3 ms·

The silliest thing about this article is that Apple and the EU have been conferring about this and neither party was surprised by the implementation. I honestl

The silliest thing about this article is that Apple and the EU have been conferring about this and neither party was surprised by the implementation. I honestly think many people don’t understand retail.

gumby 3y ago
Also 30% was pretty common in game consoles and has been for longer than the Apple App Store has existed. Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Game consoles often launching selling at a loss and have to recoup their costs within about 5y. They rarely get more than a few thousand games in their lifetime. Each generation is often incompatible with the last, increasing costs all around. The iPhone is usually backward compatible, sold at a hefty profit each year, and has tens of thousands of games from more developers.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple. That's pretty disingenuous about Tim Sweeney. His main complaint on iOS is that there's no way around the App Store, basically that Apple blocks any app distribution methods besides their official App Store.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Other than the World Wide Web. Which is a great distribution mechanism.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      If there was anywhere near feature parity between the web and native apps, then "use the web" this would be acceptable answer, but that is absolutely not the case. The web is most definitely not a great distribution mechanism for iOS apps.
      - detourdog 3y ago
        Feature parity has a price of entry. Either through ingenuity or acceptance of someone else's rules.
  - gumby 3y ago
    He made clear public statements to this effect even during Epic’s lawsuits.
akmarinov 3y ago
They absolutely have, here's European Commission chief Margrethe Vestager meeting with Tim Cook barely a month ago. https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1745693612262953300 https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1745693612262953300
zarzavat 3y ago
Just because the EU and Apple have been talking doesn’t mean that the EU accepts Apple’s implementation. Apple clearly wants to take this to court, so if the EU actually accepted it, it would constitute a failure on their part to be sufficiently maliciously compliant. And the EU is not going to start making a bunch of off the cuff public statements that Apple could take advantage of later - their response will be thorough and by the book.
jsnell 3y ago
I mean, obviously Apple wasn't surprised by their own plan. They wrote it. It's probably true that the EC had gotten information on Apple's plans in advance, and wasn't surprised by it. That doesn't mean that they approve that plan. In fact, AFAIK it is impossible for them to have formally approved it. That's just not the process. The EC will only start to consider whether Apple's implementation is compliant or not after the DMA enforcement starts, and will take into account feedback from the industry on what actually got implemented. What Apple announced is irrelevant, the announcement is non-normative and such an announcement is really only for Apple's benefit (for them to get an idea in advance on how acceptable the industry finds their proposal, and course correct). But obviously Apple has no interest in that. The only use they have for the feedback is to print it on some special toilet paper rolls to use in the executive bathrooms.

gumby 3y ago

Also 30% was pretty common in game consoles and has been for longer than the Apple App Store has existed. Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Game consoles often launching selling at a loss and have to recoup their costs within about 5y. They rarely get more than a few thousand games in their lifetime. Each generation is often incompatible with the last, increasing costs all around. The iPhone is usually backward compatible, sold at a hefty profit each year, and has tens of thousands of games from more developers.
freedomben 3y ago
> Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple. That's pretty disingenuous about Tim Sweeney. His main complaint on iOS is that there's no way around the App Store, basically that Apple blocks any app distribution methods besides their official App Store.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Other than the World Wide Web. Which is a great distribution mechanism.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    If there was anywhere near feature parity between the web and native apps, then "use the web" this would be acceptable answer, but that is absolutely not the case. The web is most definitely not a great distribution mechanism for iOS apps.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      Feature parity has a price of entry. Either through ingenuity or acceptance of someone else's rules.
- gumby 3y ago
  He made clear public statements to this effect even during Epic’s lawsuits.

akmarinov 3y ago

They absolutely have, here's European Commission chief Margrethe Vestager meeting with Tim Cook barely a month ago. https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1745693612262953300 https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1745693612262953300

zarzavat 3y ago

Just because the EU and Apple have been talking doesn’t mean that the EU accepts Apple’s implementation. Apple clearly wants to take this to court, so if the EU actually accepted it, it would constitute a failure on their part to be sufficiently maliciously compliant. And the EU is not going to start making a bunch of off the cuff public statements that Apple could take advantage of later - their response will be thorough and by the book.

jsnell 3y ago

I mean, obviously Apple wasn't surprised by their own plan. They wrote it. It's probably true that the EC had gotten information on Apple's plans in advance, and wasn't surprised by it. That doesn't mean that they approve that plan. In fact, AFAIK it is impossible for them to have formally approved it. That's just not the process. The EC will only start to consider whether Apple's implementation is compliant or not after the DMA enforcement starts, and will take into account feedback from the industry on what actually got implemented. What Apple announced is irrelevant, the announcement is non-normative and such an announcement is really only for Apple's benefit (for them to get an idea in advance on how acceptable the industry finds their proposal, and course correct). But obviously Apple has no interest in that. The only use they have for the feedback is to print it on some special toilet paper rolls to use in the executive bathrooms.