4 ms·

I'm a little bit playing devil's advocate here, but: concerning how? > you have to have at least one million first installs annually on iOS to even qualify Th

I'm a little bit playing devil's advocate here, but: concerning how? > you have to have at least one million first installs annually on iOS to even qualify That's not what the site says at all? "Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store, alternative marketplaces, and/or Web Distribution." That seems to indicate that there is no minimum, and installs up to 1 million are free. That means that (wild guess) 99.5% of all apps ever released will pay no fee. EDIT TO CORRECT: see below, you have to have an app over 1 million downloads in the previous year to participate, but this description of the fee structure is correct. Which is...weird? > I doubt Epic and the like would be considered in good standing as far as Apple is concerned. If Apple plays games like this, they deserve consequences. But does it make sense to take this interpretation rather than just assuming the language means what it means: you haven't been kicked off the platform, and you've been around for two years?

dsissitka 3y ago
Search for the first occurrence of million: > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must: ... have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  Ah, sorry, I missed that part. It's a weird distinction -- you could have one app with a million installs, and a million apps with one install each, and all could be installed from your web page? So this points to the other thing I said, which is that there are very few developers that will meet this requirement.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
It's less "concerning" and more "flagrantly ridiculous". A company has to pay Apple half a euro for every executable download from the company's own website? If Microsoft tried this shit with Windows people would be apoplectic.
- __d 3y ago
  And yet, it's pretty common in commercial software and in other industries. For instance, my application uses a particular commercially-licensed software library. I have to pay a per-copy-sold royalty to the vendor. Or I write a video game for a console: I have to pay a percentage of my revenue to the console vendor. Or I use a particular algorithm (eg. an AV codec) and I have to pay patent royalties. So if your application uses Apple's provided frameworks, and they choose to charge you a license fee (discounted to zero for your first million sales), you're calling it "flagrantly ridiculous"? It's not: it's a wide-spread, standard practice. It might suck, sure. But hyperbole helps no-one here.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    > And yet, it's pretty common in commercial software and in other industries. Is it common in general purpose operating systems? Android? Linux? ChromeOS? Windows? Hell, MacOS? No? Then why did you bring it up?

dsissitka 3y ago

Search for the first occurrence of million: > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must: ... have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year.

gcanyon 3y ago
Ah, sorry, I missed that part. It's a weird distinction -- you could have one app with a million installs, and a million apps with one install each, and all could be installed from your web page? So this points to the other thing I said, which is that there are very few developers that will meet this requirement.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

It's less "concerning" and more "flagrantly ridiculous". A company has to pay Apple half a euro for every executable download from the company's own website? If Microsoft tried this shit with Windows people would be apoplectic.

__d 3y ago
And yet, it's pretty common in commercial software and in other industries. For instance, my application uses a particular commercially-licensed software library. I have to pay a per-copy-sold royalty to the vendor. Or I write a video game for a console: I have to pay a percentage of my revenue to the console vendor. Or I use a particular algorithm (eg. an AV codec) and I have to pay patent royalties. So if your application uses Apple's provided frameworks, and they choose to charge you a license fee (discounted to zero for your first million sales), you're calling it "flagrantly ridiculous"? It's not: it's a wide-spread, standard practice. It might suck, sure. But hyperbole helps no-one here.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  > And yet, it's pretty common in commercial software and in other industries. Is it common in general purpose operating systems? Android? Linux? ChromeOS? Windows? Hell, MacOS? No? Then why did you bring it up?