8 ms·

Although this is good news, Epic will still have to pay Apples Core Technology Fee. For most developers this will be a deal breaker, because it also applies to

Although this is good news, Epic will still have to pay Apples Core Technology Fee. For most developers this will be a deal breaker, because it also applies to free software which most of the time is only supported by donations.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Unity got raked over the coals for this. Real shame Apple more or less got away with it with its ransom bekng to stay inside the walled garden.
- martijnarts 2y ago
  The fee is being investigated by the EU now, so they may not get away with it entirely.
- moooo99 2y ago
  > Real shame Apple more or less got away with it with its ransom bekng to stay inside the walled garden. Given with how much Apple got away for years, I am not surprised. Either many people don’t have particularly much insight or a severe case of Stockholm syndrome. What bothers me the most is apples double dipping. You as the consumer basically pay a fee for apples technology. And then they expect the developers to pay the same fee, which will ultimately be paid by the consumer as well. Also ignoring the fact that Apples platform would be completely worthless if it weren’t for the developers building the apps the users want
  - troupo 2y ago
    That's what infuriates me about this discourse. "Do you want Apple to continue to develop stuff and just provide it to developers for free?". iPhone sales alone are 3x Apple's entire R&D spend. And developers pay more than fair share of that because they need at least two devices (an iPhone and a Mac) if they want to develop anything, and a yearly fee. Apple doesn't just double dip. It triple dips, and wants to quadruple and quantuple dip.
    - cafed00d 2y ago
      Why can’t a business be built solely without giving Apple a dime? The web is free — as in freedom and as in gratis. It has a developer tools system funded by hundreds of companies, developers and community members. There’s hardly any order of dipping, if any. Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”?
      - troupo 2y ago
        > Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”? Because the web sucks at building apps? Because the web can barely render a few lines of text and several images without lag and jank? Because the web lacks useful and powerful primitives and controls to build anything but the most primitive UIs? Because...
      - immibis 2y ago
        Because Apple limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices? Same reason it refused to allow Flash. It wants you to stay in the walled garden with the expensive fees.
        troupo 2y ago
        Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. Additionally, desktop browsers have been a thing since forever. Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about?
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        > Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. worldwide, and not by a large margin. I believe it's 60/40 last I checked. Among US and a few other first world countries, it's nearly 50/50, with a very small advantadge to Apple. Slashing your consumer base in the biggest markets isn't an attractive proposition. >Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about? well Apple made PWA's harder to do in the EU, so ask them... They're doing what they did to Flash long ago, with much less justification this time around.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Unity got raked over the coals for *retroactively* changing the licensing fees for developers in a way that negatively impacted a common existing business model amongst their customers. It’s fair to not like the Apple fees but the scenario isn’t equivalent. One was a rug pull. If they did that all along it wouldn’t have been as big an issue.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I'd say it's still equivalent. I just think apple was smart knowing most people are comfy in the walled garden and won't throw up a fuss. Similar to Unity, these pricing ding the smaller people the most. But unlike Unity, the bigger players aren't joining the protest. I guess I was just foolish thinking businesses would at least think in the middle-term of "what if we want our own storefront one day ". I guess the EU might pick up that ball, but the Apathy from other devs is a bit disenheartening. The same Apathy that let these companies enshittify the net and turn into trillionaires as punishment
    - dagmx 2y ago
      How are they equivalent other than a fee existing at all, and how is that different than a revenue share that Epic do? Apple hasn’t added a new fee to existing devs. The reason you see apathy is that this doesn’t negatively change the status quo. It provides new options. Granted they might not like the terms of the new options , as you clearly don’t. But nothing has been taken away from them in the process. It is completely unsurprising that there is apathy. Unity tried to change the terms from under people which changed their livelihood prospective negatively. If the only equivalence is that there’s a fee, then that applies to a lot more to the point it’s meaningless. Epic do a revenue share. Unity should have done a revenue share but did something more trackable without requiring regular audits. Ultimately it wasn’t Unity’s actual fee that was the problem, had it been a new tier. But it retroactively changed things for people.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        If you had any plans at all to maybe think of an alternative app store, it's equivalent. You have an expectation from a competitor who allows this and IOS instead will charge you despite not using their own store. Pricing that is worse than staying in the walled garden. If you were apathetic/supportive of Apple and would stay on the App Store anyway, nothing changes. And I suppose a lot of businesses are in this group. >But nothing has been taken away from them in the process. It is completely unsurprising that there is apathy. Yes, that's my core problem. But the last two years should have taught me thst companies aren't looking in the long term these days. Epic is, sort of. if only because they have no option given their whole kerfuffle.
- KronisLV 2y ago
  > Unity got raked over the coals for this. It's kind of crazy, because all of the super high numbers and companies that said they'd go bankrupt were looking at the Personal tier, which basically acted as a sales funnel towards the Pro tier, where the prices would not be as outrageous, even in the original version of the Runtime Fee: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/unity-runtime-fee-a-look-at-some-numbers https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/unity-runtime-fee-a-look-at... (under "How bad is it, really?") Of course, they since revised it so my article isn't relevant anymore, but if you look at the platform fee cost per install, then it becomes quite obvious and the initial pushback didn't seem to take this into account: https://blog.kronis.dev/images/1/6/-/f/e/16-fee-per-install-graph-dc7488d8.jpeg https://blog.kronis.dev/images/1/6/-/f/e/16-fee-per-install-... Aside from that, though, I guess companies will always try to take a part of the profits that anything offered through their platforms generates (Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store, Valve's Steam etc.). It's good to see things improving at least somewhat, though, since we can't express a lot of progress overnight.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > It's kind of crazy It’s crazy that Unity’s PR people (and the CEO himself) were so objectively dumb and incompetent while being paid that much. The retroactive part was probably indefensible but they did such a horrible job at explaining the actual fees initially that it utterly jaw dropping…
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  And Unity’s terms were/are much more generous than Apple’s
arghwhat 2y ago
For now, Apple has been found non-compliant with DMA and will probably have to remove it.
- Longhanks 2y ago
  No, for now, there are investigations whether Apple is compliant or not. Vestager's opinion does not automatically become the truth.
AnonC 2y ago
> For most developers this will be a deal breaker, because it also applies to free software which most of the time is only supported by donations If the app is taking donations or any sort of payment, then the Core Technology Fee applies after 1 million first installs in a year. If it’s a completely free app, this fee does not apply. This fee also does not apply for educational institutions, nonprofits, and government agencies (with a fee waiver). Quoting from “ Understanding the Core Technology Fee for iOS apps in the European Union” [1]: > Developers whose apps do not surpass one million first annual installs per year and nonprofits, educational institutions, and government entities with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver do not pay the CTF. The CTF is also not required for developers with a no revenue business that offer free apps without monetization. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
- lozenge 2y ago
  What about free as in beer software which includes some ads?
  - hk__2 2y ago
    This doesn't count as "completely free": > Apple provides many conditions where developers do not pay the CTF: […] Developers that earn no revenue whatsoever. This includes offering a free app without monetization of any kind (physical, digital, advertising, or otherwise). (from the link above)
awelxtr 2y ago
I love Anki, but it is a tough sell to Apple users because it costs 20 frigging bucks where on other OSs is free

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Unity got raked over the coals for this. Real shame Apple more or less got away with it with its ransom bekng to stay inside the walled garden.

martijnarts 2y ago
The fee is being investigated by the EU now, so they may not get away with it entirely.
moooo99 2y ago
> Real shame Apple more or less got away with it with its ransom bekng to stay inside the walled garden. Given with how much Apple got away for years, I am not surprised. Either many people don’t have particularly much insight or a severe case of Stockholm syndrome. What bothers me the most is apples double dipping. You as the consumer basically pay a fee for apples technology. And then they expect the developers to pay the same fee, which will ultimately be paid by the consumer as well. Also ignoring the fact that Apples platform would be completely worthless if it weren’t for the developers building the apps the users want
- troupo 2y ago
  That's what infuriates me about this discourse. "Do you want Apple to continue to develop stuff and just provide it to developers for free?". iPhone sales alone are 3x Apple's entire R&D spend. And developers pay more than fair share of that because they need at least two devices (an iPhone and a Mac) if they want to develop anything, and a yearly fee. Apple doesn't just double dip. It triple dips, and wants to quadruple and quantuple dip.
  - cafed00d 2y ago
    Why can’t a business be built solely without giving Apple a dime? The web is free — as in freedom and as in gratis. It has a developer tools system funded by hundreds of companies, developers and community members. There’s hardly any order of dipping, if any. Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”?
    - troupo 2y ago
      > Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”? Because the web sucks at building apps? Because the web can barely render a few lines of text and several images without lag and jank? Because the web lacks useful and powerful primitives and controls to build anything but the most primitive UIs? Because...
    - immibis 2y ago
      Because Apple limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices? Same reason it refused to allow Flash. It wants you to stay in the walled garden with the expensive fees.
      - troupo 2y ago
        Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. Additionally, desktop browsers have been a thing since forever. Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about?
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        > Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. worldwide, and not by a large margin. I believe it's 60/40 last I checked. Among US and a few other first world countries, it's nearly 50/50, with a very small advantadge to Apple. Slashing your consumer base in the biggest markets isn't an attractive proposition. >Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about? well Apple made PWA's harder to do in the EU, so ask them... They're doing what they did to Flash long ago, with much less justification this time around.
dagmx 2y ago
Unity got raked over the coals for *retroactively* changing the licensing fees for developers in a way that negatively impacted a common existing business model amongst their customers. It’s fair to not like the Apple fees but the scenario isn’t equivalent. One was a rug pull. If they did that all along it wouldn’t have been as big an issue.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I'd say it's still equivalent. I just think apple was smart knowing most people are comfy in the walled garden and won't throw up a fuss. Similar to Unity, these pricing ding the smaller people the most. But unlike Unity, the bigger players aren't joining the protest. I guess I was just foolish thinking businesses would at least think in the middle-term of "what if we want our own storefront one day ". I guess the EU might pick up that ball, but the Apathy from other devs is a bit disenheartening. The same Apathy that let these companies enshittify the net and turn into trillionaires as punishment
  - dagmx 2y ago
    How are they equivalent other than a fee existing at all, and how is that different than a revenue share that Epic do? Apple hasn’t added a new fee to existing devs. The reason you see apathy is that this doesn’t negatively change the status quo. It provides new options. Granted they might not like the terms of the new options , as you clearly don’t. But nothing has been taken away from them in the process. It is completely unsurprising that there is apathy. Unity tried to change the terms from under people which changed their livelihood prospective negatively. If the only equivalence is that there’s a fee, then that applies to a lot more to the point it’s meaningless. Epic do a revenue share. Unity should have done a revenue share but did something more trackable without requiring regular audits. Ultimately it wasn’t Unity’s actual fee that was the problem, had it been a new tier. But it retroactively changed things for people.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      If you had any plans at all to maybe think of an alternative app store, it's equivalent. You have an expectation from a competitor who allows this and IOS instead will charge you despite not using their own store. Pricing that is worse than staying in the walled garden. If you were apathetic/supportive of Apple and would stay on the App Store anyway, nothing changes. And I suppose a lot of businesses are in this group. >But nothing has been taken away from them in the process. It is completely unsurprising that there is apathy. Yes, that's my core problem. But the last two years should have taught me thst companies aren't looking in the long term these days. Epic is, sort of. if only because they have no option given their whole kerfuffle.
KronisLV 2y ago
> Unity got raked over the coals for this. It's kind of crazy, because all of the super high numbers and companies that said they'd go bankrupt were looking at the Personal tier, which basically acted as a sales funnel towards the Pro tier, where the prices would not be as outrageous, even in the original version of the Runtime Fee: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/unity-runtime-fee-a-look-at-some-numbers https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/unity-runtime-fee-a-look-at... (under "How bad is it, really?") Of course, they since revised it so my article isn't relevant anymore, but if you look at the platform fee cost per install, then it becomes quite obvious and the initial pushback didn't seem to take this into account: https://blog.kronis.dev/images/1/6/-/f/e/16-fee-per-install-graph-dc7488d8.jpeg https://blog.kronis.dev/images/1/6/-/f/e/16-fee-per-install-... Aside from that, though, I guess companies will always try to take a part of the profits that anything offered through their platforms generates (Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store, Valve's Steam etc.). It's good to see things improving at least somewhat, though, since we can't express a lot of progress overnight.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > It's kind of crazy It’s crazy that Unity’s PR people (and the CEO himself) were so objectively dumb and incompetent while being paid that much. The retroactive part was probably indefensible but they did such a horrible job at explaining the actual fees initially that it utterly jaw dropping…
ffgjgf1 2y ago
And Unity’s terms were/are much more generous than Apple’s

arghwhat 2y ago

For now, Apple has been found non-compliant with DMA and will probably have to remove it.

Longhanks 2y ago
No, for now, there are investigations whether Apple is compliant or not. Vestager's opinion does not automatically become the truth.

AnonC 2y ago

> For most developers this will be a deal breaker, because it also applies to free software which most of the time is only supported by donations If the app is taking donations or any sort of payment, then the Core Technology Fee applies after 1 million first installs in a year. If it’s a completely free app, this fee does not apply. This fee also does not apply for educational institutions, nonprofits, and government agencies (with a fee waiver). Quoting from “ Understanding the Core Technology Fee for iOS apps in the European Union” [1]: > Developers whose apps do not surpass one million first annual installs per year and nonprofits, educational institutions, and government entities with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver do not pay the CTF. The CTF is also not required for developers with a no revenue business that offer free apps without monetization. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

lozenge 2y ago
What about free as in beer software which includes some ads?
- hk__2 2y ago
  This doesn't count as "completely free": > Apple provides many conditions where developers do not pay the CTF: […] Developers that earn no revenue whatsoever. This includes offering a free app without monetization of any kind (physical, digital, advertising, or otherwise). (from the link above)

awelxtr 2y ago

I love Anki, but it is a tough sell to Apple users because it costs 20 frigging bucks where on other OSs is free