 000 000, per year. Updates don't make any difference. Worth noting is that a user who never opens the app after the first time will still count as an install.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    There is a couple of interesting ramifications there. 1 obvious, so, they just disincentivised updates? Brilliant. Or maybe the idea is for app developers to charge for updates. 2 oh right, developers have to update frequently or else Apple will remove the app for being a security risk or simply no longer being compatible with current os and apis, os and apis whose changes are controlled by who again? So they charge for updates, and make it a rule that you must update. What a great racket!
TekMol 3y ago
I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?
- graemep 3y ago
  The point is malicious compliance with EU regulations. They cannot overtly say they are not going to do what they were told to.
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    How could the EU strongly respond to Apple's malicious compliance here? (Assuming regulators see blatant violation in Apple's new policy.)
    - malermeister 3y ago
      The digital markets act allows for fines of up to 20% annual turnover for repeat offenders.
      - graemep 3y ago
        I assume Apple would have consulted lawyers before doing this. WOuld they really take such a risk. I believe actual fines tend to be far lower.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  Apple will no longer block apps based on content, only on malware or accessing private apis. That is the change that 3rd party app stores bring. You could now have porn apps, emulators, copyright infringement (though I assume the rights holders will come after the 3rd party store in that case) and Apple will notarize them so they can be distributed on 3rd party stores.
- nottorp 3y ago
foobarian 3y ago
I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That's like saying "if you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and live on a yacht in the ocean". You can, at huge cost, but a lot of stuff you're relying on just doesn't work any more because the people who made them have no interest in servicing you, e.g. your bank accounts. A better option is "use Android", which already does support multiple stores.
  - kj99 3y ago
    The retort makes more sense if you think of it as being addressed to someone like Epic, who frankly could take Android and build it into something more competitive, which would benefit us more than just deciding Apple has won.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Valve perhaps, but I don't think Epic could manage it. Microsoft, despite (or because of) the head-start with windows, managed to fail with their own phone OS, but they do have the XBox+store for games. Amazon would be my next bet, followed by Samsung… but then, why would either bother starting from scratch when they already have an app store and a phone/tablet platform? Sticking with Android makes it easy to get more apps because developers don't need to learn yet another platform. Does Epic have their own hardware? Has Epic even managed to make a successful app store of their own on Android, where they wouldn't need their own hardware?
- chris_wot 3y ago
  Oh bravo, is that how you respond to all anti-competitive practices?
- stickfigure 3y ago
  The flipside of that is: If you want to sell your product in a nation, you must comply with the nation's rules.
xbar 3y ago
I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.
- kj99 3y ago
  What are you talking about? Nothing changes for current apps, and nothing stops you from continuing with things as they are.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  If you don't pick the new terms nothing at all changes for you.
karaterobot 3y ago
> 1_000_000$ The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions. As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a personal choice. I agree with the author that only allowing third-party browser engines in certain locales would create an undue burden on companies like Mozilla, or really anyone who wants to compete without WebKit, and seems mean-spirited in that it follows the letter of the regulation without following the spirit.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM Commas, dots and spaces are also used. Underscores are unusual, a bit of a vestige of maritime communications. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    As I said, most publications would use commas, and they'd put the dollar sign in front of the value.
    - newaccount74 3y ago
      That's a US thing. in the EU we use periods and currencies go after the value.
      - karaterobot 3y ago
        Well, the currency in this case was presumably USD, so I don't think it's relevant. But in any case, the convention for both the Euro and the USD is to put it in front of the number when writing in English, according to EU standards for internal writing. If there's another standard that just says "do whatever" then I'd love to see it. And again, as I believe I mentioned, most publications would put the dollar sign in front of the number, and use commas. Dots are acceptable, but I can't find a lot of publications that do it the way it's written in the linked article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TillE 3y ago
Apple's clear intent is to make it extremely unattractive to use alternative stores (unless you've got an app with a very high ARPU). You can argue about ambiguities in the legal text, but this is absolutely contrary to the intent of the DMA, which is to foster competition. I would be pretty surprised if the EU has no objections to this policy.
Terretta 3y ago
For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445
- r00fus 3y ago
  Microsoft clearly wants Apple to spearhead this viewpoint that platform owners can't be regulated by legislation. It's entirely logical for them.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  In case you're new to this industry, let me illuminate this for you. All these rich guys and tech companies are trying to get richer and if that means supporting their competitors positions some of the time, they do it. Everyone wants the kind of control Apple stole from users with the App Store so everyone, including Apple competitors, are going to do what they can, including praising Apple, to get some of that sweet, sweet lock-in for themselves. This is not a difficult concept and I'm surprised to see HN commenters so oblivious and so obsequious.
anfilt 3y ago
Honestly, part the issue is the DMA does little about the infringement of personal property rights of device owners. Just going to repost this comment I made a few days ago to explain: Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that. Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain. Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here. In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own. For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf] in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"

27 points by LucidLynx 3y ago

comex 3y ago

> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple. (It’s per year, not per month.)

jeffgreco 3y ago
Also of note, updates count as downloads.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  They count as downloads but the count is download/per-user/per-year. Still not going to be cheap but yeah. If you have 2M users and you ship 1 update or 1,000,000 new updates in a year you just pay $0.50/user (for 1M of them, since the first 1M is "free").
  - nmcfarl 3y ago
    However on the flip side a user can be someone who downloads your app, pokes at for 10 minutes and deletes it. Not something I would call a user, but for apples purposes it works.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Working on an app, I'd say that's 50%+ of the installs that are done this way.
- hmottestad 3y ago
  It's 0,5 USD for every install after the first 1 000 000, per year. Updates don't make any difference. Worth noting is that a user who never opens the app after the first time will still count as an install.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  There is a couple of interesting ramifications there. 1 obvious, so, they just disincentivised updates? Brilliant. Or maybe the idea is for app developers to charge for updates. 2 oh right, developers have to update frequently or else Apple will remove the app for being a security risk or simply no longer being compatible with current os and apis, os and apis whose changes are controlled by who again? So they charge for updates, and make it a rule that you must update. What a great racket!

TekMol 3y ago

I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?

graemep 3y ago
The point is malicious compliance with EU regulations. They cannot overtly say they are not going to do what they were told to.
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
  How could the EU strongly respond to Apple's malicious compliance here? (Assuming regulators see blatant violation in Apple's new policy.)
  - malermeister 3y ago
    The digital markets act allows for fines of up to 20% annual turnover for repeat offenders.
    - graemep 3y ago
      I assume Apple would have consulted lawyers before doing this. WOuld they really take such a risk. I believe actual fines tend to be far lower.
joshstrange 3y ago
Apple will no longer block apps based on content, only on malware or accessing private apis. That is the change that 3rd party app stores bring. You could now have porn apps, emulators, copyright infringement (though I assume the rights holders will come after the 3rd party store in that case) and Apple will notarize them so they can be distributed on 3rd party stores.
nottorp 3y ago

foobarian 3y ago

I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.

ben_w 3y ago
That's like saying "if you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and live on a yacht in the ocean". You can, at huge cost, but a lot of stuff you're relying on just doesn't work any more because the people who made them have no interest in servicing you, e.g. your bank accounts. A better option is "use Android", which already does support multiple stores.
- kj99 3y ago
  The retort makes more sense if you think of it as being addressed to someone like Epic, who frankly could take Android and build it into something more competitive, which would benefit us more than just deciding Apple has won.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Valve perhaps, but I don't think Epic could manage it. Microsoft, despite (or because of) the head-start with windows, managed to fail with their own phone OS, but they do have the XBox+store for games. Amazon would be my next bet, followed by Samsung… but then, why would either bother starting from scratch when they already have an app store and a phone/tablet platform? Sticking with Android makes it easy to get more apps because developers don't need to learn yet another platform. Does Epic have their own hardware? Has Epic even managed to make a successful app store of their own on Android, where they wouldn't need their own hardware?
chris_wot 3y ago
Oh bravo, is that how you respond to all anti-competitive practices?
stickfigure 3y ago
The flipside of that is: If you want to sell your product in a nation, you must comply with the nation's rules.

xbar 3y ago

I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.

kj99 3y ago
What are you talking about? Nothing changes for current apps, and nothing stops you from continuing with things as they are.
joshstrange 3y ago
If you don't pick the new terms nothing at all changes for you.

karaterobot 3y ago

> 1_000_000$ The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions. As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a personal choice. I agree with the author that only allowing third-party browser engines in certain locales would create an undue burden on companies like Mozilla, or really anyone who wants to compete without WebKit, and seems mean-spirited in that it follows the letter of the regulation without following the spirit.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM Commas, dots and spaces are also used. Underscores are unusual, a bit of a vestige of maritime communications. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator
- karaterobot 3y ago
  As I said, most publications would use commas, and they'd put the dollar sign in front of the value.
  - newaccount74 3y ago
    That's a US thing. in the EU we use periods and currencies go after the value.
    - karaterobot 3y ago
      Well, the currency in this case was presumably USD, so I don't think it's relevant. But in any case, the convention for both the Euro and the USD is to put it in front of the number when writing in English, according to EU standards for internal writing. If there's another standard that just says "do whatever" then I'd love to see it. And again, as I believe I mentioned, most publications would put the dollar sign in front of the number, and use commas. Dots are acceptable, but I can't find a lot of publications that do it the way it's written in the linked article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

TillE 3y ago

Apple's clear intent is to make it extremely unattractive to use alternative stores (unless you've got an app with a very high ARPU). You can argue about ambiguities in the legal text, but this is absolutely contrary to the intent of the DMA, which is to foster competition. I would be pretty surprised if the EU has no objections to this policy.

Terretta 3y ago

For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445

r00fus 3y ago
Microsoft clearly wants Apple to spearhead this viewpoint that platform owners can't be regulated by legislation. It's entirely logical for them.
asadotzler 3y ago
In case you're new to this industry, let me illuminate this for you. All these rich guys and tech companies are trying to get richer and if that means supporting their competitors positions some of the time, they do it. Everyone wants the kind of control Apple stole from users with the App Store so everyone, including Apple competitors, are going to do what they can, including praising Apple, to get some of that sweet, sweet lock-in for themselves. This is not a difficult concept and I'm surprised to see HN commenters so oblivious and so obsequious.

anfilt 3y ago

Honestly, part the issue is the DMA does little about the infringement of personal property rights of device owners. Just going to repost this comment I made a few days ago to explain: Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that. Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain. Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here. In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own. For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf] in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"