12 ms·

Apple announces changes for apps in the European Union

291 points by newusertoday 2mo ago

Spacemolte 2mo ago
So how are they trying to circumvent the EU regulations this time?
- input_sh 2mo ago
  Have you tried reading the submitted URL?
  - layer8 2mo ago
    It would be better to read the page the URL links to.
  - Spacemolte 2mo ago
    Yes, there is a lot to unpack - and im sure very smart people has worked on these changes, so spotting what is and what is not peculiar ways to get around EU regulations is not easy. Are you saying that this is not the case at all?
MBCook 2mo ago
They’re starting to cave. Turnis taking the reins perhaps? This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?
- brcmthrowaway 2mo ago
  Exited my Apple position. Ternus is going to be the last CEO. They're going to be next Nokia, lack of AI native is going to bite them hard.
  - slater 2mo ago
    Luckily, none of that is even remotely close to happening.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2mo ago
    Is this a bot comment or something? What does AI have to do with any of this? And regardless Apple is in many ways best in class for local AI support.
  - HumblyTossed 2mo ago
    Nobody cares about AI. Nobody wants that shit running on their device eating away at precious battery life.
  - reaperducer 2mo ago
    Exited my Apple position. Good. It will allow you to learn how little your "position" matters. Apple cares about the hundreds of billions of dollars held by large investors, not some rando Reddit-grade Wall Street wannabe.
zoobab 2mo ago
European Commission caved in, developers lost.
- lsxr 2mo ago
  I’m not sure that’s how I’d characterise it. I think this is a positive step for consumers in the EU. I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.
  - realusername 2mo ago
    Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason
    - throw1234567891 2mo ago
      As opposed to what? What’s the alternative you propose?
      - realusername 2mo ago
        Just download the app from the website and install it
        throw1234567891 2mo ago
        Hahahaha, are you fucking serious. As an Apple customer, that’s exactly what I don’t want.
        realusername 2mo ago
        You would still be free to use the appstore, I'm sure if it's as great as Apple says, it will have no problem
        2mo ago
arpinum 2mo ago
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU ... require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats. This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  > What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
  - cube00 2mo ago
    > My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers. I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.
- adrian_m 2mo ago
  It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps. > Companies will now qualify if they: > * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet. > * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company. > * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm. > * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant. > * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace. Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.
  - Kwpolska 2mo ago
nickslaughter02 2mo ago
[flagged]
- lsxr 2mo ago
  What are these “European” value requirements? Apps sold in the EU must comply with local laws.
  - flyingjoe 2mo ago
    don't feed the trolls - most of his comments are focussed on how bad Europe or the EU is. Weird.
    - iwontberude 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - kingleopold 2mo ago
      There is an ongoing massive psyop against eu and europe. Dont ask me how do I know, it's across all media and some of them are right but its still full psyop.
      - flyingjoe 2mo ago
        It's very obvious from just reading comments on youtube, instagram etc. It drives people towards extreme right parties and not believing in science anymore..
    - mnewme 2mo ago
      Yes, eurohate is real. Don’t get why though
  - nickslaughter02 2mo ago
    Anything EPP and their Ursula von der Leyen think they are. Mandatory surveillance of your communication for example, something they have been trying and slowly succeeding in for the past 5 years. > Chat Control 1.0 passed the European Parliament — through the back door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas...
isoprophlex 2mo ago
> For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent. What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal? Hope I'm misreading this... Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  If you place an upsale button in your app and then break out from the app to complete the purchase, yes. Are you living under a rock? It’s been like this for a bit. You want to avoid it? Don’t place the upsale button in your app.
  - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
    At least in the US that’s no longer true - see Kindle app
- xp84 2mo ago
  * They have for years turned a blind eye to apps that sell things that aren't "digital goods" - so the Barnes & Noble app can sell you a physical book and pay $0 to Apple, but if they sell you an ebook in any way in the app, they owe 30%. But if they sell you an ebook in Safari, back to $0. All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
  - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
    In the past, all In-App purchases were distributed by Apple, so that in the shipping fee for your digital good. Apple needs to catch up with the changing requirements, so digital goods delivered by the developer’s infrastructure shouldn’t have a commission.
EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution." [...] > "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee." [...] > "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats." This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users. The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them. Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.
- tiahura 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
    The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.
- dannyw 2mo ago
  The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so. Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution
kotaKat 2mo ago
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids. So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?
- burnhamup 2mo ago
  It depends on how old the user is. If the player is over 18, Fortnite can link out. I guess you call some Apple API to link out and they check the user's age for you before deciding if its allowed or not?
tefkah 2mo ago
> Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?
- rekoil 2mo ago
  I think it explicitly avoids directly saying that the Commission has agreed this resolves the disagreements, again hoping public sentiment will drive the nail all the way. I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
  - musictubes 2mo ago
    I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy. The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software. My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise. We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
    - callc 2mo ago
      Following this to its logical conclusion… “Sorry, you didn’t buy a Development Pro Guitar. Please bring it in to your nearest Apple repair shop to get it retuned or restringed” See? “Development machine” just means the ability to do what you want with your own machine. No third party interference. Let Timmy Can’t-Tune bring his guitar to someone who can. Let grandma have her new phone be setup by her grandson appropriately so she can’t install malware. Freedom. Digital rights.
mjorgers 2mo ago
> The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee. [...] > In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats. All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
- skybrian 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mzajc 2mo ago
    > $99/year developer membership Yeah... > then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something? Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
    - cesarb 2mo ago
      > I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this. This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.
theodric 2mo ago
As I understand it: > A person buys a handheld computer > I make a program for the computer > A person downloads the program directly onto their computer > A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer > Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.
- knollimar 2mo ago
  But mercedes benz makes sure all the taxi desinations are safe!
- weberer 2mo ago
  They do it because they can. You're signaling that you're OK with it by continuing to buy Apple products.
  - throw1234567891 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  I buy s Mercedes Benz. I want a warranty. I am forced to use an authorised service provider who’s expensive af and I risk losing the warranty otherwise. How is that not anticonsumer? I crash said car, the insurer will not insure my car until it’s fixed by an authorised technician. How is that not anticonsumer.
  - Zak 2mo ago
    The first part is clearly illegal in the USA. Is it not in the EU? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
Schnitz 2mo ago
I wish Apple would extend these options to me as a US user and developer. I’m jealous to be honest.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- xp84 2mo ago
  Agreed. The muggings Apple's now doing in Europe under their new "gentler muggings" policies are noticeably less brutal than the "traditional muggings" they still do over here.
bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
Why can't we just use our computers the way we want to use our computers? It is so dumb that vendor lock-in even exists, and I'm sick of it.
- NetMageSCW 2mo ago
  No one makes you buy an iPhone. Or an Android phone. There may be consequences, however.
  - bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
    Yes- thanks for explaining vendor lock-in to me.
dbbk 2mo ago
What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
  Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in. Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted. Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems. Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics. Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year. I hate them. The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
- Y-bar 2mo ago
  > The developer program fee. And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
  - xp84 2mo ago
    And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
- Despegar 2mo ago
  Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money? The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
>Unified Business Terms for Developers That Distribute Apps in the EU Under this new model, Apple will charge a commission on the sale of digital goods and services. The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee. Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax. Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows. It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.
hoechst 2mo ago
More details in the developer portal: https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/ It seams that for "reader apps" (like Netflix / Spotify), things got slightly better (https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16.4%20or%20later.-,Beginning,-October%201%2C%202026 https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16....): > Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...] So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously. A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."
ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
>For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent. This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.
- twoodfin 2mo ago
  Which monopoly is Apple abusing?
  - ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
    iPhone apps. If it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.
    - twoodfin 2mo ago
      I assume you mean approved by Microsoft. When they were found in the US to have a monopoly, they had around 95% of personal computer operating system share. Apple isn’t even close.
      - mvdtnz 2mo ago
        Really? What would you estimate is Apple's market share of iPhone apps if it's so far below 95%?
        syradar 2mo ago
        We both know that the market share refers to the smartphone market share of which Apple has about 21%. For iPhone apps Apple is way behind with about 0.005% of the total 2.17 million iPhone apps.
joshstrange 2mo ago
Apple just can't read the room can they? For a while I agreed with their stance to not allow web payments for things like IAP but as time has gone on the stance has become less and less defensible and tipped over in the absurd. I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments. - You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0% - You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0% They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit. The rent-seeking has got to stop. Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale. I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut. The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut. There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0]. If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers. I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing. Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP. [0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.
s_dev 2mo ago
Where is the corresponding EU announcement? A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.
- rekoil 2mo ago
  Not necessary, corporations can speak for governments these days, its all cool!
xp84 2mo ago
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids. Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"
stockresearcher 2mo ago
The EU has signed and ratified the WIPO treaty. There’s nothing they can put into the DMA that can cancel out the treaty. Installing software in iOS uses Apple intellectual property and WIPO guarantees their right to charge a commission. If you don’t like this, get rid of WIPO!
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  I don't think this is accurate at all. While we're part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it does not give an OS owner a general right to charge a commission on third-party software merely because it runs on that OS. [I challenge you to cite the section in the Treaty which gives Apple the ability to charge these fees in contravention of EU law.](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166)
  - stockresearcher 1mo ago
    Installing software on a normal computer has always been a straightforward process and nobody has claimed any IP rights on the process. Installing software on the iPhone is not at all straightforward. It requires interacting with proprietary Apple software and rights management interfaces. Had the DMA been written 20 years ago, it is possible that they could have prevented Apple from implementing things this way. But they didn’t. It’s too late. Anyway, once you understand how software is installed on an iPhone, you can plainly see how nearly all of WIPO applies.
zb3 2mo ago
Too low blood pressure? Not anymore, thanks Apple.
Telaneo 2mo ago
This is a loss if the EU actually considers this acceptable. I should be able to Just™ install an app from whereever, and Apple shouldn't have a say in that. Notarization isn't needed on PCs or Macs, and yet here we are.
- frankvdwaal 2mo ago
  Macs are model of PCs of a specific brand that closes their PCs down. Continuing to treat Macs as different from other PCs is exactly what lifts scrutiny if they decide to implement notarisation on MacOS. "After all, it's not like it's a PC."
netsharc 2mo ago
So, is this an announcement of the changes, or a press release announcing an announcement? God damn it all to hell when even the comms department issues stupid crap like this.
cutler 2mo ago
I predict 2027 will be the year of the PWA ... and desktop Linux.
greatgib 2mo ago
I don't even understand how these could be acceptable terms for the european commission: For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission. This is just basic racketering. You owe nothing to Apple, you don't use their resources, then they could still profit of their dominant position on these devices to extort such a high fee (because 5% is not a small amount) from app developers and users.
- NetMageSCW 2mo ago
  What development toolkit will you use to make your App for the iPhone? Why should Apple be giving that away for free?
  - greatgib 2mo ago
    Do you pay visual studio, or the C compiler you use each time your app for PC is installed? And I'm not against a reasonable fixed fee to buy tooling that you might use, like jetbrain, visual studio, etc... But just to be clear they sell phone and then individual users install and use apps. It is not because app run inside phones that they manufactured that it gives them divine right on everything that is happening here. Imagine if the builder of your company office building, that sold your office to you was feeling legitimate to say that he is owed a cut of everything you make as a software developer, because you work in the building he did. The manufacturer of your car that ask for a fee each time you do car sharing or use your car for a business activity, because he manufactured your car. Everywhere else it would look insane and would only work if you are in a position to do extortion like Apple.
Gareth321 2mo ago
This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission. To read now that the Commission approves of these terms is unbelievable to me. I rarely put on a tinfoil hat, but either the Commission has been paid off, or there are some geopolitical discussions we are not privy to. I can see no other explanation. I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade. The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
  - Gareth321 2mo ago
    Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
    - agos 2mo ago
      improving the legislative mechanism would require even more time, and it does not appear there is the political will for it at this time
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- bonzini 2mo ago
  Not knowing anything detailed about the acts, which terms are you referring to? Notarization?
usernametaken29 2mo ago
> Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU. Now hold on a minute here. It’s Apple’s own App Store requirement that forces any developer regardless of payment option to pay a commission or be delisted. Framing it as an “we charge you because of the EU” is a plain simple lie. The EU forced their hand in allowing different payment channels at low commission rates with no repercussions.
ReptileMan 2mo ago
So Brussels caved as usual.
- mijoharas 2mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348661
jacquesm 2mo ago
The easy way to deal with this is to stop using Apple products. Ultimately consumers hold more power than legislators if they act in concert.
- benchloftbrunch 2mo ago
  Good luck getting hundreds of millions of people to act in concert.
  - noisem4ker 2mo ago
    I'd even describe these as some of the most gullible and less ethically principled people at that.
    - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
      We aren’t taking about Android developers here.
tokarf 2mo ago
It's still a steal, I'm really sad that european union settled on this terms. 15% cut on purchases outside the app store THAT'S CRAZY !! I'm so shocked to read this "Each of these commissions reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ apps, whether they use the App Store and/or Apple In-App Purchase." whereas it's app developpers that create value for Apple. Without apps, Apple platform is dead.
- pjmlp 2mo ago
  While the app store was a much better deal than ISP stores for the smartphones when it was introduced, Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price. Ah, I think it probably is the price, though Apple's hubris may be the cause of them thinking a product at that price was ever a good idea. If you're a developer, chase the users. AVP is extremely expensive, so there's not a lot of users, so not much reason for developers to care: even cheap VR hardware has problems getting enough users to justify the effort to make games (let alone other apps) work well on it. Even ignoring AVP, the whole category's sales are, what, mostly Beat Sabre? I think? You don't need a 3.5k device for a rhythm action game.
  - Micrococonut 2mo ago
    The extreme discomfort of eye tracking based interactions for power users is what kept it off of my head. You have to maintain eye contact with the ui element you want to touch throughout the entire gesture. It’s kind of miserable for someone who is fluent with computers.
- XzAeRosho 2mo ago
  This is just speculation, but I suppose it's because Apple is also collaborating/contributing in the EU Chat Control 2.0 legislation, so they may have some argument that completely opening the door for uncontrolled app installs may not allow them to comply with such legislation. As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go
Archit3ch 2mo ago
Wait, this is only for i(Pad)OS and not MacOS, right? The way it's written, it's a blanket 5% commission on desktop apps distributed on one's own website, which is insane! > Web distribution, which is available only in the EU I assume this settles it, since it was always possible to web-distribute desktop apps outside the EU.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
Pretty shocking to watch Europe bow down and kowtow to a single american megacorp. Cyberpunk really is now...
egeozcan 2mo ago
When they cannot argue "but think about the children", then they start with "but think about the clueless people"! They always have someone to protect, some holy cause. Who are we to complain about the tiny detail of computers not being personal anymore?
NSUserDefaults 2mo ago
It's clear that Apple won. They will get their money, one way or another, but mostly the old way, because they managed to make the new way so unattractive. Good job EU!
dzonga 2mo ago
people blame apple but this a result of the duopoly - we have in the mobile operating system market. I was once a iOS mobile dev before - most apps don't need to be native unless banking, maps, video games & maybe ride-hailing (before I even used uber web). the rest the web is sufficient - hell even games. so most of what apple is proposing won't affect you if you're using the web platform.
ignatif 2mo ago
all my app builds in testsflight became unavailable since yesterday (it looks fine on appstoreconnect, but im unable to update the app if i roll out new build as a tester) does anyone experience the same?
blitzar 2mo ago
Apple should just come out and say they are "doing God’s work"
tumetab1 2mo ago
> For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission. Would it better a payment commission (free apps do not pay but apple takes a cut on everything) or would it better to an installment fee (pay X euros per installation but no commission cut for Apple) ? Well everything depends on the fee/commission values but after I put the pitch fork down I was left wondering...
xorcist 2mo ago
> a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store It's straight up protection money. They're not even pretending anymore.
- NetMageSCW 2mo ago
  So Apple should provide free development of XCode?
  - xorcist 2mo ago
    On the contrary. They are free to charge whatever they want.
pmkary 2mo ago
The world will never be free. There will never be a way for a person to install something on iOS without Apple throwing its rocks. 5% fee basic means alternative app stores are disguised app store. Just as chrome is safari in disguise...

291 points by newusertoday 2mo ago

Spacemolte 2mo ago

So how are they trying to circumvent the EU regulations this time?

input_sh 2mo ago
Have you tried reading the submitted URL?
- layer8 2mo ago
  It would be better to read the page the URL links to.
- Spacemolte 2mo ago
  Yes, there is a lot to unpack - and im sure very smart people has worked on these changes, so spotting what is and what is not peculiar ways to get around EU regulations is not easy. Are you saying that this is not the case at all?

MBCook 2mo ago

They’re starting to cave. Turnis taking the reins perhaps? This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?

brcmthrowaway 2mo ago
Exited my Apple position. Ternus is going to be the last CEO. They're going to be next Nokia, lack of AI native is going to bite them hard.
- slater 2mo ago
  Luckily, none of that is even remotely close to happening.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2mo ago
  Is this a bot comment or something? What does AI have to do with any of this? And regardless Apple is in many ways best in class for local AI support.
- HumblyTossed 2mo ago
  Nobody cares about AI. Nobody wants that shit running on their device eating away at precious battery life.
- reaperducer 2mo ago
  Exited my Apple position. Good. It will allow you to learn how little your "position" matters. Apple cares about the hundreds of billions of dollars held by large investors, not some rando Reddit-grade Wall Street wannabe.

zoobab 2mo ago

European Commission caved in, developers lost.

lsxr 2mo ago
I’m not sure that’s how I’d characterise it. I think this is a positive step for consumers in the EU. I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.
- realusername 2mo ago
  Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason
  - throw1234567891 2mo ago
    As opposed to what? What’s the alternative you propose?
    - realusername 2mo ago
      Just download the app from the website and install it
      - throw1234567891 2mo ago
        Hahahaha, are you fucking serious. As an Apple customer, that’s exactly what I don’t want.
        realusername 2mo ago
        You would still be free to use the appstore, I'm sure if it's as great as Apple says, it will have no problem
        2mo ago

arpinum 2mo ago

> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU ... require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats. This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.

lapcat 2mo ago
> What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
- cube00 2mo ago
  > My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers. I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.
adrian_m 2mo ago
It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps. > Companies will now qualify if they: > * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet. > * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company. > * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm. > * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant. > * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace. Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.
- Kwpolska 2mo ago

nickslaughter02 2mo ago

[flagged]

lsxr 2mo ago
What are these “European” value requirements? Apps sold in the EU must comply with local laws.
- flyingjoe 2mo ago
  don't feed the trolls - most of his comments are focussed on how bad Europe or the EU is. Weird.
  - iwontberude 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - kingleopold 2mo ago
    There is an ongoing massive psyop against eu and europe. Dont ask me how do I know, it's across all media and some of them are right but its still full psyop.
    - flyingjoe 2mo ago
      It's very obvious from just reading comments on youtube, instagram etc. It drives people towards extreme right parties and not believing in science anymore..
  - mnewme 2mo ago
    Yes, eurohate is real. Don’t get why though
- nickslaughter02 2mo ago
  Anything EPP and their Ursula von der Leyen think they are. Mandatory surveillance of your communication for example, something they have been trying and slowly succeeding in for the past 5 years. > Chat Control 1.0 passed the European Parliament — through the back door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas...

isoprophlex 2mo ago

> For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent. What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal? Hope I'm misreading this... Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?

throw1234567891 2mo ago
If you place an upsale button in your app and then break out from the app to complete the purchase, yes. Are you living under a rock? It’s been like this for a bit. You want to avoid it? Don’t place the upsale button in your app.
- NetMageSCW 2mo ago
  At least in the US that’s no longer true - see Kindle app
xp84 2mo ago
* They have for years turned a blind eye to apps that sell things that aren't "digital goods" - so the Barnes & Noble app can sell you a physical book and pay $0 to Apple, but if they sell you an ebook in any way in the app, they owe 30%. But if they sell you an ebook in Safari, back to $0. All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
- NetMageSCW 2mo ago
  In the past, all In-App purchases were distributed by Apple, so that in the shipping fee for your digital good. Apple needs to catch up with the changing requirements, so digital goods delivered by the developer’s infrastructure shouldn’t have a commission.

EMIRELADERO 2mo ago

> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution." [...] > "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee." [...] > "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats." This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users. The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them. Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.

tiahura 2mo ago
[flagged]
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.
dannyw 2mo ago
The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so. Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution

kotaKat 2mo ago

> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids. So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?

burnhamup 2mo ago
It depends on how old the user is. If the player is over 18, Fortnite can link out. I guess you call some Apple API to link out and they check the user's age for you before deciding if its allowed or not?

tefkah 2mo ago

> Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?

rekoil 2mo ago
I think it explicitly avoids directly saying that the Commission has agreed this resolves the disagreements, again hoping public sentiment will drive the nail all the way. I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
- musictubes 2mo ago
  I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy. The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software. My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise. We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
  - callc 2mo ago
    Following this to its logical conclusion… “Sorry, you didn’t buy a Development Pro Guitar. Please bring it in to your nearest Apple repair shop to get it retuned or restringed” See? “Development machine” just means the ability to do what you want with your own machine. No third party interference. Let Timmy Can’t-Tune bring his guitar to someone who can. Let grandma have her new phone be setup by her grandson appropriately so she can’t install malware. Freedom. Digital rights.

mjorgers 2mo ago

> The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee. [...] > In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats. All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?

skybrian 2mo ago
[flagged]
- mzajc 2mo ago
  > $99/year developer membership Yeah... > then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something? Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
  - cesarb 2mo ago
    > I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this. This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.

theodric 2mo ago

As I understand it: > A person buys a handheld computer > I make a program for the computer > A person downloads the program directly onto their computer > A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer > Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.

knollimar 2mo ago
But mercedes benz makes sure all the taxi desinations are safe!
weberer 2mo ago
They do it because they can. You're signaling that you're OK with it by continuing to buy Apple products.
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
throw1234567891 2mo ago
I buy s Mercedes Benz. I want a warranty. I am forced to use an authorised service provider who’s expensive af and I risk losing the warranty otherwise. How is that not anticonsumer? I crash said car, the insurer will not insure my car until it’s fixed by an authorised technician. How is that not anticonsumer.
- Zak 2mo ago
  The first part is clearly illegal in the USA. Is it not in the EU? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

Schnitz 2mo ago

I wish Apple would extend these options to me as a US user and developer. I’m jealous to be honest.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
xp84 2mo ago
Agreed. The muggings Apple's now doing in Europe under their new "gentler muggings" policies are noticeably less brutal than the "traditional muggings" they still do over here.

bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago

Why can't we just use our computers the way we want to use our computers? It is so dumb that vendor lock-in even exists, and I'm sick of it.

NetMageSCW 2mo ago
No one makes you buy an iPhone. Or an Android phone. There may be consequences, however.
- bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
  Yes- thanks for explaining vendor lock-in to me.

dbbk 2mo ago

What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in. Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted. Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems. Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics. Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year. I hate them. The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
Y-bar 2mo ago
> The developer program fee. And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
- xp84 2mo ago
  And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
Despegar 2mo ago
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money? The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago

>Unified Business Terms for Developers That Distribute Apps in the EU Under this new model, Apple will charge a commission on the sale of digital goods and services. The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee. Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax. Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows. It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.

hoechst 2mo ago

More details in the developer portal: https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/ It seams that for "reader apps" (like Netflix / Spotify), things got slightly better (https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16.4%20or%20later.-,Beginning,-October%201%2C%202026 https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16....): > Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...] So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously. A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."

ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago

>For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent. This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.

twoodfin 2mo ago
Which monopoly is Apple abusing?
- ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
  iPhone apps. If it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.
  - twoodfin 2mo ago
    I assume you mean approved by Microsoft. When they were found in the US to have a monopoly, they had around 95% of personal computer operating system share. Apple isn’t even close.
    - mvdtnz 2mo ago
      Really? What would you estimate is Apple's market share of iPhone apps if it's so far below 95%?
      - syradar 2mo ago
        We both know that the market share refers to the smartphone market share of which Apple has about 21%. For iPhone apps Apple is way behind with about 0.005% of the total 2.17 million iPhone apps.

joshstrange 2mo ago

Apple just can't read the room can they? For a while I agreed with their stance to not allow web payments for things like IAP but as time has gone on the stance has become less and less defensible and tipped over in the absurd. I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments. - You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0% - You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0% They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit. The rent-seeking has got to stop. Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale. I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut. The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut. There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0]. If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers. I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing. Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP. [0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.

s_dev 2mo ago

Where is the corresponding EU announcement? A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.

rekoil 2mo ago
Not necessary, corporations can speak for governments these days, its all cool!

xp84 2mo ago

> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids. Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"

stockresearcher 2mo ago

The EU has signed and ratified the WIPO treaty. There’s nothing they can put into the DMA that can cancel out the treaty. Installing software in iOS uses Apple intellectual property and WIPO guarantees their right to charge a commission. If you don’t like this, get rid of WIPO!

Gareth321 2mo ago
I don't think this is accurate at all. While we're part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it does not give an OS owner a general right to charge a commission on third-party software merely because it runs on that OS. [I challenge you to cite the section in the Treaty which gives Apple the ability to charge these fees in contravention of EU law.](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166)
- stockresearcher 1mo ago
  Installing software on a normal computer has always been a straightforward process and nobody has claimed any IP rights on the process. Installing software on the iPhone is not at all straightforward. It requires interacting with proprietary Apple software and rights management interfaces. Had the DMA been written 20 years ago, it is possible that they could have prevented Apple from implementing things this way. But they didn’t. It’s too late. Anyway, once you understand how software is installed on an iPhone, you can plainly see how nearly all of WIPO applies.

zb3 2mo ago

Too low blood pressure? Not anymore, thanks Apple.

Telaneo 2mo ago

This is a loss if the EU actually considers this acceptable. I should be able to Just™ install an app from whereever, and Apple shouldn't have a say in that. Notarization isn't needed on PCs or Macs, and yet here we are.

frankvdwaal 2mo ago
Macs are model of PCs of a specific brand that closes their PCs down. Continuing to treat Macs as different from other PCs is exactly what lifts scrutiny if they decide to implement notarisation on MacOS. "After all, it's not like it's a PC."

netsharc 2mo ago

So, is this an announcement of the changes, or a press release announcing an announcement? God damn it all to hell when even the comms department issues stupid crap like this.

cutler 2mo ago

I predict 2027 will be the year of the PWA ... and desktop Linux.

greatgib 2mo ago

I don't even understand how these could be acceptable terms for the european commission: For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission. This is just basic racketering. You owe nothing to Apple, you don't use their resources, then they could still profit of their dominant position on these devices to extort such a high fee (because 5% is not a small amount) from app developers and users.

NetMageSCW 2mo ago
What development toolkit will you use to make your App for the iPhone? Why should Apple be giving that away for free?
- greatgib 2mo ago
  Do you pay visual studio, or the C compiler you use each time your app for PC is installed? And I'm not against a reasonable fixed fee to buy tooling that you might use, like jetbrain, visual studio, etc... But just to be clear they sell phone and then individual users install and use apps. It is not because app run inside phones that they manufactured that it gives them divine right on everything that is happening here. Imagine if the builder of your company office building, that sold your office to you was feeling legitimate to say that he is owed a cut of everything you make as a software developer, because you work in the building he did. The manufacturer of your car that ask for a fee each time you do car sharing or use your car for a business activity, because he manufactured your car. Everywhere else it would look insane and would only work if you are in a position to do extortion like Apple.

Gareth321 2mo ago

This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission. To read now that the Commission approves of these terms is unbelievable to me. I rarely put on a tinfoil hat, but either the Commission has been paid off, or there are some geopolitical discussions we are not privy to. I can see no other explanation. I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade. The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
  - agos 2mo ago
    improving the legislative mechanism would require even more time, and it does not appear there is the political will for it at this time
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
bonzini 2mo ago
Not knowing anything detailed about the acts, which terms are you referring to? Notarization?

usernametaken29 2mo ago

> Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU. Now hold on a minute here. It’s Apple’s own App Store requirement that forces any developer regardless of payment option to pay a commission or be delisted. Framing it as an “we charge you because of the EU” is a plain simple lie. The EU forced their hand in allowing different payment channels at low commission rates with no repercussions.

ReptileMan 2mo ago

So Brussels caved as usual.

mijoharas 2mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348661

jacquesm 2mo ago

The easy way to deal with this is to stop using Apple products. Ultimately consumers hold more power than legislators if they act in concert.

benchloftbrunch 2mo ago
Good luck getting hundreds of millions of people to act in concert.
- noisem4ker 2mo ago
  I'd even describe these as some of the most gullible and less ethically principled people at that.
  - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
    We aren’t taking about Android developers here.

tokarf 2mo ago

It's still a steal, I'm really sad that european union settled on this terms. 15% cut on purchases outside the app store THAT'S CRAZY !! I'm so shocked to read this "Each of these commissions reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ apps, whether they use the App Store and/or Apple In-App Purchase." whereas it's app developpers that create value for Apple. Without apps, Apple platform is dead.

pjmlp 2mo ago
While the app store was a much better deal than ISP stores for the smartphones when it was introduced, Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price. Ah, I think it probably is the price, though Apple's hubris may be the cause of them thinking a product at that price was ever a good idea. If you're a developer, chase the users. AVP is extremely expensive, so there's not a lot of users, so not much reason for developers to care: even cheap VR hardware has problems getting enough users to justify the effort to make games (let alone other apps) work well on it. Even ignoring AVP, the whole category's sales are, what, mostly Beat Sabre? I think? You don't need a 3.5k device for a rhythm action game.
- Micrococonut 2mo ago
  The extreme discomfort of eye tracking based interactions for power users is what kept it off of my head. You have to maintain eye contact with the ui element you want to touch throughout the entire gesture. It’s kind of miserable for someone who is fluent with computers.
XzAeRosho 2mo ago
This is just speculation, but I suppose it's because Apple is also collaborating/contributing in the EU Chat Control 2.0 legislation, so they may have some argument that completely opening the door for uncontrolled app installs may not allow them to comply with such legislation. As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go

Archit3ch 2mo ago

Wait, this is only for i(Pad)OS and not MacOS, right? The way it's written, it's a blanket 5% commission on desktop apps distributed on one's own website, which is insane! > Web distribution, which is available only in the EU I assume this settles it, since it was always possible to web-distribute desktop apps outside the EU.

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

Pretty shocking to watch Europe bow down and kowtow to a single american megacorp. Cyberpunk really is now...

egeozcan 2mo ago

When they cannot argue "but think about the children", then they start with "but think about the clueless people"! They always have someone to protect, some holy cause. Who are we to complain about the tiny detail of computers not being personal anymore?

NSUserDefaults 2mo ago

It's clear that Apple won. They will get their money, one way or another, but mostly the old way, because they managed to make the new way so unattractive. Good job EU!

dzonga 2mo ago

people blame apple but this a result of the duopoly - we have in the mobile operating system market. I was once a iOS mobile dev before - most apps don't need to be native unless banking, maps, video games & maybe ride-hailing (before I even used uber web). the rest the web is sufficient - hell even games. so most of what apple is proposing won't affect you if you're using the web platform.

ignatif 2mo ago

all my app builds in testsflight became unavailable since yesterday (it looks fine on appstoreconnect, but im unable to update the app if i roll out new build as a tester) does anyone experience the same?

blitzar 2mo ago

Apple should just come out and say they are "doing God’s work"

tumetab1 2mo ago

> For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission. Would it better a payment commission (free apps do not pay but apple takes a cut on everything) or would it better to an installment fee (pay X euros per installation but no commission cut for Apple) ? Well everything depends on the fee/commission values but after I put the pitch fork down I was left wondering...

xorcist 2mo ago

> a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store It's straight up protection money. They're not even pretending anymore.

NetMageSCW 2mo ago
So Apple should provide free development of XCode?
- xorcist 2mo ago
  On the contrary. They are free to charge whatever they want.

pmkary 2mo ago

The world will never be free. There will never be a way for a person to install something on iOS without Apple throwing its rocks. 5% fee basic means alternative app stores are disguised app store. Just as chrome is safari in disguise...