8 ms·

This is just more malicious compliance by Apple. Indie developers are completely locked out of web distribution, and it applies only to developers who are alrea

by lapcat 3y ago

This is just more malicious compliance by Apple. Indie developers are completely locked out of web distribution, and it applies only to developers who are already paying the Apple tax. > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must: > Be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year. > Developers will pay a CTF of €0.50 for each first annual install over one million in the past 12 months. https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/

classified 3y ago
I really hope the EU regulators won't let this slide.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Which part? I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS. This isn't malicious compliance, sans the size requirement it's exactly what they asked for. This keeps happening where people keep hitching "I don't want to pay Apple" to every wagon except a law that requires Apple to make access to iOS free. "Allow other payment processors": Okay you still pay 27% "Allow other stores": Okay you still pay a commission, a different one. "Allow installing from websites": Okay you still pay a commission, you just have to write us a check.
  - _v7gu 3y ago
    DMA requires free access to the platform
    - cowsandmilk 3y ago
      Citation needed
      - wolf89618 3y ago
        [dead]
      - internetter 3y ago
        56: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
        Spivak 3y ago
        That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't give themselves special private APIs to do things other apps can't or charge to access them. Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.
        internetter 3y ago
        Yes. The App "App Store" has special APIs that allow other apps to be installed on the phone that do not experience this charge.
        Spivak 3y ago
        That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores. This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.
        candiodari 3y ago
        I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading. Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either. It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.
    - jimbokun 3y ago
      Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world should work opinion?
      - internetter 3y ago
        Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
        Kon-Peki 3y ago
        The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes: > Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Just the size requirement makes it useless, why would anybody bother with a web distribution if they already have 1 million (!) installs on the appstore where they already have all their customers?
    - internetter 3y ago
      That's the point of these ridiculous rules
    - LordKeren 3y ago
      The front runners for doing this would probably be Google and Meta. Large companies that publish several ad-supported apps. Side stepping the App Store would let them revert Apple’s privacy protections for tracking However, I believe another statute of Apple’s implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or Self Distribution— an app cannot be both
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I don't see how they would. Aren't many of the anti tracking features implemented at the OS level?
        repelsteeltje 3y ago
        Trivially easy. Create an app that generates a random number and store it in the apps local storage. Send that with any interaction to whatever service you're providing. Hiding this feat in plain sight isn't that hard. Currently there are two things preventing a developer from doing this: 1. you're supposed to be honest and not do that. 2. you could be caught during review by a bot or a human. Nothing at the OS level to prevent this.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        But all that does is let one app track your usage in that app. To do tracking outside of that, you'd need other apps to get access to another apps' local storage. Which you need the OS to give you permission to do. We have toggles for preventing cell data usage, they could trivially do the same for wifi usage, or accessing other app's local storage.
  - bakugo 3y ago
    > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS Why not? Maybe they can't rule that Apple must make the App Store free for developers, but they can rule that the App Store can't be the only way to install apps.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      > App Store can't be the only way to install apps. Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.
      - bakugo 3y ago
        > But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are. Yes, it is. For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores, so effectively it's just their App Store under a different name. Hopefully this won't fly under DMA.
        adamlett 3y ago
        For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores No, they just need a legally binding agreement.
  - wolf89618 3y ago
    > 4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. > 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system… More about DMA here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-compliance-explained.2417609/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-co...
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Yes, people keep quoting these sections but it doesn't say what folks want it to say. 4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications from outside the App Store. That has no relationship at all to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of developers, number of users, etc.. 7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless still charge developers to access iOS. But from there Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.
      - waffleiron 3y ago
        I think the intent is clear. If apple is allowed to charge, they could charge 1000 USD per install and the whole law would be moot.
      - philistine 3y ago
        Here's something to blow your brain: perhaps the English version is incorrectly translated. With Ireland now the only Anglophone country in the EU, I would trust the French and German versions of the text to have far more clear intent.
  - margana 3y ago
    Even if they were allowed to ask for a fee, they would not be allowed to set conditions that they can subjectively rule on. Particularly the "in good standing with Apple" is a blatant violation since it effectively lets them block anyone they want for any reason, which is in violation of the very basic "shall allow and technically enable" language of the DMA.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS. Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1 I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge mistake if they think they are in position to negociate anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement. It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that locking access to the market in the EU was fine.
    - letsdothisagain 3y ago
      Yeah that's why I'm expecting another change. When they tried banning Epic the EU said no, and Apple was forced to move to this point. I expect/hope that the EU comes back with a further "clarification" on Apple's contention that they can gate this to 1,000,000 downloads. It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.
    - phh 3y ago
      > if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement. I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit) That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the DMA.
      - myaccountonhn 3y ago
        GDPR is an improvement though.
    - 3y ago
shiandow 3y ago
I suppose the next stage of malicious compliance will be to allow absolutely everyone to publish apps everywhere, but with some technical warning that is designed to be ignored.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  What's malicious about that? That the warning is designed to be ignored? If they deleted the warning, would that be much different?
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    The same reason it’s frowned upon to install random apps from the internet onto your PC. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      Mobile OSes are not the same as windows or even Mac.
      - chaostheory 3y ago
        Yeah, their main differentiator is that they’re locked down.
        jackpeterfletch 3y ago
        and are most peoples 2fa device
        dns_snek 3y ago
        They're locked down through technological measures such as sandboxing, which is designed to resist against malicious guests regardless of their origin and distribution method.
      - sharikous 3y ago
        With typical usage they contain more sensitive data and people are less aware of what happens in them than PCs. And mobile phones are perfect spying devices too. So the security question is more delicate
bossyTeacher 3y ago
If indie developers were to quality, anyone would qualify and security incidents would inevitably increase. That's what Apple is trying to prevent. Keep the attack surface small. Apple's philosophy is similar to the justice philosophy of nations like Singapore. Freedom in exchange for security. Some people like the trade off and some don't. And if there is anything that we know for sure is that when it comes to tech, freedom is the last of people's priorities.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  No, they want more money. They are hesitant to give up a big cash cow.
  - bossyTeacher 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be an exclusive choice for Apple: more money and more security for Apple. Many HN folks (many of them using plenty of Apple products) probably won't like it but the reality is that we all vote with our wallet and with our time
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      We can also vote with our actual votes and outlaw behaviours we don't like.
      - __d 3y ago
        It's an interesting situation. We're all free not to buy Apple products if we don't like how they lock them down. There are several alternatives, Android being the most obvious. And yet, iPhones still sell well. There are also minimum standards of behavior that we require of every participant in society, including regulations on the behavior of products. The DMA's identification of "gatekeepers" makes a distinction between the requirements on products with smaller vs larger market shares. More successful products are now held to a higher standard, if you like. This isn't unprecedented: progressive taxation, labor laws, etc -- there are many situations where this happens. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on phones, but they're significant enough that the EU wants them to behave in a certain (different) way. Both the DMA and Apple's responses to it seem a bit clunky (so far). I expect it'll take some time for an equilibrium to emerge. I think it's also notable that Apple now has (at least) three major different versions of its software/infrastructure: EU, China, and rest-of-world. I fear that's a trend that will only continue.
noirscape 3y ago
> and have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year. In other words the option is still a joke not worth using. "Yes, you can distribute independently... as long as you've already been popular on the iOS App Store in the past year".
- toyg 3y ago
  It's a half-assed bribe to try and keep big developers on their side. "Alright, alright, we'll let you keep some money - just stop crying to the regulators already!"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
neop1x 3y ago
What a joke. No such restrictions on MacOS or Android. It is completely useless and doesn't solve anything.

by lapcat 3y ago

classified 3y ago

I really hope the EU regulators won't let this slide.

Spivak 3y ago
Which part? I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS. This isn't malicious compliance, sans the size requirement it's exactly what they asked for. This keeps happening where people keep hitching "I don't want to pay Apple" to every wagon except a law that requires Apple to make access to iOS free. "Allow other payment processors": Okay you still pay 27% "Allow other stores": Okay you still pay a commission, a different one. "Allow installing from websites": Okay you still pay a commission, you just have to write us a check.
- _v7gu 3y ago
  DMA requires free access to the platform
  - cowsandmilk 3y ago
    Citation needed
    - wolf89618 3y ago
      [dead]
    - internetter 3y ago
      56: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
      - Spivak 3y ago
        That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't give themselves special private APIs to do things other apps can't or charge to access them. Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.
        internetter 3y ago
        Yes. The App "App Store" has special APIs that allow other apps to be installed on the phone that do not experience this charge.
        Spivak 3y ago
        That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores. This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.
        candiodari 3y ago
        I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading. Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either. It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.
- sneak 3y ago
  Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.
  - jimbokun 3y ago
    Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world should work opinion?
    - internetter 3y ago
      Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
      - Kon-Peki 3y ago
        The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes: > Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself.
- realusername 3y ago
  Just the size requirement makes it useless, why would anybody bother with a web distribution if they already have 1 million (!) installs on the appstore where they already have all their customers?
  - internetter 3y ago
    That's the point of these ridiculous rules
  - LordKeren 3y ago
    The front runners for doing this would probably be Google and Meta. Large companies that publish several ad-supported apps. Side stepping the App Store would let them revert Apple’s privacy protections for tracking However, I believe another statute of Apple’s implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or Self Distribution— an app cannot be both
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I don't see how they would. Aren't many of the anti tracking features implemented at the OS level?
      - repelsteeltje 3y ago
        Trivially easy. Create an app that generates a random number and store it in the apps local storage. Send that with any interaction to whatever service you're providing. Hiding this feat in plain sight isn't that hard. Currently there are two things preventing a developer from doing this: 1. you're supposed to be honest and not do that. 2. you could be caught during review by a bot or a human. Nothing at the OS level to prevent this.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        But all that does is let one app track your usage in that app. To do tracking outside of that, you'd need other apps to get access to another apps' local storage. Which you need the OS to give you permission to do. We have toggles for preventing cell data usage, they could trivially do the same for wifi usage, or accessing other app's local storage.
- bakugo 3y ago
  > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS Why not? Maybe they can't rule that Apple must make the App Store free for developers, but they can rule that the App Store can't be the only way to install apps.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    > App Store can't be the only way to install apps. Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.
    - bakugo 3y ago
      > But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are. Yes, it is. For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores, so effectively it's just their App Store under a different name. Hopefully this won't fly under DMA.
      - adamlett 3y ago
        For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores No, they just need a legally binding agreement.
- wolf89618 3y ago
  > 4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. > 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system… More about DMA here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-compliance-explained.2417609/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-co...
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Yes, people keep quoting these sections but it doesn't say what folks want it to say. 4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications from outside the App Store. That has no relationship at all to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of developers, number of users, etc.. 7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless still charge developers to access iOS. But from there Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      I think the intent is clear. If apple is allowed to charge, they could charge 1000 USD per install and the whole law would be moot.
    - philistine 3y ago
      Here's something to blow your brain: perhaps the English version is incorrectly translated. With Ireland now the only Anglophone country in the EU, I would trust the French and German versions of the text to have far more clear intent.
- margana 3y ago
  Even if they were allowed to ask for a fee, they would not be allowed to set conditions that they can subjectively rule on. Particularly the "in good standing with Apple" is a blatant violation since it effectively lets them block anyone they want for any reason, which is in violation of the very basic "shall allow and technically enable" language of the DMA.
- pjerem 3y ago
  > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS. Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1 I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge mistake if they think they are in position to negociate anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement. It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that locking access to the market in the EU was fine.
  - letsdothisagain 3y ago
    Yeah that's why I'm expecting another change. When they tried banning Epic the EU said no, and Apple was forced to move to this point. I expect/hope that the EU comes back with a further "clarification" on Apple's contention that they can gate this to 1,000,000 downloads. It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.
  - phh 3y ago
    > if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement. I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit) That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the DMA.
    - myaccountonhn 3y ago
      GDPR is an improvement though.
  - 3y ago

shiandow 3y ago

I suppose the next stage of malicious compliance will be to allow absolutely everyone to publish apps everywhere, but with some technical warning that is designed to be ignored.

Thorrez 3y ago
What's malicious about that? That the warning is designed to be ignored? If they deleted the warning, would that be much different?
- chaostheory 3y ago
  The same reason it’s frowned upon to install random apps from the internet onto your PC. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Mobile OSes are not the same as windows or even Mac.
    - chaostheory 3y ago
      Yeah, their main differentiator is that they’re locked down.
      - jackpeterfletch 3y ago
        and are most peoples 2fa device
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        They're locked down through technological measures such as sandboxing, which is designed to resist against malicious guests regardless of their origin and distribution method.
    - sharikous 3y ago
      With typical usage they contain more sensitive data and people are less aware of what happens in them than PCs. And mobile phones are perfect spying devices too. So the security question is more delicate

bossyTeacher 3y ago

If indie developers were to quality, anyone would qualify and security incidents would inevitably increase. That's what Apple is trying to prevent. Keep the attack surface small. Apple's philosophy is similar to the justice philosophy of nations like Singapore. Freedom in exchange for security. Some people like the trade off and some don't. And if there is anything that we know for sure is that when it comes to tech, freedom is the last of people's priorities.

BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
No, they want more money. They are hesitant to give up a big cash cow.
- bossyTeacher 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be an exclusive choice for Apple: more money and more security for Apple. Many HN folks (many of them using plenty of Apple products) probably won't like it but the reality is that we all vote with our wallet and with our time
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    We can also vote with our actual votes and outlaw behaviours we don't like.
    - __d 3y ago
      It's an interesting situation. We're all free not to buy Apple products if we don't like how they lock them down. There are several alternatives, Android being the most obvious. And yet, iPhones still sell well. There are also minimum standards of behavior that we require of every participant in society, including regulations on the behavior of products. The DMA's identification of "gatekeepers" makes a distinction between the requirements on products with smaller vs larger market shares. More successful products are now held to a higher standard, if you like. This isn't unprecedented: progressive taxation, labor laws, etc -- there are many situations where this happens. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on phones, but they're significant enough that the EU wants them to behave in a certain (different) way. Both the DMA and Apple's responses to it seem a bit clunky (so far). I expect it'll take some time for an equilibrium to emerge. I think it's also notable that Apple now has (at least) three major different versions of its software/infrastructure: EU, China, and rest-of-world. I fear that's a trend that will only continue.

noirscape 3y ago

> and have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year. In other words the option is still a joke not worth using. "Yes, you can distribute independently... as long as you've already been popular on the iOS App Store in the past year".

toyg 3y ago
It's a half-assed bribe to try and keep big developers on their side. "Alright, alright, we'll let you keep some money - just stop crying to the regulators already!"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

neop1x 3y ago

What a joke. No such restrictions on MacOS or Android. It is completely useless and doesn't solve anything.