19 ms·

Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
"Apple holds app providers ransom like the Mafia," claims Matthias Pfau, CEO and cofounder of Tuta, an encrypted email provider. The tech giant treats iPhones as its territory, Pfau complains, tightly controlling developers’ access before taking a chunk of their profits. "Anyone wanting to provide an iOS app must pay a ransom to Apple; there’s no way around it." What can developers do other than agree to Apple's demands if they want to publish iOS apps?
- beacon294 3y ago
  It would be nice to develop an open iPhone compatible.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Complain to regulatory industries until they force apple to act differently?
cdme 3y ago
Apple's seeking to comply with the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law in order to maintain their ability to extract rents from the App Store. It's user-hostile (particularly given that they've now hobbled PWAs) but not surprising. Their behavior won't change without additional regulatory action.
- orev 3y ago
  In the US, laws are taken as very literal, and any technicality that can be exploited usually will be. In Europe, they’re far more focused on the spirit of the law and don’t put up with games. On one hand it seems like Apple is trying to take a US style approach, but on the other they must have European lawyers on staff explaining how that won’t work. One might conclude that it’s a calculated risk, or a stalling tactic to extract a few more years of revenue from the current model while waiting for things to play out in the courts.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    Fair view vs. strict constructionism.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    I think they're just too confident that their US approach will work. Same thing happened with Facebook, they got a huge fine for it.
  - musictubes 3y ago
    I find it far fetched that Apple would either hire terrible lawyers that lead them astray or competent lawyers that they then ignore. I agree that they are probably hoping to go to court. Maybe I’m just too American to understand but the idea of “the spirit” of the law seems ridiculous. If you want the law to force Apple to allow slide loading then pass a law that says that. If you want a law that forces Apple to allow any developer to make and distribute software on their platform then pass a law that says that. It certainly seems that they were able to achieve that level of clarity with the USB-C rule. Why isn’t this law like that one? Relying on, “C’mon, we all know what the law really means,” is at best sloppy legislating.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Trying to cover every case explicitly and rigorously just results in the legal mess the US has where you need way more lawyers than other countries to get stuff done, and still results in more abuse from companies since there will always be abusable holes in laws but there wont typically be holes in the spirit of the law. So the main end result with the US system is that companies employs armies of lawyers so that they can legally break the laws. The main ones who benefits from that are lawyers and the massive companies who can afford them.
      - happyopossum 3y ago
        > Trying to cover every case explicitly and rigorously Removing a gate but still charging and entrance fee isn't even close to a far-fetched corner case. I have to believe that the regulators understood they were only regulating the technical side of things, and not the financial side. If the lobbyists for Spotify and Epic dropped the ball there, that's on them.
- Someone 3y ago
  I don’t think the text of the law says anything remotely about Apple’s margins for access to their users being too high. How then can that be in the spirit of the law? If you disagree, educate me.
- darklion 3y ago
  > Apple's seeking to comply with the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law in order to maintain their ability to extract rents from the App Store. Yes, because we can have a functional, productive society based on a legal system where the foundational principal is, “We’ll write laws so vague that we can just say they mean whatever we want them to mean after people and companies try to follow them”.
- the_duke 3y ago
  This particular legislation gives relatively broad enforcement power to the EU commission. IANAL, but it's possible, and in my primitive understanding quite likely, that they can take action without additional legislation because it's a stark violation of the obligations.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > rather than the spirit Tim Cook met personally with EU regulators before their changes were introduced. I doubt they would knowingly introduce something that would result in a punitive fine.
  - arlcode 3y ago
    It won't lead to a fine directly but it might result in enforcement action to bring them closer to what the law intended. I seriously doubt that their ultimate approach was "cleared" with regulators because it's quite blatantly against the intention of the DMA. The fact that he met with EU people says precisely nothing.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    They wouldn't introduce anything that would definitely lead to a fine, but I don't see why they wouldn't introduce something that really pushes the boundaries and will result in a court case that they have some chance of winning.
judiisis 3y ago
They remove pwas in latest ios beta(only in the EU) they are evil
- bnt 3y ago
  Wait, is this confirmed that it's removed only in the EU? I've seen "reports" on Twitter (never gonna call it X) but nothing official.
  - judiisis 3y ago
    Officially they haven't confirmed anything(employees deny to comment) but it seems intentional in all aspects and bug report is silent
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    It certainly seems that way: https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/09/something-is-happening-to-progressive-web-apps-in-ios-174----but-they-arent-dead https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/09/something-is-happ... Without clear communication from Apple, people will assume that the change is a strategic move by Apple to not cede ground being lost due to the Digital Markets Act.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  I'm as disappointed in the new rules as anyone, but I'm going to call this one as most likely just a missing implementation rather than malicious. The new Browser Engine Kit that allows alternative browsers to be installed is really a very deep integration. It's not just swapping out the browser and engine that users open as an app, it's swapping out all system integrations – webviews embedded in apps (in certain types of use), and importantly, PWAs pinned to the home screen. The APIs have a fairly sizeable surface area, and PWAs themselves have many features that require system support to implement. My assumption would be that full PWA support will return, but that it was a significant amount of extra work that Apple decided to skip for the first implementation. I'm not sure if that was the right call, but they were under quite a deadline with the DMA coming in.
  - 3y ago
s_dev 3y ago
All companies by simply reaching a certain scale and size -- are just by default becoming a monopoly. Since Apple is the biggest company in the world it's inescapable they will face these accusations even if they fairly earned their way in to this position the right thing is to still stop them because a monopoly is always a bad thing for consumers.
- ddtaylor 3y ago
  How does that excuse any of their anticompetitive CHOICES they continue to make? I don't understand how your comment affords Apple anything.
- stavros 3y ago
  > All companies by simply reaching a certain scale and size -- are just by default becoming a monopoly. This statement can be reworded as "the companies that are big enough to be monopolies are monopolies". Not all companies are monopolies just by their size. Microsoft is the biggest company in the world (not Apple), and it's not a monopoly in everything it sells. It may be a monopoly in some areas, because of its tactics, but the same goes for Apple: if they open up the app store, like the EU wants them to, they'll no longer be a monopoly, even though they'll be exactly the same size.
riversflow 3y ago
[flagged]
- malermeister 3y ago
  Nobody's complaining about not having the apple distribution. They're complaining about the scareware popups, designed to hurt businesses that don't pay Apple protection money.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    You really think people won't blame Apple when Little Timmy spends $10k on diamonds on a mobile game they got from an alternate store and Apple won't refund it because, you know, not their store?
    - Digit-Al 3y ago
      But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store. If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.
      - acdha 3y ago
        Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse. When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs - to make the importance of the decision harder to miss.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Today, Timmy's parents learn what a "chargeback" is, and how stable financial institutions help circumvent fraud better than App Store curation does.
racl101 3y ago
Apple used to see IBM as the bad guy but somehow they've become a thousand times worse than IBM ever was.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > Apple used to see IBM as the bad guy but somehow they've become a thousand times worse than IBM ever was. I think you would have a hard time establishing that 202x Apple is worse for independent developers than "Big Blue" IBM, let alone three orders of magnitude worse.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Tim Apple is paid to love money.
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      I'm not saying Apple is good, I'm saying IBM was also utterly terrible for independent developers and might have been worse.
sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
This is a great way to encourage developers to build the app that will show an essential use case for the Vision Pro. It’s not like Vision Pro is a solution in need of a problem, desperately waiting for a killer app, or that apps built the iPhone ecosystem into the juggernaut it is now. Apple doesn’t need developers, right? Right?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Relax, we have Fruit Ninja VR. The rest is just a matter of waiting for more software to materialize.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  I can't even understand your point here. People aren't developing for apple hardware to be nice to apple or help out the ecosystem, they're doing it for money. As long as Apple is creating a platform that people love, adopt and trust people will develop for it (while complaining the whole time no doubt) By the amount of bitching on this issue, it really sounds like developers need Apple not the other way around. If this was really about user freedom and shit like that developers would just boycott the platform and move to android. This is just about money and developers wanting to have their cake (distribute their app in a high trust environment) and eat it too (put whatever stupid shit they want in their app with no checks or controls)
  - skeaker 3y ago
    People are developing for money, yes, money that Apple intends to take a large cut of for no good reason, hence why they would avoid developing for it because they would not make enough money. Developers do not need Apple because there are other viable platforms. Users that are locked to an iPhone for whatever reason (iCloud being impossible to export, costs are prohibitive, family uses it, etc) would like to be able to sideload or generally run whatever they want on their own device. People aren't complaining just to complain and they're definitely not being entitled, that's just the expectation when you buy a computing device and Apple is failing to uphold their end of it. I do not touch the Apple ecosystem but would like to see their behavior squashed before it can spread to any devices that I do use.
snapcaster 3y ago
I think something missed when these issues are discussed on sites like this is just how ignorant of computing the average user is. What would be obvious for us "oh it's not from official app store, so I know to apply extra scrutiny" isn't even describable in most people's mental model of computers/smartphones. I don't want my loved ones getting scammed or hacked by people utilizing these new "freedoms". Why can't all of you sideloader/sdk/open source people just stick to android? why do you have to open the enshittification gates to every single platform?
- _visgean 3y ago
  Imagine if you said the same thing about computers: why do you need to install sw from anything but Microsoft store? Why can't you sideloader people need a different browser than Internet Explorer?
  - snapcaster 3y ago
    Exactly! I would tell those people to use Linux, not sue Microsoft to change their operating system
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      "Exactly! I would tell those people to use another telephone, not sue Bell Systems to change their phone network" "Exactly! I would tell those people to find another supplier, not sue Standard Oil to change their business tactics" "Exactly! I would tell those people to ride a different rail, not sue Pacific Railway Co. to change their train routes" - Monopoly apologism, through the centuries
      - iakov 3y ago
        With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.
        3y ago
menacingly 3y ago
This is a complicated issue. On the one hand, I tend to have a generally unfavorable view of apple. I don't like closed systems, oversimplified to the point of missing critical settings UX, etc. That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. If the arguments were "these restrictions are so burdensome I can't be in the app store!", that's a different conversation. But they tend to be "I can access such an irresistible amount of customers via apple, I just wish I could take those benefits à la carte. It sucks, but you're living in an ecosystem they made appear out of thin air, clearly benefiting enough to experience what you're complaining about, and wishing the deal were more beneficial to you _after the work has been done_. Also, I do wonder if EU flies a little close to the sun with this stuff. You can't legislate that someone lose more money than they gain with access to your market. I'm not sure we're there on this one, but the patience can't be infinite.
- j-j-j-j 3y ago
  Agreed. Apple has a full right to collect as much money as it can from users of the platform they've built and maintain. I wish the cut was more like 50%, to benefit my stocks, while I'm using exclusively FOSS and pay nothing. These devices are so shiny and great status symbol. I recommend everyone should be in Apple ecosystem and develop applications for it.
  - agos 3y ago
    I legit can't tell if this is satire - hats off if this was your intent
- e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
  > That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwise Apple would pull the app from the store. The smaller the app, the more those users are Apple's customers. But obviously we don't want a world where we penalise small developers more than large ones, so that's not a solution either.
retskrad 3y ago
We can talk about the morality of Apple’s App Store tax on developers all day but Apple is not a monopoly and they have all the right in the world to tax developers. We have to realize that Apple has most of the worlds middle class and rich people using iPhones. Apple can use this this advantage how ever they like as long it’s not breaking any laws. If developers are mad about it then they need to band together like any other industry and lobby for changing the law or create unions. The changing the law part is incredibly difficult thing to do because Apple is not a monopoly. How can you write a law that punishes a business that isn’t a monopoly? Apple is only saying, in order to access out wealthy customers, you need to pay a fee. I don’t see how you can tell Apple that they’re doing some nefarious here.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  So Android is the best thing that happened to the iPhone but the worst thing that happened to developers and users.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  > not a monopoly So what percentage of humanity do they have to gatekeep before you will be willing to consider them a problem? Apple is anticompetitive, and that's what matters. Arguing that it's technically not a "monopoly" and therefore A-OK is ridiculous.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > but Apple is not a monopoly and they have all the right in the world to tax developers. 1. "Apple" is a lot of things, and depending on how you define it (eg. internal app market, API provider, browser developer, etc.) they are absolutely a monopoly. It's not appropriate to say Apple isn't a monopoly because they do have monopoly power, pertinent to multiple markets. 2. Apple is owed nothing if they abuse monopoly power. Bell had "all the right in the world" to charge customers for rewiring their telephone, but it was also foundational in the case to break them up later. All the most famous American monopolies were also in denial up to the bitter end. Microsoft got away lucky, not also getting broken-up.
roamerz 3y ago
Just wow. Good for Apple! I DO want IOS to remain a walled garden as such. Look how many clicks those pesky do good gov regulators have a cost the world with those annoying "Yes I accept your damn cookies and privacy policy" on every website I visit. Writing apps for IOS is a completely voluntary job where you know the terms before you start. Don't like it? Don't write it -or- just pass on the cost to the consumers. Quit complaining about the noise when you bought a house next to an airport.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  I agree, all these moves to open iOS are from some of the biggest pushers of enshittification. The walled garden is great for me, and all sideloading will do is open up new attack vectors for me (and more importantly, the tech ignorant people i care about). I understand the corporate actors pushing for this out of self interest, but all of the bystanders cheering this on annoy me. You already have android, linux phones, etc. etc. Can't you just leave us alone in our walled garden and stick with android or linux or whatever?
  - boolemancer 3y ago
    How does opening up the walled garden impact you if you never side load anything?
    - LtWorf 3y ago
      It's the same for people who want homosexuality to be forbidden. It's not enough for themselves to not be homosexual, they also have to force their faith onto others.
      - nozzlegear 3y ago
        This is a ridiculous analogy. Surely you can acknowledge that there may be some kind of security concern – warranted or not – for opening up sideloading on iOS, without casting aspersions on the GP being some kind of closeted bigot.
talkingtab 3y ago
Apple's actions are anti-competitive. Spotify is a very good example. Instead of making a better product, Apple is acting to appropriate other businesses. Although the object of Apple's action is companies that try to make money that Apple wants, it is the users, the customers who pay. Apple is an anti-user platform. They are not alone in this of course. How do we change this? I, as a user, am aggrieved that Apple sells (not lends) me a product and then takes actions that make product less useful and more costly. Maybe Spotify and companies should simply set up a website so it is easy for me to take Apple to small claims court? The facts of Apple's anti-competitive practices are certainly clearly laid out in the EU's action, so that should not be hard. I would sign up.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  I just don't agree that it's an anti-user platform. I have my own opinions on this, but really just talk to some apple users they're all happy with their platform Why do you have to change it? As a user if you don't like walled gardens or restrictions just buy another phone? why do you insist on shitting up my walled garden just go use android!
- threeseed 3y ago
  The whole reason companies like Spotify are making a fuss about this is because Apple is making better products. If it wasn't the case Spotify would dominate the market all to itself. But Spotify has 30% market share, Apple Music 15%. And it's because for example Apple has lossless audio, Dolby Atmos etc. Not because of any unfair competition.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    What do you think 99% of users care about more? Lossless audio, or a 30% markup?
arthurofbabylon 3y ago
This is a rather misleading headline. The vast majority of developers are not in “open revolt” – just a handful of developers are making a lot of noise about it, while continuing to ship software (ie, not in revolt at all). Further, those developers making great noise are often close to “platform” designation themselves, making their appeal less righteous than a superficial reading might have you believe. It’s a struggle over power – not a struggle over quality nor safety nor human liberty. Most developers are pleased with the current paradigm. I am.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- frizlab 3y ago
  I am too. I’m tired of the virulent minority making like they’re the majority (on this subject or others)
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    Ask the users: "Would you rather pay less or more?"… see where the majority stands :D
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Users obviously would like to pay less. But you imply that lower commissions somehow trickle down to users. I happily admit that I pocketed the 15% discount I got once the Small Business Program launched and so did all of my peers. I can’t think of a single example where a developer in the SBP lowered their prices. As such, I don’t see what users have to do with it. Not that it’d matter, the topic is developers and how content they are. The big developers don’t seem to care about the commission either, not really anyways. Is a symbol for something else to them. Netflix has had access to 15% for years now via the Apple Video Partner Program[0] and they’ve never even entertained the option because they’d rather take the potential loss in sales than to play nice with the TV app on Apple TV. 0: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/
ex3ndr 3y ago
It is time to create project similar to Wine, but for iOS
hermitcrab 3y ago
I've been selling softare on Mac (and Windows) for nearly 2 decades. I've never bothered with the Mac App Store. I just couldn't be bothered to jump through the hoops and I didn't want Apple getting between me and my customer. I guess that isn't a realistic option for iOS apps though.
franczesko 3y ago
Imagine if websites paid Apple just because they were visited with the Safari browser. That's pretty much how iPhones operate.
- AaronNewcomer 3y ago
  Doesn’t Google literally pay them like 20 billion per year for exactly this?
dkuznetsov 3y ago
Let's say a subscription costs $10. Why not charge $14.29 through app store and $10 through online registration? With both logins acceptable in the login form... If Apple users want to pay more for the privilege of paying through Apple, why not let them?
- arthie 3y ago
  Apple does not allow different pricing
  - nemo8551 3y ago
    I think they do, my kids play Roblox and Minecraft and buying in app is more expensive (probably to the tune of the Apple fees) than buying it outwith the App Store. I don’t think app developers were allowed to show that it was x price in the app via Apple and x-fees via the developers own site.
anfilt 3y ago
A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with iDevices violate this fundamental right by controlling what software can run on the device, even before someones does anything with their device they bought. They do this not via legal means but by using cryptography to reserve the right of exclusion for themselves (they claim its for your security though...). Part of the problem is when someone sells something that in most cases that means a complete transfer of all property rights to the buyer, but Apple is preventing that via extralegal means. Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of not even using iOS and installing something like Linux. However, Apple's control over the boot-ROM prevents the hardware from booting any unsigned code without even opening the box. This gives Apple the ability to exclude or allow software to run on a device they no longer own. The thing is, Apple legally does not have the right of exclusion, but only reserves it via cryptography. This effectively restricts the exercise of your own property rights since you no longer can fully choose what to include or exclude from execution on that ARM processor you own. The fact that this control persists post-sale demonstrates a blatant infringement on individual property rights from Apple. In summary, Apple is intruding upon individuals' personal property rights, notably the right of exclusion. Through the use of cryptography after purchase, Apple retains the right of exclusion which lets them determine which software can and can not operate on a device they no longer 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].
- MilaM 3y ago
  Also worth mentioning are the numerous intellectual property rights that companies like Apple enjoy and skillfully use to stave off competition. If Apple wants lawmakers to drop market regulations like the DMA, then maybe we should consider cutting IP protections. Only then can we have a conversation about free markets and government intervention.
- 3y ago
6510 3y ago
Apple is confused, the EU is the lord and they are the serf.
apapapa 3y ago
They will fall in line just like they do with every other crazy rule.
withinboredom 3y ago
I would popcorn the hell out of a courtroom if someone pulled the ole windows license trick: 1. Buy an iPhone. 2. Don’t agree to the conditions. 3. Sue Apple for not letting you install an alternative OS or at least the get a refund for the amount the OS is worth. Since it’s just a hunk of metal and no value, that should be at least 100% of the cost, plus attorney fees. 4. Force Apple into allowing alternative ROMs. 5. Party.
Nevermark 3y ago
Assuming the backlash carries through further EU responses (which regardless of opinions on what it should do, will need to do if it wants to remain credible on this issue): 1. Apple knows this. It knows it will be asked to do more. 2. In the short term, they will drag their feet to maintain benefits of the status quo as long as possible. 3. But more importantly longer term, they expect the final result to be more in their favor as a result of the foot dragging. Negotiating 101. Fight a losing battle hard. So your adversary can claim and perceive eventual victory, with much less to show for it than if you had simply complied. Also to protect other areas from pushback, always be difficult. Don’t encourage further incursions. And there is always the chance your adversary will succumb or be distracted in the meantime. Any fine would have to be at least tens of billions of dollars to hurt Apple. In a few years, at least $100 billion. Not a likely first or second response. So for now, Apple hasn’t lost anything. Their crafted half hearted “compliance” helps them more than it hurts them. Nobody at Apple is losing any sleep.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Government is Apple's adversary. Is that what this is suggesting.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Yes, any governmental group taking action against Apple, especially systemic action, could be viewed as their "enemy", if you don't take the word too seriously. "Opposition" might be a better word.

"Apple holds app providers ransom like the Mafia," claims Matthias Pfau, CEO and cofounder of Tuta, an encrypted email provider. The tech giant treats iPhones as its territory, Pfau complains, tightly controlling developers’ access before taking a chunk of their profits. "Anyone wanting to provide an iOS app must pay a ransom to Apple; there’s no way around it." What can developers do other than agree to Apple's demands if they want to publish iOS apps?

beacon294 3y ago
It would be nice to develop an open iPhone compatible.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Complain to regulatory industries until they force apple to act differently?

cdme 3y ago

Apple's seeking to comply with the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law in order to maintain their ability to extract rents from the App Store. It's user-hostile (particularly given that they've now hobbled PWAs) but not surprising. Their behavior won't change without additional regulatory action.

orev 3y ago
In the US, laws are taken as very literal, and any technicality that can be exploited usually will be. In Europe, they’re far more focused on the spirit of the law and don’t put up with games. On one hand it seems like Apple is trying to take a US style approach, but on the other they must have European lawyers on staff explaining how that won’t work. One might conclude that it’s a calculated risk, or a stalling tactic to extract a few more years of revenue from the current model while waiting for things to play out in the courts.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Fair view vs. strict constructionism.
- malermeister 3y ago
  I think they're just too confident that their US approach will work. Same thing happened with Facebook, they got a huge fine for it.
- musictubes 3y ago
  I find it far fetched that Apple would either hire terrible lawyers that lead them astray or competent lawyers that they then ignore. I agree that they are probably hoping to go to court. Maybe I’m just too American to understand but the idea of “the spirit” of the law seems ridiculous. If you want the law to force Apple to allow slide loading then pass a law that says that. If you want a law that forces Apple to allow any developer to make and distribute software on their platform then pass a law that says that. It certainly seems that they were able to achieve that level of clarity with the USB-C rule. Why isn’t this law like that one? Relying on, “C’mon, we all know what the law really means,” is at best sloppy legislating.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Trying to cover every case explicitly and rigorously just results in the legal mess the US has where you need way more lawyers than other countries to get stuff done, and still results in more abuse from companies since there will always be abusable holes in laws but there wont typically be holes in the spirit of the law. So the main end result with the US system is that companies employs armies of lawyers so that they can legally break the laws. The main ones who benefits from that are lawyers and the massive companies who can afford them.
    - happyopossum 3y ago
      > Trying to cover every case explicitly and rigorously Removing a gate but still charging and entrance fee isn't even close to a far-fetched corner case. I have to believe that the regulators understood they were only regulating the technical side of things, and not the financial side. If the lobbyists for Spotify and Epic dropped the ball there, that's on them.
Someone 3y ago
I don’t think the text of the law says anything remotely about Apple’s margins for access to their users being too high. How then can that be in the spirit of the law? If you disagree, educate me.
darklion 3y ago
> Apple's seeking to comply with the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law in order to maintain their ability to extract rents from the App Store. Yes, because we can have a functional, productive society based on a legal system where the foundational principal is, “We’ll write laws so vague that we can just say they mean whatever we want them to mean after people and companies try to follow them”.
the_duke 3y ago
This particular legislation gives relatively broad enforcement power to the EU commission. IANAL, but it's possible, and in my primitive understanding quite likely, that they can take action without additional legislation because it's a stark violation of the obligations.
threeseed 3y ago
> rather than the spirit Tim Cook met personally with EU regulators before their changes were introduced. I doubt they would knowingly introduce something that would result in a punitive fine.
- arlcode 3y ago
  It won't lead to a fine directly but it might result in enforcement action to bring them closer to what the law intended. I seriously doubt that their ultimate approach was "cleared" with regulators because it's quite blatantly against the intention of the DMA. The fact that he met with EU people says precisely nothing.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  They wouldn't introduce anything that would definitely lead to a fine, but I don't see why they wouldn't introduce something that really pushes the boundaries and will result in a court case that they have some chance of winning.

judiisis 3y ago

They remove pwas in latest ios beta(only in the EU) they are evil

bnt 3y ago
Wait, is this confirmed that it's removed only in the EU? I've seen "reports" on Twitter (never gonna call it X) but nothing official.
- judiisis 3y ago
  Officially they haven't confirmed anything(employees deny to comment) but it seems intentional in all aspects and bug report is silent
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  It certainly seems that way: https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/09/something-is-happening-to-progressive-web-apps-in-ios-174----but-they-arent-dead https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/09/something-is-happ... Without clear communication from Apple, people will assume that the change is a strategic move by Apple to not cede ground being lost due to the Digital Markets Act.
danpalmer 3y ago
I'm as disappointed in the new rules as anyone, but I'm going to call this one as most likely just a missing implementation rather than malicious. The new Browser Engine Kit that allows alternative browsers to be installed is really a very deep integration. It's not just swapping out the browser and engine that users open as an app, it's swapping out all system integrations – webviews embedded in apps (in certain types of use), and importantly, PWAs pinned to the home screen. The APIs have a fairly sizeable surface area, and PWAs themselves have many features that require system support to implement. My assumption would be that full PWA support will return, but that it was a significant amount of extra work that Apple decided to skip for the first implementation. I'm not sure if that was the right call, but they were under quite a deadline with the DMA coming in.
- 3y ago

s_dev 3y ago

All companies by simply reaching a certain scale and size -- are just by default becoming a monopoly. Since Apple is the biggest company in the world it's inescapable they will face these accusations even if they fairly earned their way in to this position the right thing is to still stop them because a monopoly is always a bad thing for consumers.

ddtaylor 3y ago
How does that excuse any of their anticompetitive CHOICES they continue to make? I don't understand how your comment affords Apple anything.
stavros 3y ago
> All companies by simply reaching a certain scale and size -- are just by default becoming a monopoly. This statement can be reworded as "the companies that are big enough to be monopolies are monopolies". Not all companies are monopolies just by their size. Microsoft is the biggest company in the world (not Apple), and it's not a monopoly in everything it sells. It may be a monopoly in some areas, because of its tactics, but the same goes for Apple: if they open up the app store, like the EU wants them to, they'll no longer be a monopoly, even though they'll be exactly the same size.

riversflow 3y ago

[flagged]

malermeister 3y ago
Nobody's complaining about not having the apple distribution. They're complaining about the scareware popups, designed to hurt businesses that don't pay Apple protection money.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  You really think people won't blame Apple when Little Timmy spends $10k on diamonds on a mobile game they got from an alternate store and Apple won't refund it because, you know, not their store?
  - Digit-Al 3y ago
    But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store. If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse. When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs - to make the importance of the decision harder to miss.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Today, Timmy's parents learn what a "chargeback" is, and how stable financial institutions help circumvent fraud better than App Store curation does.

racl101 3y ago

Apple used to see IBM as the bad guy but somehow they've become a thousand times worse than IBM ever was.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> Apple used to see IBM as the bad guy but somehow they've become a thousand times worse than IBM ever was. I think you would have a hard time establishing that 202x Apple is worse for independent developers than "Big Blue" IBM, let alone three orders of magnitude worse.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Tim Apple is paid to love money.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    I'm not saying Apple is good, I'm saying IBM was also utterly terrible for independent developers and might have been worse.

sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago

This is a great way to encourage developers to build the app that will show an essential use case for the Vision Pro. It’s not like Vision Pro is a solution in need of a problem, desperately waiting for a killer app, or that apps built the iPhone ecosystem into the juggernaut it is now. Apple doesn’t need developers, right? Right?

smoldesu 3y ago
Relax, we have Fruit Ninja VR. The rest is just a matter of waiting for more software to materialize.
snapcaster 3y ago
I can't even understand your point here. People aren't developing for apple hardware to be nice to apple or help out the ecosystem, they're doing it for money. As long as Apple is creating a platform that people love, adopt and trust people will develop for it (while complaining the whole time no doubt) By the amount of bitching on this issue, it really sounds like developers need Apple not the other way around. If this was really about user freedom and shit like that developers would just boycott the platform and move to android. This is just about money and developers wanting to have their cake (distribute their app in a high trust environment) and eat it too (put whatever stupid shit they want in their app with no checks or controls)
- skeaker 3y ago
  People are developing for money, yes, money that Apple intends to take a large cut of for no good reason, hence why they would avoid developing for it because they would not make enough money. Developers do not need Apple because there are other viable platforms. Users that are locked to an iPhone for whatever reason (iCloud being impossible to export, costs are prohibitive, family uses it, etc) would like to be able to sideload or generally run whatever they want on their own device. People aren't complaining just to complain and they're definitely not being entitled, that's just the expectation when you buy a computing device and Apple is failing to uphold their end of it. I do not touch the Apple ecosystem but would like to see their behavior squashed before it can spread to any devices that I do use.

snapcaster 3y ago

I think something missed when these issues are discussed on sites like this is just how ignorant of computing the average user is. What would be obvious for us "oh it's not from official app store, so I know to apply extra scrutiny" isn't even describable in most people's mental model of computers/smartphones. I don't want my loved ones getting scammed or hacked by people utilizing these new "freedoms". Why can't all of you sideloader/sdk/open source people just stick to android? why do you have to open the enshittification gates to every single platform?

_visgean 3y ago
Imagine if you said the same thing about computers: why do you need to install sw from anything but Microsoft store? Why can't you sideloader people need a different browser than Internet Explorer?
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Exactly! I would tell those people to use Linux, not sue Microsoft to change their operating system
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    "Exactly! I would tell those people to use another telephone, not sue Bell Systems to change their phone network" "Exactly! I would tell those people to find another supplier, not sue Standard Oil to change their business tactics" "Exactly! I would tell those people to ride a different rail, not sue Pacific Railway Co. to change their train routes" - Monopoly apologism, through the centuries
    - iakov 3y ago
      With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.
      - 3y ago

menacingly 3y ago

This is a complicated issue. On the one hand, I tend to have a generally unfavorable view of apple. I don't like closed systems, oversimplified to the point of missing critical settings UX, etc. That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. If the arguments were "these restrictions are so burdensome I can't be in the app store!", that's a different conversation. But they tend to be "I can access such an irresistible amount of customers via apple, I just wish I could take those benefits à la carte. It sucks, but you're living in an ecosystem they made appear out of thin air, clearly benefiting enough to experience what you're complaining about, and wishing the deal were more beneficial to you _after the work has been done_. Also, I do wonder if EU flies a little close to the sun with this stuff. You can't legislate that someone lose more money than they gain with access to your market. I'm not sure we're there on this one, but the patience can't be infinite.

j-j-j-j 3y ago
Agreed. Apple has a full right to collect as much money as it can from users of the platform they've built and maintain. I wish the cut was more like 50%, to benefit my stocks, while I'm using exclusively FOSS and pay nothing. These devices are so shiny and great status symbol. I recommend everyone should be in Apple ecosystem and develop applications for it.
- agos 3y ago
  I legit can't tell if this is satire - hats off if this was your intent
e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwise Apple would pull the app from the store. The smaller the app, the more those users are Apple's customers. But obviously we don't want a world where we penalise small developers more than large ones, so that's not a solution either.

retskrad 3y ago

We can talk about the morality of Apple’s App Store tax on developers all day but Apple is not a monopoly and they have all the right in the world to tax developers. We have to realize that Apple has most of the worlds middle class and rich people using iPhones. Apple can use this this advantage how ever they like as long it’s not breaking any laws. If developers are mad about it then they need to band together like any other industry and lobby for changing the law or create unions. The changing the law part is incredibly difficult thing to do because Apple is not a monopoly. How can you write a law that punishes a business that isn’t a monopoly? Apple is only saying, in order to access out wealthy customers, you need to pay a fee. I don’t see how you can tell Apple that they’re doing some nefarious here.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
So Android is the best thing that happened to the iPhone but the worst thing that happened to developers and users.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
> not a monopoly So what percentage of humanity do they have to gatekeep before you will be willing to consider them a problem? Apple is anticompetitive, and that's what matters. Arguing that it's technically not a "monopoly" and therefore A-OK is ridiculous.
smoldesu 3y ago
> but Apple is not a monopoly and they have all the right in the world to tax developers. 1. "Apple" is a lot of things, and depending on how you define it (eg. internal app market, API provider, browser developer, etc.) they are absolutely a monopoly. It's not appropriate to say Apple isn't a monopoly because they do have monopoly power, pertinent to multiple markets. 2. Apple is owed nothing if they abuse monopoly power. Bell had "all the right in the world" to charge customers for rewiring their telephone, but it was also foundational in the case to break them up later. All the most famous American monopolies were also in denial up to the bitter end. Microsoft got away lucky, not also getting broken-up.

roamerz 3y ago

Just wow. Good for Apple! I DO want IOS to remain a walled garden as such. Look how many clicks those pesky do good gov regulators have a cost the world with those annoying "Yes I accept your damn cookies and privacy policy" on every website I visit. Writing apps for IOS is a completely voluntary job where you know the terms before you start. Don't like it? Don't write it -or- just pass on the cost to the consumers. Quit complaining about the noise when you bought a house next to an airport.

snapcaster 3y ago
I agree, all these moves to open iOS are from some of the biggest pushers of enshittification. The walled garden is great for me, and all sideloading will do is open up new attack vectors for me (and more importantly, the tech ignorant people i care about). I understand the corporate actors pushing for this out of self interest, but all of the bystanders cheering this on annoy me. You already have android, linux phones, etc. etc. Can't you just leave us alone in our walled garden and stick with android or linux or whatever?
- boolemancer 3y ago
  How does opening up the walled garden impact you if you never side load anything?
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    It's the same for people who want homosexuality to be forbidden. It's not enough for themselves to not be homosexual, they also have to force their faith onto others.
    - nozzlegear 3y ago
      This is a ridiculous analogy. Surely you can acknowledge that there may be some kind of security concern – warranted or not – for opening up sideloading on iOS, without casting aspersions on the GP being some kind of closeted bigot.

talkingtab 3y ago

Apple's actions are anti-competitive. Spotify is a very good example. Instead of making a better product, Apple is acting to appropriate other businesses. Although the object of Apple's action is companies that try to make money that Apple wants, it is the users, the customers who pay. Apple is an anti-user platform. They are not alone in this of course. How do we change this? I, as a user, am aggrieved that Apple sells (not lends) me a product and then takes actions that make product less useful and more costly. Maybe Spotify and companies should simply set up a website so it is easy for me to take Apple to small claims court? The facts of Apple's anti-competitive practices are certainly clearly laid out in the EU's action, so that should not be hard. I would sign up.

snapcaster 3y ago
I just don't agree that it's an anti-user platform. I have my own opinions on this, but really just talk to some apple users they're all happy with their platform Why do you have to change it? As a user if you don't like walled gardens or restrictions just buy another phone? why do you insist on shitting up my walled garden just go use android!
threeseed 3y ago
The whole reason companies like Spotify are making a fuss about this is because Apple is making better products. If it wasn't the case Spotify would dominate the market all to itself. But Spotify has 30% market share, Apple Music 15%. And it's because for example Apple has lossless audio, Dolby Atmos etc. Not because of any unfair competition.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  What do you think 99% of users care about more? Lossless audio, or a 30% markup?

arthurofbabylon 3y ago

This is a rather misleading headline. The vast majority of developers are not in “open revolt” – just a handful of developers are making a lot of noise about it, while continuing to ship software (ie, not in revolt at all). Further, those developers making great noise are often close to “platform” designation themselves, making their appeal less righteous than a superficial reading might have you believe. It’s a struggle over power – not a struggle over quality nor safety nor human liberty. Most developers are pleased with the current paradigm. I am.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
frizlab 3y ago
I am too. I’m tired of the virulent minority making like they’re the majority (on this subject or others)
- LtWorf 3y ago
  Ask the users: "Would you rather pay less or more?"… see where the majority stands :D
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Users obviously would like to pay less. But you imply that lower commissions somehow trickle down to users. I happily admit that I pocketed the 15% discount I got once the Small Business Program launched and so did all of my peers. I can’t think of a single example where a developer in the SBP lowered their prices. As such, I don’t see what users have to do with it. Not that it’d matter, the topic is developers and how content they are. The big developers don’t seem to care about the commission either, not really anyways. Is a symbol for something else to them. Netflix has had access to 15% for years now via the Apple Video Partner Program[0] and they’ve never even entertained the option because they’d rather take the potential loss in sales than to play nice with the TV app on Apple TV. 0: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/

ex3ndr 3y ago

It is time to create project similar to Wine, but for iOS

hermitcrab 3y ago

I've been selling softare on Mac (and Windows) for nearly 2 decades. I've never bothered with the Mac App Store. I just couldn't be bothered to jump through the hoops and I didn't want Apple getting between me and my customer. I guess that isn't a realistic option for iOS apps though.

franczesko 3y ago

Imagine if websites paid Apple just because they were visited with the Safari browser. That's pretty much how iPhones operate.

AaronNewcomer 3y ago
Doesn’t Google literally pay them like 20 billion per year for exactly this?

dkuznetsov 3y ago

Let's say a subscription costs $10. Why not charge $14.29 through app store and $10 through online registration? With both logins acceptable in the login form... If Apple users want to pay more for the privilege of paying through Apple, why not let them?

arthie 3y ago
Apple does not allow different pricing
- nemo8551 3y ago
  I think they do, my kids play Roblox and Minecraft and buying in app is more expensive (probably to the tune of the Apple fees) than buying it outwith the App Store. I don’t think app developers were allowed to show that it was x price in the app via Apple and x-fees via the developers own site.

anfilt 3y ago

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with iDevices violate this fundamental right by controlling what software can run on the device, even before someones does anything with their device they bought. They do this not via legal means but by using cryptography to reserve the right of exclusion for themselves (they claim its for your security though...). Part of the problem is when someone sells something that in most cases that means a complete transfer of all property rights to the buyer, but Apple is preventing that via extralegal means. Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of not even using iOS and installing something like Linux. However, Apple's control over the boot-ROM prevents the hardware from booting any unsigned code without even opening the box. This gives Apple the ability to exclude or allow software to run on a device they no longer own. The thing is, Apple legally does not have the right of exclusion, but only reserves it via cryptography. This effectively restricts the exercise of your own property rights since you no longer can fully choose what to include or exclude from execution on that ARM processor you own. The fact that this control persists post-sale demonstrates a blatant infringement on individual property rights from Apple. In summary, Apple is intruding upon individuals' personal property rights, notably the right of exclusion. Through the use of cryptography after purchase, Apple retains the right of exclusion which lets them determine which software can and can not operate on a device they no longer 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].

MilaM 3y ago
Also worth mentioning are the numerous intellectual property rights that companies like Apple enjoy and skillfully use to stave off competition. If Apple wants lawmakers to drop market regulations like the DMA, then maybe we should consider cutting IP protections. Only then can we have a conversation about free markets and government intervention.
3y ago

6510 3y ago

Apple is confused, the EU is the lord and they are the serf.

apapapa 3y ago

They will fall in line just like they do with every other crazy rule.

withinboredom 3y ago

I would popcorn the hell out of a courtroom if someone pulled the ole windows license trick: 1. Buy an iPhone. 2. Don’t agree to the conditions. 3. Sue Apple for not letting you install an alternative OS or at least the get a refund for the amount the OS is worth. Since it’s just a hunk of metal and no value, that should be at least 100% of the cost, plus attorney fees. 4. Force Apple into allowing alternative ROMs. 5. Party.

Nevermark 3y ago

Assuming the backlash carries through further EU responses (which regardless of opinions on what it should do, will need to do if it wants to remain credible on this issue): 1. Apple knows this. It knows it will be asked to do more. 2. In the short term, they will drag their feet to maintain benefits of the status quo as long as possible. 3. But more importantly longer term, they expect the final result to be more in their favor as a result of the foot dragging. Negotiating 101. Fight a losing battle hard. So your adversary can claim and perceive eventual victory, with much less to show for it than if you had simply complied. Also to protect other areas from pushback, always be difficult. Don’t encourage further incursions. And there is always the chance your adversary will succumb or be distracted in the meantime. Any fine would have to be at least tens of billions of dollars to hurt Apple. In a few years, at least $100 billion. Not a likely first or second response. So for now, Apple hasn’t lost anything. Their crafted half hearted “compliance” helps them more than it hurts them. Nobody at Apple is losing any sleep.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Government is Apple's adversary. Is that what this is suggesting.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Yes, any governmental group taking action against Apple, especially systemic action, could be viewed as their "enemy", if you don't take the word too seriously. "Opposition" might be a better word.