7 ms·

Changes to iOS App Distribution Fees in the EU

49 points by dagmx 3y ago

post_break 3y ago
Apple bending the knee multiple times. This is great news for small developers. The CTF fees before were crazy.
beeboobaa3 3y ago
Guess Apple got another letter from the EU to cut the shit. Still doesn't seem like enough. There is absolutely no reason apple should receive a single cent if you're publishing outside of their store.
- cafed00d 3y ago
  > There is absolutely no reason apple should receive a single cent if you're publishing outside of their store This is a really bad take. People do not merely pay for the rearrangement of atoms into what ends up being their phone. The software is critical and deserves all the money earned to make it happen. Apple still stands up all those servers, engineers, and operations for apps priced at $0 -- at min-cost to the developer (before you start: no, $99/year covers zilch; $99/year is a mode of spam prevention dev account creation). It is unreasonable, nefarious, and even grand theft for anybody to make money on the phones and refuse to pay for the services that made it possible: the software engineering into Swift, Xcode, CoreOS, Darwin, FoundationDB, Data Centers, the engineers on on-call rotations, and who knows whatever else. All those things don't come for free. App developers who make money off the ecosystem should be held account to pay up.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    Oh give it a rest, they charge a fortune for their handsets and have gross profit margins of 44%.
    - 486sx33 3y ago
      They charge what the market will pay. Should they make a gross profit of 4% ? How about zero?
      - mmastrac 3y ago
        Sure, why not?
    - cafed00d 2y ago
      Oh you give it rest please. You need to learn how much software & operational upkeep costs factor into those “44% gross profit margins”
  - arccy 3y ago
    all those things should be paid for when you paid for your phone. or if they didn't provide all that tooling for you to make apps, they wouldn't be able to sell any phones because noone can make apps for them...
    - 486sx33 3y ago
      So your phone should come with a lifetime license for all its software for free ? What about new apps and features ? You can currently get everything in the iOS ecosystem on an iPhone 11 that you paid for how many years ago? It is funny to see people on HN arguing against paying for software. Of course software should be paid for, unless you want everything included for free - which means outsourced to India.
      - throwaway48476 3y ago
        They used to charge money for iOS updates. Why don't they go back to that if it costs them so much.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    I think this is a bad take. The idea that the device manufacturer is owed a cut of all third party software sold for it is a new one. Apple never would have asked for a cut of all Apple II software sold in the '80s because that would have been preposterous. If I buy a piece of hardware, I can do with it what I want. It's mine, I own it, and everything on it. Nonsensical "terms of service" be damned.
    - 486sx33 3y ago
      You own the hardware - not everything on it. Should you have control of everything on your own hardware? I think yes, but that’s a different thing.
      - beeboobaa3 3y ago
        Yes you do. You bought it. It's your property.
        cafed00d 2y ago
        The wall socket in your house is completely your property too. Yet, you don’t have a right to demand the socket company to put a semiconductor chip in it, along with the installation of an OS, along with an App Store and tools that allow you to download Netflix directly from their own App Store.
    - adamomada 3y ago
      It’s completely different when you have networked hardware. IMHO it’s the equivalent of road taxes to make sure there aren’t any giant potholes swallowing up 18-wheelers and bicycles alike and that your bridges are still standing when you drive across the water. It’s a never-ending uphill battle against entropy and unless you do it, you’re guaranteeing major problems.
      - beeboobaa3 3y ago
        They're free to charge for their networked services if they want to. Doesn't change the fact that the end-user bought & owns the device & they should be free to use it as they wish, potentially without using those networked services and instead opting for an alternative. Their choice. Not yours.
  - RedComet 3y ago
    Yet somehow all of those things preexisted consumer devices that prevent sideloading. In fact it still works on Android, Windows, Linux desktop, etc.
    - cafed00d 3y ago
      Well then there's your answer: devs who believe iOS App distribution doesn't work as well as Android, Window or Linux should build their apps there. Why does the existence of a competing alternative need to force the company in question to adopt the alternative strategy?
      - RedComet 3y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the segue you've made here. But, it would be absurd to suggest that Google is entitled to charge a fee for every app installed installed from F-Droid. Your original claim was that a device owner downloading an application from elsewhere somehow means that Apple could not afford to provide basic development tools. This is demonstrably false. In any case, most of these outside apps have tended to be free, so if anything sideloading should reduce burden on their servers, which seemed to have been part of your concern.
        cafed00d 2y ago
        There is technology that goes into ensuring an app runs on a device — the dynamic linked libraries being present, the compilers adapted to the specific instruction set shipped on that device’s chip, the algorithms, ci/cd pipelines, that go into ensuring all that language design, debugger tools, profiling and performance tools, and then the online infrastructure to support things like backups, iCloud, cross-device sync, device to device transfers on upgrades/new phone purchases. Yeesh the details! “Afford to provide basic development tools” is a conniving way to put it. Forcing a company via legislation to fund, and develop tools is more like what’s happening. What’s happening here is a couple of greedy app developers want to skimp out on paying for the nitty gritty details of making a customer experience actually work. So, yeah, pardon me for inaccurately categorizing them all as “server costs” — I definitely misused that word — but there’s no way in hell you can expect all of the other tech to come for free or even at a price that the _developers demand the tool maker to set_ All this litigation, back-and-forth is going to tarnish the user experience.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    What servers, engineers, and operations are needed to sideload an app? How did literally every OS before iOS manage to provide all of that for free, then? (Not counting game consoles, which always had a very similar distribution model, but importantly were often subsidized by their platform operator, and I hope nobody is claiming that iPhones are loss leaders for Apple.) In my view, SDKs for third-party app development aren't premium/value-add services, they're a core OS functionality. Few people would be happy with an OS that can only run first-party apps. The only things incurring costs to Apple scaling with the number and popularity of third-party apps that come to mind right now are malware protection and push notifications. If Apple really thinks that baking these into the device price would break their bank, I suppose they could always make an iCloud subscription mandatory for that type of service.
    - cafed00d 3y ago
      > Not counting game consoles, which always had a very similar distribution model, but importantly were often subsidized by their platform operator, and I hope nobody is claiming that iPhones are loss leaders for Apple Sounds like you're proposing one of two possible business models: 1. Pay a fixed price for the device at time of purchase that includes costs for services used in the future 2. Subsidize the physical device in favor of pricing the services at a margin to recoup costs for the device Blackberry for 1. or Amazon Fire Phone for 2. Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will?
      - rwmj 3y ago
        > Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will? Because they exist in a stable world created by rules, governments and people, and ultimately we the people get to decide how they should behave.
      - beeboobaa3 3y ago
        > Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will? Was today the day you learned about governments and laws?
  - pmontra 3y ago
    I don't think that your argument is sound. For example when is the last time my customers paid for Ruby, Python, Linux, PostgreSQL? The list can be very long. Companies paid people to work on those technologies, they are not only free labor. In the case of Apple, they developed those technologies to control the platform. They already got a very good return. It is fair to ask developers to pay for the Apple services they are using (cloud services, messaging?) but it would be even fairer not to force developers to use Apple technologies, starting with having to use Macs to write apps.
    - cafed00d 3y ago
      > For example when is the last time my customers paid for Ruby, Python, Linux, PostgreSQL? Well, those examples are cherry-picked; ergo, I present to you a picking my own cherries: Companies pay for MATLAB, Windows and MongoDB. I will concede this list not "very long". But length of lists shouldn't really matter here right? I mean, one example of MATLAB vs. Ruby/Python is good enough to make a point via counterexample. The point I'm making is: It would be immensely unfair to expect developers to force MATLAB engineers to submit to whatever business model the devs want instead of the other way around. Companies that develop technologies own the right to price it however they please. Competition in the free-market ensures companies do not employ price-gouging tactics.
      - pritambaral 2y ago
        > Competition in the free-market ensures companies do not employ price-gouging tactics. There is no competition here, by Apple's design. You cannot publish an app to an iOS device, fully paid for by the user, if Apple doesn't want you to.
        cafed00d 2y ago
        Competition exists in the phone markets. Competition exists in the open standards based web apps market.
  - pipes 3y ago
    I'm also in the minority for thinking if what apple charged wasn't worth it, then no one would pay it. What did it take it the bad old days to actually get your app into consumer hands, a publisher and a retailer who if you were lucky decided to do a deal with you and then you were given a small percentage cut.
  - realusername 3y ago
    > Swift, Xcode, CoreOS, Darwin, FoundationDB, Data Centers, the engineers on on-call rotations, and who knows whatever else. Their tooling is absolutely terrible by any modern standard, there's a reason why I'm using Flutter... Devs target iOS because of its userbase and certainly not because of the quality of the dev environment
  - Kwpolska 3y ago
    > $99/year is a mode of spam prevention dev account creation Why is it a yearly fee if it's supposed to prevent spam accounts?
    - cafed00d 3y ago
      > Why is it a yearly fee I do not know. My hunch is because it's easy. All I know is: Twitter/X is facing a crisis of spammy accounts and their mitigation strategy has been to require new accounts to submit payment info for the X subscription service.
      - Kwpolska 3y ago
        Google Play also has a spam prevention fee. It’s a one-time fee of $25. After one year of no bans, how likely are you to be a spam account?
  - archagon 3y ago
    Sounds to me like you're arguing for a CTF for Mac and Windows development as well!
  - beeboobaa3 3y ago
    Correct, people buy a phone for the branding, and the software. Apple should be sponsoring the development that drives their ecosystem.
- itopaloglu83 3y ago
  Should these rules also apply to things like the push notification system, iCloud sync infrastructure, or access to training materials etc.? Apple might have a valid court case if they are forced to provide a service for free if it's costing them something. European Union is walking a very tight line and the fact that there is no European company declared as a gatekeeper might lead to some concerns.
  - Kwpolska 3y ago
    > access to training materials The materials that are freely available to anyone on the Internet? Besides, if you develop for alternative stores, you still need to pay the $99/year fee. > the push notification system How much does running that system cost for the average app? Is Apple willing to allow alternative push notification systems?
    - itopaloglu83 3y ago
      Just as a reminder, I'm not saying iOS should stay closed. Mobile computing platforms should be open and allow innovation. However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money. They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform. It is their platform, with good and bad. Being free or open does not constitute that every valuable product or service Apple created are now in the public domain and nobody should be paying for them.
      - beeboobaa3 3y ago
        > However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money. Ah, but we can. > They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform. And yes, they are. Just like how utility companies aren't allowed to shut off the water because someone stopped paying. They can choose to stop doing business if they do not agree with these laws.
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mmastrac 3y ago
The EU doesn't seem to be a fan of their "maximally self beneficial letter of the law" approach to compliance. I'm impressed with what they've gotten out of Apple so far -- it's just a shame we don't have access to these wins in Canada.
systemz 3y ago
Even with those changes, yearly developer fee for even creating app for family is still required, right?
- tomduncalf 3y ago
  I don’t think so, you can create an app without the fee. (Xcode is free and nothing is gated based on subscription AFAIK), you just can’t upload it. So I think for EU users this isn’t the case.
  - beeboobaa3 3y ago
    I don't know if they changed it, but the xcode certificates (used to?) expire every week or so, so you'd need to re-up from the apple servers via a mac with xcode.
withinboredom 3y ago
> The CTF is an element of the alternative business terms in the EU that reflects the value Apple provides developers through tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps. Is there an option NOT to use the "tools, technologies, and services" to build an app that runs on iOS?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  No kidding. That would be interesting even if it would be a monstrous task - a third party iOS SDK. In theory, it's possible. Apple would be livid though.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    I'm down to try. However, I think we'd have to take them to court just to get a code signing cert blessed by them because I wouldn't even want to need a copy of xcode.
  - beeboobaa3 3y ago
    Good luck getting anything signed.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      I think it would be possible. It took some effort, but eventually Microsoft caved and provided a key for blessing safe-boot for Linux. Getting to that point, on the other hand, would probably require a pretty significant court case; meaning someone would need some deep pockets.
      - beeboobaa3 2y ago
        Of course it's technically possible if apple gives in. I just don't think they ever will. I'd love it if they would instead switch to something similar like android where apks have to be signed, apks distributed via the play store are (nowadays) signed by google, but if you distribute it yourself you can just sign it yourself and the only requirement of the signature is that it must be the same for subsequent updates.
jarbus 3y ago
The EU is doing absolutely amazing work. It's so nice to see that a government is capable of passing a law and ensuring companies don't practically ignore it while technically complying, like they did with GDPR. Gives me hope.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Hopefully the EU is not satisfied until the status quo is such that one can program, build, distribute and have their users run native apps without ever entering into a contractual relationship with Apple.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Why this obsession with native apps? Just put your program online, and now the entire planet can get to it.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    Some things you just can't do without a native app, especially on mobile.
    - Asmod4n 3y ago
      iOS now has fully functioning service workers and push notifications for web apps, that was the only thing web apps didn't have that native apps could do?
      - lostmsu 3y ago
        You can't do TCP and UDP.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    Native apps can still do/access a lot more things than a web app. Though now I'm curious: is there any web app that allows Apple Pencil input properly?
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      > Native apps can still do/access a lot more things than a web app. Could you even say that they access some core technologies?
freedomben 3y ago
This seems like a logic error to me in the context in which it is said (TFA). > We believe anyone with a good idea and the ingenuity to bring it to life should have the opportunity to offer their app to the world. Should that have include "by 'anyone' we mean any person in the EU"? If not, then shouldn't this change also be rolling out worldwide? Or does that statement actually have nothing to do with this fee change and is just unrelated PR BS? Hard to think of any third alternatives, but if there are I'd like to hear them.
- lxgr 3y ago
  "After a very productive conversation with the European Commission, we now believe that even people in the EU should have the opportunity..."
- transcriptase 3y ago
  That always bothers me too. “Some court forced us to stop being consumer hostile in their jurisdiction, so we’re pleased to be announcing that we’re creating a special de-shittified product and TOS for that market only! Everyone else can get **ed! We can do this all day!”
itopaloglu83 3y ago
> First, no CTF is required if a developer has no revenue whatsoever. > Second, small developers (less than €10 million ... revenue*) ... receive a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF ... > the European Commission designated iPadOS a gatekeeper platform under the Digital Markets Act. I hope to see similar changes to other gatekeepers that are not currently in the list as well, including some popular European companies. Edit: Spelling and grammar corrections.
- patrickmcnamara 3y ago
  Which platforms?
  - Asmod4n 3y ago
    Android, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Switch to name a few.
    - patrickmcnamara 3y ago
      Android is already pretty open tbf so I don't think the EU would do anything. Those other three don't meet the 45 million users requirements.
      - Asmod4n 3y ago
        Android, iOS, Console and TV Devices aren't that different, none of them allow you to install what you could on them. I hope there will be a country that forces manufacturers to let you install any operating system of your choice on the devices you buy as long as they have screen output and USB/Bluetooth input.
        itopaloglu83 3y ago
        Here are some additional discussions I'm seeing that will take place within a year. - Apple's iOS is kicking our app from memory too soon. - iOS does not allow apps to run continuously and at full power. - Apple stops push notification and iCloud support for third party apps.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

49 points by dagmx 3y ago

Apple bending the knee multiple times. This is great news for small developers. The CTF fees before were crazy.

Guess Apple got another letter from the EU to cut the shit. Still doesn't seem like enough. There is absolutely no reason apple should receive a single cent if you're publishing outside of their store.

cafed00d 3y ago
> There is absolutely no reason apple should receive a single cent if you're publishing outside of their store This is a really bad take. People do not merely pay for the rearrangement of atoms into what ends up being their phone. The software is critical and deserves all the money earned to make it happen. Apple still stands up all those servers, engineers, and operations for apps priced at $0 -- at min-cost to the developer (before you start: no, $99/year covers zilch; $99/year is a mode of spam prevention dev account creation). It is unreasonable, nefarious, and even grand theft for anybody to make money on the phones and refuse to pay for the services that made it possible: the software engineering into Swift, Xcode, CoreOS, Darwin, FoundationDB, Data Centers, the engineers on on-call rotations, and who knows whatever else. All those things don't come for free. App developers who make money off the ecosystem should be held account to pay up.
- rwmj 3y ago
  Oh give it a rest, they charge a fortune for their handsets and have gross profit margins of 44%.
  - 486sx33 3y ago
    They charge what the market will pay. Should they make a gross profit of 4% ? How about zero?
    - mmastrac 3y ago
      Sure, why not?
  - cafed00d 2y ago
    Oh you give it rest please. You need to learn how much software & operational upkeep costs factor into those “44% gross profit margins”
- arccy 3y ago
  all those things should be paid for when you paid for your phone. or if they didn't provide all that tooling for you to make apps, they wouldn't be able to sell any phones because noone can make apps for them...
  - 486sx33 3y ago
    So your phone should come with a lifetime license for all its software for free ? What about new apps and features ? You can currently get everything in the iOS ecosystem on an iPhone 11 that you paid for how many years ago? It is funny to see people on HN arguing against paying for software. Of course software should be paid for, unless you want everything included for free - which means outsourced to India.
    - throwaway48476 3y ago
      They used to charge money for iOS updates. Why don't they go back to that if it costs them so much.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- babypuncher 3y ago
  I think this is a bad take. The idea that the device manufacturer is owed a cut of all third party software sold for it is a new one. Apple never would have asked for a cut of all Apple II software sold in the '80s because that would have been preposterous. If I buy a piece of hardware, I can do with it what I want. It's mine, I own it, and everything on it. Nonsensical "terms of service" be damned.
  - 486sx33 3y ago
    You own the hardware - not everything on it. Should you have control of everything on your own hardware? I think yes, but that’s a different thing.
    - beeboobaa3 3y ago
      Yes you do. You bought it. It's your property.
      - cafed00d 2y ago
        The wall socket in your house is completely your property too. Yet, you don’t have a right to demand the socket company to put a semiconductor chip in it, along with the installation of an OS, along with an App Store and tools that allow you to download Netflix directly from their own App Store.
  - adamomada 3y ago
    It’s completely different when you have networked hardware. IMHO it’s the equivalent of road taxes to make sure there aren’t any giant potholes swallowing up 18-wheelers and bicycles alike and that your bridges are still standing when you drive across the water. It’s a never-ending uphill battle against entropy and unless you do it, you’re guaranteeing major problems.
    - beeboobaa3 3y ago
      They're free to charge for their networked services if they want to. Doesn't change the fact that the end-user bought & owns the device & they should be free to use it as they wish, potentially without using those networked services and instead opting for an alternative. Their choice. Not yours.
- RedComet 3y ago
  Yet somehow all of those things preexisted consumer devices that prevent sideloading. In fact it still works on Android, Windows, Linux desktop, etc.
  - cafed00d 3y ago
    Well then there's your answer: devs who believe iOS App distribution doesn't work as well as Android, Window or Linux should build their apps there. Why does the existence of a competing alternative need to force the company in question to adopt the alternative strategy?
    - RedComet 3y ago
      I'm not sure I understand the segue you've made here. But, it would be absurd to suggest that Google is entitled to charge a fee for every app installed installed from F-Droid. Your original claim was that a device owner downloading an application from elsewhere somehow means that Apple could not afford to provide basic development tools. This is demonstrably false. In any case, most of these outside apps have tended to be free, so if anything sideloading should reduce burden on their servers, which seemed to have been part of your concern.
      - cafed00d 2y ago
        There is technology that goes into ensuring an app runs on a device — the dynamic linked libraries being present, the compilers adapted to the specific instruction set shipped on that device’s chip, the algorithms, ci/cd pipelines, that go into ensuring all that language design, debugger tools, profiling and performance tools, and then the online infrastructure to support things like backups, iCloud, cross-device sync, device to device transfers on upgrades/new phone purchases. Yeesh the details! “Afford to provide basic development tools” is a conniving way to put it. Forcing a company via legislation to fund, and develop tools is more like what’s happening. What’s happening here is a couple of greedy app developers want to skimp out on paying for the nitty gritty details of making a customer experience actually work. So, yeah, pardon me for inaccurately categorizing them all as “server costs” — I definitely misused that word — but there’s no way in hell you can expect all of the other tech to come for free or even at a price that the _developers demand the tool maker to set_ All this litigation, back-and-forth is going to tarnish the user experience.
- lxgr 3y ago
  What servers, engineers, and operations are needed to sideload an app? How did literally every OS before iOS manage to provide all of that for free, then? (Not counting game consoles, which always had a very similar distribution model, but importantly were often subsidized by their platform operator, and I hope nobody is claiming that iPhones are loss leaders for Apple.) In my view, SDKs for third-party app development aren't premium/value-add services, they're a core OS functionality. Few people would be happy with an OS that can only run first-party apps. The only things incurring costs to Apple scaling with the number and popularity of third-party apps that come to mind right now are malware protection and push notifications. If Apple really thinks that baking these into the device price would break their bank, I suppose they could always make an iCloud subscription mandatory for that type of service.
  - cafed00d 3y ago
    > Not counting game consoles, which always had a very similar distribution model, but importantly were often subsidized by their platform operator, and I hope nobody is claiming that iPhones are loss leaders for Apple Sounds like you're proposing one of two possible business models: 1. Pay a fixed price for the device at time of purchase that includes costs for services used in the future 2. Subsidize the physical device in favor of pricing the services at a margin to recoup costs for the device Blackberry for 1. or Amazon Fire Phone for 2. Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will?
    - rwmj 3y ago
      > Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will? Because they exist in a stable world created by rules, governments and people, and ultimately we the people get to decide how they should behave.
    - beeboobaa3 3y ago
      > Why force some other company (Apple) to bend to your will? Was today the day you learned about governments and laws?
- pmontra 3y ago
  I don't think that your argument is sound. For example when is the last time my customers paid for Ruby, Python, Linux, PostgreSQL? The list can be very long. Companies paid people to work on those technologies, they are not only free labor. In the case of Apple, they developed those technologies to control the platform. They already got a very good return. It is fair to ask developers to pay for the Apple services they are using (cloud services, messaging?) but it would be even fairer not to force developers to use Apple technologies, starting with having to use Macs to write apps.
  - cafed00d 3y ago
    > For example when is the last time my customers paid for Ruby, Python, Linux, PostgreSQL? Well, those examples are cherry-picked; ergo, I present to you a picking my own cherries: Companies pay for MATLAB, Windows and MongoDB. I will concede this list not "very long". But length of lists shouldn't really matter here right? I mean, one example of MATLAB vs. Ruby/Python is good enough to make a point via counterexample. The point I'm making is: It would be immensely unfair to expect developers to force MATLAB engineers to submit to whatever business model the devs want instead of the other way around. Companies that develop technologies own the right to price it however they please. Competition in the free-market ensures companies do not employ price-gouging tactics.
    - pritambaral 2y ago
      > Competition in the free-market ensures companies do not employ price-gouging tactics. There is no competition here, by Apple's design. You cannot publish an app to an iOS device, fully paid for by the user, if Apple doesn't want you to.
      - cafed00d 2y ago
        Competition exists in the phone markets. Competition exists in the open standards based web apps market.
- pipes 3y ago
  I'm also in the minority for thinking if what apple charged wasn't worth it, then no one would pay it. What did it take it the bad old days to actually get your app into consumer hands, a publisher and a retailer who if you were lucky decided to do a deal with you and then you were given a small percentage cut.
- realusername 3y ago
  > Swift, Xcode, CoreOS, Darwin, FoundationDB, Data Centers, the engineers on on-call rotations, and who knows whatever else. Their tooling is absolutely terrible by any modern standard, there's a reason why I'm using Flutter... Devs target iOS because of its userbase and certainly not because of the quality of the dev environment
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  > $99/year is a mode of spam prevention dev account creation Why is it a yearly fee if it's supposed to prevent spam accounts?
  - cafed00d 3y ago
    > Why is it a yearly fee I do not know. My hunch is because it's easy. All I know is: Twitter/X is facing a crisis of spammy accounts and their mitigation strategy has been to require new accounts to submit payment info for the X subscription service.
    - Kwpolska 3y ago
      Google Play also has a spam prevention fee. It’s a one-time fee of $25. After one year of no bans, how likely are you to be a spam account?
- archagon 3y ago
  Sounds to me like you're arguing for a CTF for Mac and Windows development as well!
- beeboobaa3 3y ago
  Correct, people buy a phone for the branding, and the software. Apple should be sponsoring the development that drives their ecosystem.
itopaloglu83 3y ago
Should these rules also apply to things like the push notification system, iCloud sync infrastructure, or access to training materials etc.? Apple might have a valid court case if they are forced to provide a service for free if it's costing them something. European Union is walking a very tight line and the fact that there is no European company declared as a gatekeeper might lead to some concerns.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  > access to training materials The materials that are freely available to anyone on the Internet? Besides, if you develop for alternative stores, you still need to pay the $99/year fee. > the push notification system How much does running that system cost for the average app? Is Apple willing to allow alternative push notification systems?
  - itopaloglu83 3y ago
    Just as a reminder, I'm not saying iOS should stay closed. Mobile computing platforms should be open and allow innovation. However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money. They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform. It is their platform, with good and bad. Being free or open does not constitute that every valuable product or service Apple created are now in the public domain and nobody should be paying for them.
    - beeboobaa3 3y ago
      > However, we cannot simply force private companies to provide services that costs them money. Ah, but we can. > They are also under no obligation to implement any other continuous communication system to devices on their platform. And yes, they are. Just like how utility companies aren't allowed to shut off the water because someone stopped paying. They can choose to stop doing business if they do not agree with these laws.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mmastrac 3y ago

The EU doesn't seem to be a fan of their "maximally self beneficial letter of the law" approach to compliance. I'm impressed with what they've gotten out of Apple so far -- it's just a shame we don't have access to these wins in Canada.

systemz 3y ago

Even with those changes, yearly developer fee for even creating app for family is still required, right?

tomduncalf 3y ago
I don’t think so, you can create an app without the fee. (Xcode is free and nothing is gated based on subscription AFAIK), you just can’t upload it. So I think for EU users this isn’t the case.
- beeboobaa3 3y ago
  I don't know if they changed it, but the xcode certificates (used to?) expire every week or so, so you'd need to re-up from the apple servers via a mac with xcode.

withinboredom 3y ago

> The CTF is an element of the alternative business terms in the EU that reflects the value Apple provides developers through tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps. Is there an option NOT to use the "tools, technologies, and services" to build an app that runs on iOS?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
No kidding. That would be interesting even if it would be a monstrous task - a third party iOS SDK. In theory, it's possible. Apple would be livid though.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  I'm down to try. However, I think we'd have to take them to court just to get a code signing cert blessed by them because I wouldn't even want to need a copy of xcode.
- beeboobaa3 3y ago
  Good luck getting anything signed.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    I think it would be possible. It took some effort, but eventually Microsoft caved and provided a key for blessing safe-boot for Linux. Getting to that point, on the other hand, would probably require a pretty significant court case; meaning someone would need some deep pockets.
    - beeboobaa3 2y ago
      Of course it's technically possible if apple gives in. I just don't think they ever will. I'd love it if they would instead switch to something similar like android where apks have to be signed, apks distributed via the play store are (nowadays) signed by google, but if you distribute it yourself you can just sign it yourself and the only requirement of the signature is that it must be the same for subsequent updates.

jarbus 3y ago

The EU is doing absolutely amazing work. It's so nice to see that a government is capable of passing a law and ensuring companies don't practically ignore it while technically complying, like they did with GDPR. Gives me hope.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

Hopefully the EU is not satisfied until the status quo is such that one can program, build, distribute and have their users run native apps without ever entering into a contractual relationship with Apple.

FredPret 3y ago
Why this obsession with native apps? Just put your program online, and now the entire planet can get to it.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Some things you just can't do without a native app, especially on mobile.
  - Asmod4n 3y ago
    iOS now has fully functioning service workers and push notifications for web apps, that was the only thing web apps didn't have that native apps could do?
    - lostmsu 3y ago
      You can't do TCP and UDP.
- user_7832 3y ago
  Native apps can still do/access a lot more things than a web app. Though now I'm curious: is there any web app that allows Apple Pencil input properly?
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > Native apps can still do/access a lot more things than a web app. Could you even say that they access some core technologies?

freedomben 3y ago

This seems like a logic error to me in the context in which it is said (TFA). > We believe anyone with a good idea and the ingenuity to bring it to life should have the opportunity to offer their app to the world. Should that have include "by 'anyone' we mean any person in the EU"? If not, then shouldn't this change also be rolling out worldwide? Or does that statement actually have nothing to do with this fee change and is just unrelated PR BS? Hard to think of any third alternatives, but if there are I'd like to hear them.

lxgr 3y ago
"After a very productive conversation with the European Commission, we now believe that even people in the EU should have the opportunity..."
transcriptase 3y ago
That always bothers me too. “Some court forced us to stop being consumer hostile in their jurisdiction, so we’re pleased to be announcing that we’re creating a special de-shittified product and TOS for that market only! Everyone else can get **ed! We can do this all day!”

itopaloglu83 3y ago

> First, no CTF is required if a developer has no revenue whatsoever. > Second, small developers (less than €10 million ... revenue*) ... receive a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF ... > the European Commission designated iPadOS a gatekeeper platform under the Digital Markets Act. I hope to see similar changes to other gatekeepers that are not currently in the list as well, including some popular European companies. Edit: Spelling and grammar corrections.

patrickmcnamara 3y ago
Which platforms?
- Asmod4n 3y ago
  Android, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Switch to name a few.
  - patrickmcnamara 3y ago
    Android is already pretty open tbf so I don't think the EU would do anything. Those other three don't meet the 45 million users requirements.
    - Asmod4n 3y ago
      Android, iOS, Console and TV Devices aren't that different, none of them allow you to install what you could on them. I hope there will be a country that forces manufacturers to let you install any operating system of your choice on the devices you buy as long as they have screen output and USB/Bluetooth input.
      - itopaloglu83 3y ago
        Here are some additional discussions I'm seeing that will take place within a year. - Apple's iOS is kicking our app from memory too soon. - iOS does not allow apps to run continuously and at full power. - Apple stops push notification and iCloud support for third party apps.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]