[HN Gopher] Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the
European Union
Author : colinhb
Score : 974 points
Date : 2024-01-25 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| orenlindsey wrote:
| Apple loves to do the bare minimum to meet the regulations. I'm
| sure they hated having to do this.
|
| But, this is still better than not doing it at all.
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| They sure have hated it. It's completely in conflict with their
| vision of what a smartphone should be and how it should be
| used.
| Xunjin wrote:
| I don't think so, this can be interpreted as "malicious
| compliance". We will need to see the next steps about to be
| done by EU.
| ladon86 wrote:
| > Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party
| web browser -- other than Safari -- as their default. Reflecting
| the DMA's requirements, Apple is also introducing a new choice
| screen that will surface when users first open Safari in iOS 17.4
| or later. That screen will prompt EU users to choose a default
| browser from a list of options.
|
| Any idea if this means you can actually choose a different
| browser, or are you choosing a different WebKit wrapper (e.g. the
| current version of Chrome on iOS)?
| pathartl wrote:
| I would imagine this doesn't open up the opportunity for other
| engines.
| fredoralive wrote:
| "New frameworks and APIs for alternative browser engines --
| enabling developers to use browser engines, other than
| WebKit, for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing
| experiences."
| ryaneager wrote:
| They state the exact opposite in the second sentence of the
| article. Please, at least read the opening paragraph before
| commenting.
| olliej wrote:
| So I'm guessing you didn't read the article then?
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| No need to imagine, the answer is at the top of the article.
| andylynch wrote:
| It does, but on closer reading looks restricted to EU, they
| certainly aren't suggesting a , say, gecko based browser
| could be published globally outside the EU.
| bhpm wrote:
| FTA:
|
| The changes include more than 600 new APIs, expanded app
| analytics, _functionality for alternative browser engines_
| ladon86 wrote:
| Ah, I clearly didn't read it closely enough. Thank you!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Per Macrumors:
|
| > Apple is giving app developers in the EU access to NFC and
| allowing for alternative browser engines, so WebKit will not be
| required for third-party browser apps. Apps will be able to
| offer NFC payments without using Apple Pay or the Wallet app
| through Host Card Emulation. Apps can also access field detect,
| and a default app can be set to activate when an iPhone is
| placed near a terminal.
|
| Although this only changes things for us developers. Regular
| users really don't care what browser is running the web pages
| they're looking at, everyone who downloads chrome does so to
| get their synced bookmarks and history.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/ios-17-4-alternative-ap...
| noqc wrote:
| Um, no. Regular users care about being able to run ublock
| origin.
| jerbear4328 wrote:
| Yes, give me my uBlock and Tampermonkey! And many other
| miscellaneous privacy and convenience extensions that make
| the web just that much better.
| twism wrote:
| that's the case now but in the future you can now offer
| regular users features that currently only android chrome can
| do
| addicted wrote:
| > Regular users really don't care what browser is running the
| web pages they're looking at, everyone who downloads chrome
| does so to get their synced bookmarks and history.
|
| This is ahistorical. Regular users switched to Firefox and
| Chrome in droves from IE. And it wasn't to sync their
| bookmarks. It was because they provided a much better
| experience.
|
| If Blink or Gecko are able to provide a better experience
| than WebKit on iOS that would certainly prompt many users to
| switch to browsers using those engines.
| jahewson wrote:
| Seems unlikely given that out in the free world we've seen
| a consolidation around Chromium. The web is mature enough
| at this point that the choice of browser engine mostly
| isn't a differentiating factor.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| That's like claiming only mechanics are interested in what
| engine a car is running - regular users only care about the
| seat and steering wheel.
|
| Regular users care about the experience of the browser. A
| superior rendering engine can potentially improve this
| experience.
| asow92 wrote:
| > That's like claiming only mechanics are interested in
| what engine a car is running - regular users only care
| about the seat and steering wheel.
|
| That's probably true for quite a lot of people in those
| categories.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Let me help you out here. It isn't true as a
| generalisation. Ever.
| asow92 wrote:
| Agree to disagree -\\_(tsu)_/-
| twism wrote:
| ha. that claim is true ... most folks don't care if the car
| is an i4 or v6?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| You're missing the point. People can feel that a twin
| turbo inline 6 drives much smoother and more powerfully
| than a 1.3L 4 banger even if they don't know the first
| thing about what's under the bonnet. The engine changes
| the entire experience.
| halostatue wrote:
| And most people don't care at all what's under the
| bonnet.
|
| They want something that reliably gets them from A to B
| and back, with occasional side trips to C, D and E. They
| want something that does that in a way that matches their
| personal style. They want something that isn't going to
| cost them an arm and a leg to run.
|
| Forty, fifty, and sixty years ago people cared a lot
| more. Starting really in the mid-90s, that changed.
| Nowadays, there are probably as many gearheads as there
| were decades ago, but as a population they represent a
| smaller percentage. And there's a tiny percentage of
| people who care only so that they can mod their engines
| to run less efficiently so they can pwn the libz.
|
| Inasmuch as people _do_ care about the 1.3 4 banger --
| they choose it because it generally runs more reliably
| over time with fewer litres burned per 100km.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > most people don't care at all what's under the bonnet
|
| > They want something that isn't going to cost them an
| arm and a leg to run.
|
| Pick a lane.
| twism wrote:
| i still think the claim regular car users don't really
| care about the engine specs holds true ... you'd be hard
| pressed if you can tell the difference between an inline
| 4 and v6 these days tho (apart from how many more times
| you are hitting the gas station; some inline 4s even
| perform better than v6s)
| mvdtnz wrote:
| You're still missing the point. I don't think this
| conversation is going to be productive.
| e_y_ wrote:
| That's exactly what I predicted for NFC when Apple announced
| Apple Pay. Apple kept developers from using any of the NFC
| APIs until they were ready to roll out Apple Pay, and then
| only allowed non-payment NFC after that. It gave them 10
| years to establish Apple Pay.
|
| Being the system default was obviously very convenient for
| customers and there would be a very high bar for any other
| payment app to compete, but Apple wanted to make absolutely
| sure there was no possible competition.
| hjnilsson wrote:
| Well first version it will be different WebKit wrappers, as
| they are the only option available on iOS right now.
|
| But they simultaneously open the door to other browser engines,
| so I imagine Firefox at least will release their app with a new
| browser engine down the line.
| hanshenning wrote:
| > To reflect the DMA's changes, developers will be able to use
| alternative browser engines -- other than WebKit -- for
| dedicated browser apps and apps providing in-app browsing
| experiences in the EU.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
| wlesieutre wrote:
| So now European users could be using Firefox with mobile
| gecko engine, but no one in the US will ever test with that
| because they're not allowed to have it. Fun!
| dleeftink wrote:
| I'm sure there are creative ways around that. A fragmented
| market may even incentivise or inspire other regulators to
| follow suit.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Oh I don't mind running iOS wrapper from Mozilla for
| Firefox mobile - but give me unlock origin, and I'll thank
| you for ever!
| afruitpie wrote:
| You might be interested in Orion Browser [0] which is
| WebKit based and can install Firefox and Chrome
| extensions.
|
| [0] https://kagi.com/orion/
| user_7832 wrote:
| Thanks, I'd forgotten about this.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| That's perfect! It is funny that Kagi's mobile browser
| allows Firefox extensions on iOS but Firefox for iOS
| doesn't?
| zshrc wrote:
| Please, they could do it even with the WebKit wrapper.
| Edge managed to get AdBlock Pro and Brave has a content
| blocker built in.
| luuurker wrote:
| And neither can block as much as uBlock Origin because of
| Webkit's limitations.
| abhinavk wrote:
| Firefox's _Strict Tracking Protection_ blocks more ads
| than Edge's ABP.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| You are acting like people today build for firefox desktop
| let alone the mobile port
| s3p wrote:
| And European users will have 3000 instances of Chrome now
| that every app is going to bundle it. I'm all for alternate
| rendering engines but without giving users a choice the
| bloat is going to be massive. I don't trust developers to
| _not_ be bloating their apps and I can almost guarantee we
| 'll see custom versions of Chrome to enhance dev tracking
| capability on users.
| tech234a wrote:
| I don't expect many EU apps to bundle Chrome because they
| can't use it outside the EU and the benefits of bundling
| a different browser engine for in-app browsing would be
| limited for the types of basic browsing that is typically
| done inside a non-browser app. Additionally, Apple is
| imposing additional requirements on apps that embed
| alternative browser engines, including requiring apps to
| be updated within 15 business days of a browser engine
| update and requiring the app to only be available in the
| EU.
|
| As a result, I would expect Chrome/Firefox/Edge/Opera to
| ship their own browser engines on iOS but am doubtful
| that many other apps will embed Chromium/Gecko with the
| possible exception of apps that only operate in the EU.
| Avamander wrote:
| You don't need custom versions for Chrome for tracking.
| Plenty of apps force links to open in-app, inject JS and
| then you have to make a few additional taps to get it to
| open in untampered Safari
| ckcheng wrote:
| > actually choose a different browser, or are you choosing a
| different WebKit wrapper
|
| I understand the "WebKit wrapper" for iOS criticism and do want
| different rendering engines available (e.g. Firefox's) and
| yet...
|
| The worse thing about Firefox for iOS is the wrapper part, not
| the lack of rendering engine choice part. The UI of Firefox on
| iOS is inconsistent and buggy, and syncing doesn't sync well,
| etc. I doubt using FF's own rendering engine instead of WebKit
| would help the situation, as it'd drain engineering resources
| away from making the "wrapper" more usable.
|
| I've always used Firefox, on Mac, Linux, Windows, Android,
| everywhere I can, but I find myself using it less and less on
| iOS... and it's not because of the rendering engine!
|
| But since this change for the DMA will allow FF to use its own
| rendering engine (in the EU), hopefully maybe it'll reenergize
| the development of FF and improve the "wrapper" part more -
| even for non EU users!
| pier25 wrote:
| Nitpick but a browser engine is much more than the rendering
| engine.
| jerbear4328 wrote:
| Writing this on FF for iOS, the biggest reason I want to use
| the Firefox engine is for Firefox extensions. WebKit doesn't
| support extensions except the App Store ones in Safari, I
| want to use traditional extensions from AMO. Just let me use
| uBlock on my phone!
|
| I do agree, the Firefox iOS UI is clunky, but I find it
| useful for stuff where I want to sync passwords or tabs. I
| use Safari for browsing the web casually because it's nicer,
| and the feature of swiping between tabs is so convenient.
| coldpie wrote:
| Firefox with uBlock Origin and NoScript on iOS!! Ahhh!!
| Yes!!
| piperswe wrote:
| Orion supports WebExtensions on iOS.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| WebKit does support the same extension API as Firefox -
| it's an open standard. How you install them, bundled in a
| native app from the App Store, is the annoying clunky part.
| freediver wrote:
| > WebKit doesn't support extensions
|
| Just to correct the common misconception. It is browser
| vendors that need to build web extension API support on top
| of WebKit. Orion browser [1] did this both for macOS and
| iOS . The support is still in beta and improving with each
| new release. iOS support remains limited to what is
| possible to achieve with a JS wrapper. Nothing prevents
| Firefox from doing the same and offer at least partial web
| extension support on iOS.
|
| [1] https://kagi.com/orion
| jerbear4328 wrote:
| Oh, that's awesome! I'm very glad to be corrected, thank
| you! I've heard of Orion but didn't realize it could do
| that, I will check that out. Thanks!
| kaladin-jasnah wrote:
| > This change is a result of the DMA's requirements, and means
| that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers
| before they have the opportunity to understand the options
| available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users'
| experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate
| to a webpage.
|
| How will users be able to understand the options in front of them
| unless they are presented with it in the first place?
| duxup wrote:
| I honestly thing this is a hard thing to solve.
|
| You can't make people care and constant notifications are just
| fucking horrible / doesn't help IMO.
|
| And I'm honestly not sure most people would understand anyway
| ...
| hot_gril wrote:
| "Do you accept cookies?" I wish there were a non-browser-
| extension way to auto-accept.
| v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
| Or auto-reject.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| It would've been so nice if the EU had required there be an
| automated way to choose Accept All and Only Necessary
| options. They could've even reused the existing DNT header!
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yeah, it was basically DNT except with teeth, would've
| made sense.
| Voultapher wrote:
| A Berlin court ruled that DNT counts as an opt out.
| Linkedin was the defendant that lost, but it is a
| precedent. There are also talks of outright banning
| targeted advertising in its entirety and only allowing
| other forms such as contextual ads.
| kklisura wrote:
| What would be even nicer if companies just respected DNT
| header without any govs involvement, right?
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| there is: stardust cookie cutter
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| Tangential, does anybody know a working cookie blocker
| extension for iOS Safari?
| ttrrooppeerr wrote:
| This reads like a crybaby manager upset with their future
| metrics.
| user_7832 wrote:
| The entire thing reads like the corporate version of a
| teenager throwing a tantrum.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| It makes Apple look bad overall to me; what's worse for
| Apple is that I'm a dev: they're supposed to be making
| themselves _look good_ to people like me so that I 'm
| attracted to their platform, but their churlishness is
| putting me off.
|
| My micro-ISV stopped shipping an iOS app a few years ago
| when Safari's support for PWAs made it viable to
| reimplement our app as a PWA so that we no-longer needed to
| deal with App Store hassle (faffing around with a Mac Mini
| we'd only use a few times a year, confusing
| certificates/entitlements/etc, not to mention the
| capriciously enforced store app review policies).
|
| ...but I'm probably just being nostalgic for the early days
| of indie iOS apps. Those times are long gone, perhaps Apple
| actually isn't interested in attracting small devs to their
| platform anymore?
| coryfklein wrote:
| There are literally thousands of options for configuring your
| device in the Preferences app. Should we put all of them in
| front of the user's face the first time they set up their
| phone? How would they know those options exist otherwise?
|
| Knowing that you can configure your phone's behavior should be
| a basic point of technology literacy. I know that it isn't at
| 100% today, but what percent of users are now going to have yet
| another forced decision to make before using their phone for
| the first time, just so a minority of technology illiterate
| users can be "educated".
| lxgr wrote:
| Apple themselves don't seem to have a problem with displaying
| a red notification dot/badge on the "Settings" app to anyone
| who doesn't set up any card in Apple Pay on their new
| devices, at least.
| ssklash wrote:
| > Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that
| reduce -- but don't eliminate -- new risks the DMA poses to EU
| users.
|
| What a line...
| dmitrygr wrote:
| What factual objections do you have? Apple can control the
| safety of their SW and cannot vouch for not-their-sw, so from
| Apple's point of view this is 100% accurate.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| > Apple can control the safety of their SW and cannot vouch
| for not-their-sw,
|
| Isn't this the main argument for a locked down app store?
| That Apple CAN ensure the safety of third party apps on its
| store?
| olliej wrote:
| Yes, and literally the whole point of this law is to remove
| that gate.
| addicted wrote:
| Let's not forget. This is also the exact same argument
| Apple used for not having an App Store in the first place
| and only allowing web apps.
|
| The chutzpah of using this argument to keep the App Store
| locked down when Apple used the same argument to not have
| an App Store in the first place is incredible.
| addicted wrote:
| The DMA introduces zero risk. Users are absolutely able to
| use the Apple App Store, Safari/Webkit, etc like this as they
| did before.
|
| So no, Apple isn't factually correct.
|
| In fact, it's very possible that Gecko or Blink have more
| secure engines than WebKit. It's very possible someone can
| create an App Store that is even more vetted than Apple's and
| eliminates scam apps and games whose only purpose is to
| separate you from your money.
|
| So it's not only not accurate, it's probably diametrically
| the opposite of accuracy and is false.
| riversflow wrote:
| Anyone with physical access to your device is now able to
| download and run arbitrary code. How is that not additional
| risk?
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _The DMA introduces zero risk._
|
| This is just not true.
|
| Maybe for experienced tech people like on HN.
|
| But the worry here is that you can be tricked into
| installing all sorts of dangerous malware. Especially now
| that casual users have been trained to believe that apps
| are safe.
|
| The DMA absolutely opens up all sorts of new vectors of
| attack. The question is ultimately a philosophical one --
| whether you think the increased freedom is worth the
| increased risk. Not just for yourself, but for the average
| non-tech-expert consumer.
|
| You might think the tradeoff is absolutely worth it, but
| that doesn't mean that it still hasn't significantly
| increased security risks.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| You assume that users always know what they're doing.
| Anyone that's helped an older parent/grandparent use
| technology knows that isn't the case.
| acdha wrote:
| > The DMA introduces zero risk
|
| You need to think about this more carefully: there
| absolutely is an increase in risk by allowing other parties
| to run native code on your devices. This guarantees that
| people will be socially engineered into installing malware,
| intrusive vendors like Facebook will try to force users to
| add their stores to bypass privacy restrictions, and
| employers/schools/etc. will try to force their users to use
| their spyware for similar reasons.
|
| Now, a not unreasonable position is that this is acceptable
| but that should be an honest discussion starting with
| accepting the risk so you can gauge whether it's a
| reasonable trade off or whether there are other
| mitigations. For example, notarization is a useful way for
| making it harder to install code on someone's device which
| the OS vendor cannot see if it's later associated with
| malware or which cannot be traced back to a source
| developer. The next time someone is breached, it's useful
| to be able to tell whether the Firefox.app they have
| installed is an official Mozilla build or pretending to be
| one.
| Aachen wrote:
| These EU laws start with the current circumstances and
| motivation why the law exists. An objection to why DMA is bad
| can be found in the first two recitals:
|
| > (1) Digital services in general and online platforms in
| particular play an increasingly important role in the
| economy, in particular in the internal market, by enabling
| businesses to reach users throughout the Union, by
| facilitating cross-border trade and by opening entirely new
| business opportunities to a large number of companies in the
| Union to the benefit of consumers in the Union.
|
| > (2) At the same time, among those digital services, core
| platform services feature a number of characteristics that
| can be exploited by the undertakings providing them. An
| example of such characteristics of core platform services is
| extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero
| marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other such
| characteristics of core platform services are very strong
| network effects, an ability to connect many business users
| with many end users through the multisidedness of these
| services, a significant degree of dependence of both business
| users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing
| for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and
| data driven-advantages. All these characteristics, combined
| with unfair practices by undertakings providing the core
| platform services, can have the effect of substantially
| undermining the contestability of the core platform services,
| as well as impacting the fairness of the commercial
| relationship between undertakings providing such services and
| their business users and end users. In practice, this leads
| to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business
| users' and end users' choice, and therefore can confer on the
| provider of those services the position of a so-called
| gatekeeper.
|
| It's a bit long for HN comments (although 257 words is about
| a minute of reading) but I didn't really know what could be
| fairly cut out
|
| Full text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj
| judge2020 wrote:
| Can't wait for Instagram (via the Meta store) to begin ignoring
| the tracking pop up option the user chose.
| toyg wrote:
| Illegal behaviour is illegal no matter how you install
| things.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Surely Meta has learned their lesson from previous times
| they did something illegal.
| toyg wrote:
| Corporations are sociopaths. They only learn what affects
| their bottom line.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Weird how nearly every top-level comment pointing out the salty
| tone of the press release has been flag-killed. It's actually
| really unique: You almost never see corporate PR dripping with
| attitude like this one.
| itg wrote:
| The number of Apple fanboys in tech that cheer every anti-
| consumer move by Apple really boggles my mind. Other
| companies rightfully get called out, ex: Unity recently, but
| for Apple they will make excuse after excuse.
| acdha wrote:
| You mean the ones which are incoherent or profane? Most of
| this thread is people talking about the tone so if there's
| some conspiracy trying to flag things they're remarkably
| ineffective.
| progbits wrote:
| They have to wrap all of this in ton of FUD to make sure users
| outside EU don't get jealous and demand the same options.
| euphoria83 wrote:
| This is fantastic. But why a reduction in Apple's fee for
| AppStore distributed apps? I hope the rates drop to these
| globally.
| hjnilsson wrote:
| Likely because they anticipate increased competition to the App
| Store now, and want to pre-empt the attractiveness for
| developers of moving to the Epic Store or the Facebook Store
| etc.
| bogwog wrote:
| aka competition working as intended
| crazygringo wrote:
| I couldn't figure it out -- is it? Payment is now a separate
| extra 3% and there's the new core technology fee.
|
| Maybe somebody more familiar with the details can explain. It's
| hard to compare when the structures are different like that.
| kaladin-jasnah wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
|
| > To help keep users safe online, Apple will only authorize
| developers to implement alternative browser engines after meeting
| specific criteria and committing to a number of ongoing privacy
| and security requirements, including timely security updates to
| address emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
|
| This criteria seems arbitrary. Doesn't this allow Apple to
| arbitrarily prevent competitor engines like Blink and Gecko?
| anon25783 wrote:
| Absolutely! That's how the "walled garden" business model
| works.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| I don't think it will used against Blink and Gecko for obvious
| compliance reasons. But this clause will help Apple pressure
| them to keep security updates timely (which is a good things
| for the users).
|
| On the other hand they will likely use this to deny all 'niche'
| browser engine without a structured organization behind them
| (think Ladybug, maybe servo etc.)
| toyg wrote:
| Apple patch their browser twice a year at best; Firefox gets
| updates every month, plus security ones. Apple is hardly a
| model of virtue in the sector.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > A new version of Safari shipped 17 times in the last 28
| months -- version 15.0, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6,
| 16.0, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 17.0, 17.1, and
| now, today's Safari 17.2.
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-
| safari-17-2...
|
| Yes, not as frequent as monthly releases, but Apple shipped
| 7 Safari updates on iOS in 2023.
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/13691/webkit-features-in-
| safari-16-3...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/13966/webkit-features-in-
| safari-16-4...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14154/webkit-features-in-
| safari-16-5...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14416/webkit-features-in-
| safari-16-6...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14445/webkit-features-in-
| safari-17-0...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14735/webkit-features-in-
| safari-17-1...
|
| https://webkit.org/blog/14787/webkit-features-in-
| safari-17-2...
|
| Did you notice the new Safari 17.3 Apple shipped 3 days
| ago?
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > A new version of Safari shipped 17 times in the last 28
| month
|
| > Yes, not as frequent as monthly releases, but Apple
| shipped 7 Safari updates on iOS in 2023.
|
| That's a very recent change: prior to 2022 Apple had far
| fewer updates to Safari on both macOS and iOS - and still
| witholds Safari updates from older iOS versions - for
| example, there was only _1_ macOS Safari update per year
| between 2008 and 2015, and only 2 updates per year from
| 2015 to 2022; while things were just as sparse on iOS.
|
| The data is all here: click on the "Date relative" view
| on any of the items on https://caniuse.com/?search=webkit
| madeofpalk wrote:
| We're litigating Apple's release cadance from 9 years
| ago?
|
| I get it. Apple used to update Safari infrequently. In
| the past two years they've increased how frequently they
| update. "Apple patch their browser twice a year at best"
| is no longer true.
| pompino wrote:
| Its usual BS from Apple. Imagine Microsoft blocking all non-
| store applications from running on Windows "to help keep users
| safe". No I'm not cheering for Microsoft to do the same. Its
| strange, but I want Apple to be more like Microsoft in this
| regard.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Yeah, if they wanted to keep users safe, all device
| permissions would be user controlled and all permissions
| would be default off.
| pompino wrote:
| Exactly, they're conflating choice with complexity. As you
| said, you can have any level of control, via various
| permission levels.
|
| I think what would be helpful if there was a concept of a
| "system admin" profile that you could apply onto any
| device/computer. Non-technical users may want Apple to be
| the 'sysadmin' and only use the Apple store, use Apple
| recommended apps, etc. - Kinda like the an MDM profile.
|
| Any other vendor, as a paid/managed service, could supply a
| more permissive app store, and manage updates, etc.
| Companies who issue work devices would have their own
| "profile" to manage the device.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Every permission is default off, and ios is the safest
| computing platform for users (next to android), while
| windows has a much worse track record.
| addicted wrote:
| Windows was created before t security in computing was a
| thing.
|
| It's an completely invalid comparison.
|
| But even if we accept that comparison, how about OSX? OSX
| has been tremendously secure through its existence and it
| allowed users to do whatever the F they wanted to do with
| it until recently.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| I'd argue that Android is much worse than Windows.
|
| all legitimate Windows devices actually get updates.
|
| kernel exploit on your Android phone? welp hope your oem
| does something
| pb7 wrote:
| Maybe you shouldn't use an example that is synonymous with
| viruses and malware throughout its history.
| pompino wrote:
| Thanks, but I like my example, even if you find it
| inconvenient. I don't find it strange at all that the most
| popular operating system gets exploited the most. Luckily,
| Windows is not in the top 5 for reported vulnerabilities.
|
| https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php
| pb7 wrote:
| Apple sells billions of iPhones because grandma can't
| accidentally install ransomware or a key logger by
| clicking on the wrong link. There's nothing you can do to
| rewrite Windows' multi-decade reputation for this.
| addicted wrote:
| Or not publishing documentation (they were also forced by the
| EU to do so ironically) that has allowed the likes of
| OpenOffice to read Office docs and become a legitimate
| alternative, because of security (Office docs are a security
| risk and showing hackers how they work makes them a bigger
| security risk...).
| crazygringo wrote:
| I think it seems pretty clearly meant to include major
| competitors like Firefox and Chrome and Edge if Microsoft
| wants, but you can't just include a random build of Chromium
| that you never update.
|
| And this seems understandable to prevent a proliferation of
| 100's of "browsers" trying to steal your data. You actually
| have to be developing something legit -- not just reskinning a
| browser engine and leaving it.
| Yujf wrote:
| That is fine as an app store policy, but they also want to
| impose those requirements for apps outside the appstore. That
| is a problem, if I want to run a sketchy browser downloaded
| from github apple should not be able to prevent this
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > That is a problem, if I want to run a sketchy browser
| downloaded from github apple should not be able to prevent
| this
|
| You can already do that today (yes, on iOS) by using your
| own developer-signing certificate (because if it's from
| github, you can build it from source; or re-link/assembly
| prebuilt linkable binaries if you really feel like it).
|
| Remember the vast, vast majority of iOS users are people
| like (I assume) our parents - or people we knew in the
| late-1990s/early-2000s with an excessive number of Internet
| Explorer toolbars and Bonzi Buddy. I support Apple's
| mission to keep crap like that off their platform, but
| Apple sleepwalked into prompting this regulation of their
| app-store because they weren't the good-stewards they said
| they'd be - so I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.
| Yujf wrote:
| Tbh my mom doesn't even understand how to install an app
| from the app store. And she comes running for everything
| that she is not used to. I am not concerned that she
| would download anything from outside. But I do get your
| point that many people are incapable of evaluating what
| aoftware is trustworthy (and hell you cant always know
| there is a risk even with open source software that seems
| trustworthy unless you actually read all the source code,
| which I very rarely do and only for small programs or
| small parts of programs). However I do not think it is
| Apple's responsibility or right to be the guardian here.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| > by using your own developer-signing certificate
|
| That still requires you to pay Apple for a developer
| account ($99 USD/year), requires you to own a Mac, and
| requires you to abide by all of Apple's rules. Meaning
| that Apple _can_ still prevent you from installing a
| sketchy browser downloaded from Github since they control
| everything about the build-and-signing system on the
| iPhone.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/help/account/create-
| certificates...
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/certificates/
| kaba0 wrote:
| You don't have to pay $100, but then your will have to
| re-sign it every seven or so days.
| popcalc wrote:
| Which even with AltStore is a pain, no?
| thejsa wrote:
| > You can already do that today
|
| Not if you want to use a JIT compiler or multiprocess
| support
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > You can already do that today (yes, on iOS) by using
| your own developer-signing certificate (because if it's
| from github, you can build it from source; or re-
| link/assembly prebuilt linkable binaries if you really
| feel like it).
|
| Not if you want a browser with a JIT Javascript compiler,
| which for better or worse is a basic requirement for a
| broadly usable browser.
| kaba0 wrote:
| You can actually enable JIT for a specific app for
| yourself. Nintendo emulators actually can make use of
| that, for several years now.
|
| It's just a niche, so no one bothered porting a whole ass
| browser with its JIT compiler and GC and whatnot to ios
| for that 3 users. Now it can change.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| No, these emulators achieve JIT via a method intended for
| remotely debugging apps. Altstore has a way of automating
| this, but it requires an active server connection when
| the app is launched.
|
| In AltStore's case, you need to be on the same wifi
| network as the computer running AltServer. I don't know
| whether it would be theoretically possible to do this
| over WAN, but it definitely isn't practical at a large
| scale.
| mcsniff wrote:
| Might be possible to do using a VPN as long as you can
| get broadcast/multicast packets forwarded.
|
| Tailscale unfortunately doesn't support it...yet?
|
| https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/issues/1013
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The entitlements for browser development are almost
| certainly not going to be given out to people on the free
| tier and probably not even to all paid developer program
| accounts. Any entitlement that's available to free tier
| becomes something that you can sideload with AltStore,
| which works almost exactly as you suggest.
|
| They do the same thing with the VPN entitlement. If you
| want to filter network traffic on-device, you have to
| apply for it and identify yourself to Apple. If they
| didn't do this China would be banning iPhones left and
| right.
| ginko wrote:
| No it's not understandable. The iphone is a Turing complete
| computer. I should be allowed to install whatever I want on
| it. If I want to install a reskin of firefox then I should be
| able to do that. It's certainly not up to Apple to decide
| this for me.
| skydhash wrote:
| Even my AV receiver is a turing computer. My keyboard is
| also one too.
| kaba0 wrote:
| You can. But I don't agree that it should be installable
| from an app store.
| kccqzy wrote:
| While I agree with you, I think it is already possible to
| make a "browser" on iOS today that tries to steal your data.
| The only thing stopping it is manual review, not any
| technological measures. In fact, if the point of an app is to
| steal your browsing data, it is easier for them to stick with
| WebKit and WKWebView than to invest in a new browsing engine.
| Existing APIs provide plenty of opportunity to inject almost
| annything into web views.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Does that actually happen on Android though?
| eviks wrote:
| > This criteria seems arbitrary
|
| That's the point, but they sound nice
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Read through the technical announcement for browser engines
| https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
|
| These requirements are things like "Use memory-safe programming
| languages", "Adopt the latest security mitigations", if you
| ship your own certificate trust you should "provide information
| on how a root certificate authority (CA) can apply to become
| part of the program".
|
| All seems like pretty basic conditions designed to ensure that
| _only_ Mozilla and Google can comply.
|
| To be honest, the browser engine stuff seems significantly more
| robust and permissive that I was expecting.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Pretty funny to see "use memory-safe programming languages,
| or features that improve memory safety within other
| languages" as a requirement when WebKit itself is built on
| top of C++ code.
|
| I wonder if Apple would be allowed to ship WebKit if they
| enforce this requirement under the spirit of the EU laws that
| made them change their minds.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Note that the full requirement is:
|
| > Use memory-safe programming languages, _or features that
| improve memory safety within other languages_ , within the
| Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code
| that processes web content
|
| Emphasis added.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry
| standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80%
| from Test262
|
| Why is it any of Apple's business how many test suites a
| third party browser can pass?
|
| Why can't iPhone users run Links if they want to? Why can't
| they run a browser without Javascript support? Why can't they
| try out Ladybird to see how development is progressing?
|
| Like, even from a pure Apple-is-greedy perspective I don't
| understand the point of this.
| 0x0 wrote:
| Browsers that bring their own javascript engine will likely
| also need to support JIT in order to be able to compete with
| Safari on performace. Doing JIT on iOS requires a special
| entitlement grant from Apple in order to map memory pages as
| executable. An application that has permission to map memory
| pages as executable is a coveted target for spyware and malware
| as it provides a much better starting point for pivoting to
| root and pwning the entire OS. Most other regular apps, even if
| they have a buffer overflow somewhere, will require a lot more
| fiddling in order to execute arbitrary code, and are thus a
| lower risk for users to install.
|
| In short, browsers will have higher privileges that normal
| apps, as they can execute arbitrary code in memory, so they are
| naturally held to a higher standard.
|
| To be honest I am happy about this. I don't trust a random
| banking / government / public transport app contracted out to
| the lowest bidder to be safe from all buffer overflows or other
| memory safety issues, so making sure they are sandboxed away
| from executing arbitrary code is a good thing.
| alerighi wrote:
| > An application that has permission to map memory pages as
| executable is a coveted target for spyware and malware as it
| provides a much better starting point for pivoting to root
| and pwning the entire OS
|
| No more than any other app. It runs anyway in the app
| sandbox, and can only access the resources that are
| accessible from the app sandbox itself. For the application
| to gain root privileges it would need to exploit a flaw in
| the sandbox itself, something difficult these days.
|
| Android allows applications to map memory pages as executable
| (in fact you can also launch any Linux executable as a
| subprocess) and there was never an issue about security: if
| you don't have a rooted phone you don't have chances to get
| code running as root, since everything runs in the app
| container.
|
| And if there is a flaw that allows escaping from the app
| sandbox, it can probably be exploited without being able to
| map memory pages as executable anyway, since it will probably
| be a flaw in a kernel system call or library function.
|
| So really: this was always a limitation that Apple did impose
| to not allow in practice competing browsers in the Apple
| store, since a browser to be efficient this day needs to
| compile code as JIT, as well as not allowing applications
| that benefit for JIT execution (such as emulators or
| compilers).
| 0x0 wrote:
| There's been plenty of flaws in the app sandbox, but
| without the ability to execute arbitrary code they are
| often much much more difficult to exploit since you won't
| be able to invoke the particular system call or function
| you want to hit with just the right arguments.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| For now. The EU Product Liability Directive updates and
| Cyber Resilience Act is going to force software and
| hardware makers to take a much harder look at their
| security choices.
| autoexecbat wrote:
| What I'm hearing from this, is that JITs are a security
| hazzard so we should all move to interpreted wasm
| mr_toad wrote:
| https://bytecodealliance.github.io/wamr.dev/blog/introducti
| o...
|
| https://v8.dev/docs/wasm-compilation-pipeline
| segasaturn wrote:
| Sadly no information here about the mechanisms for how
| alternative app stores will work, which is the most interesting
| part for me. Will the .ipa format be standardized like .apk and
| will we be able to make iOS apps without having to use macOS?
| winterqt wrote:
| No, you'll need to install through an approved alternate
| marketplace. See https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-
| apps-in-the-eu/#...
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Apple approves apps on their marketplace.
|
| Apple approves alternative marketplaces.
|
| Apple approves all apps on all marketplaces.
| Yujf wrote:
| And charges for all apps on all marketplaces
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Apple inherits the earth
| htk wrote:
| "For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and
| expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA
| creates"
|
| What a jab.
| seatac76 wrote:
| The tone of the release is really something. So much shade.
| nixass wrote:
| I wanna know when I'm gonna be able to use native Firefox with
| addons enabled instead of Safari-coated unusable crap
| moffatman wrote:
| In notarization rules, no executable code download is allowed
| kevincox wrote:
| But they say that browser engines are allowed. So can they JIT?
| tech234a wrote:
| Yes
| kevincox wrote:
| How can the OS tell the difference between downloading
| JavaScript and JITing it vs downloading compiled code and
| running it?
| post_break wrote:
| They look into the app as a human vs looking at the code.
| iDOS 2 is a great example. Banned for doing that exact
| thing.
| kaba0 wrote:
| An App is not just code, it is an entity within the OS
| with permission system, metadata etc all attached to it.
|
| A JIT compiler is not above the App's sandbox
| permissions.
| rany_ wrote:
| > Notarization for iOS apps -- a baseline review that applies to
| all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on
| platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a
| combination of automated checks and human review.
|
| Does anyone know if notarization is something you could turn off?
| If you can't, then I'm pretty sure the EU won't like this;
| obviously "malicious compliance."
| gumby wrote:
| Apple and the EU have been discussing the implementation for
| some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed
| already. In particular, I'm sure the issue of apps (FB app with
| a virus or spyware) on a random App Store is a concern to the
| EU.
|
| Not defending Apple per se (they sure don't need help) but
| going with the public statements of both Apple and the EU
| leading up to this.
| rany_ wrote:
| If they actually okayed it, then I hope the EU reconsiders.
| In effect, Apple's tight grip on what apps you could run
| remains. I am also disappointed that those changes are EU-
| only, I hope most governments impose similar laws so that
| Apple just gives up and makes it global.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| This is different from the usual App Store review. It's to
| prevent malware.
| rany_ wrote:
| IMHO it seems like it's there only to enforce that "Core
| Technology Fee" and even then I don't buy that argument.
| Malware already slips through Apple's "strict" App Store
| review process.
| zamadatix wrote:
| My concern mostly lies with "what will qualify as
| malware". When we think of malware we think of things the
| user would consider malware, i.e. the traditional use
| case of notarization. Is Apple thinking the same or is
| malware just apps that do things they don't like and
| haven't been otherwise forced to approve (e.g. like JIT
| is now allowed for browser engines)? Overall though I'm
| optimistic on it, just also cautious.
| layer8 wrote:
| From yesterday's WSJ article [0]:
|
| "Officials from the European Commission, the EU's executive
| body, have been holding meetings in recent months with Apple
| and other tech companies to discuss the new rules. Apple
| hasn't provided a final package describing its solution to
| the commission or tested its plans with market participants.
|
| Once it does, the commission will review the full package to
| look at whether it will make the market more open and
| contestable, and whether the company's plans meet all the
| individual provisions of the law, according to a person
| familiar with its plans."
|
| We'll see how that goes.
|
| [0] https://archive.is/Hk39s
| samcat116 wrote:
| Notarization has been enforced for all apps on the Mac for
| years. Would the DMA have an issue with requiring signed
| drivers? Seems a similar baseline. Personally I'm totally ok
| with that. I haven't seen a single instance of them not
| notarizing something or revoking it for something that wasn't
| actually malicious.
| rany_ wrote:
| You could actually disable the notarization enforcement
| entirely on the Mac or selectively depending on the file. So
| I don't think it's that bad.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| That would be crazy if it were true. The only thing that is
| enforced on Mac is a scary pop up window.
| Ukv wrote:
| > I haven't seen a single instance of them not notarizing
| something or revoking it for something that wasn't actually
| malicious.
|
| Apple did threaten to cut off Epic's ability to notarize
| Unreal Engine[0], until ordered not to by the court[1].
|
| [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/17/apple-terminate-
| epic-de...
|
| [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-
| fortnite-ap...
| threeseed wrote:
| That's because Epic maliciously violated the terms of
| service.
|
| In fact they did so deliberately to help them in their
| court cases.
| yreg wrote:
| >I haven't seen a single instance of them not notarizing
| something or revoking it for something that wasn't actually
| malicious.
|
| Do you think they would notarize a PornHub app?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...if it works like on Mac, then I would, yes. It's an
| automated process and I'm not aware of any content
| requirements.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You can install any app you want on the Mac, notarized or
| not. You might get some kind of warning, but that's
| irrelevant.
|
| And Apple only allows certain kinds of apps through their
| notarization process. They can't have pornogrpahy, they can't
| allow things that could break copyright etc.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| No, notarization can be turned off on the Mac in ~15 seconds.
| Open a Terminal and type `sudo spctl --master-disable`. Enter
| your password and press enter.
|
| You can also right click an individual unnotarization .app
| bundle and select `open`, then affirm your intention in the
| scary warning prompt.
|
| P.S. The Mac also lets you disable SIP, install unsigned
| kernel extensions, and rewrite kernel memory to your heart's
| content. It's admittedly a bit more involved.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to
| pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like
| games consoles. What I think is very underhanded is charging
| per install for 'core services' rather than per app review.
| It's not like the app has to be notarized/reviewed for every
| install.
| rany_ wrote:
| I assume the notarization is there to enforce this, which is
| why I think it is way worse than the fee itself.
| samcat116 wrote:
| Notarization is a completely automated system to scan for
| malware. It has existed for many years
| Vespasian wrote:
| How else are they gonna obligate developers to pay the
| core fee then.
|
| Once tooling catches up, in theory, developers don't have
| a contractual relationship with apple anymore, except to
| get notarized.
|
| The devices belong to the users apple sold the hardware
| and licensed the software to them not app developers.
| They could charge the users but obviously this would be a
| terrible idea.
|
| Getting notarized will either directly require payment of
| the platform fee or will force the use of the official
| tools which will mandate that.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Nonprofits, governments etc don't have to pay a fee, so
| in effect it means we will have the AppStore, and a few
| free, open-source alternatives.
|
| That is absolutely a win to the common people. And it's
| not like other companies taken a hit - they can either
| stay on the AppStore and have their finances go through
| their "taxing", or create an alternative store and find a
| proper monetizing strategy. They can calculate what makes
| sense, but it makes it hard for Facebook/google to
| exercise their network effect for creating a new app
| store at the expense of users.
| trumpeta wrote:
| no it says it includes "human review"
| yreg wrote:
| >I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to
| pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like
| games consoles.
|
| In that sense, the old system is OK as well, no?
| kranke155 wrote:
| "It's very dangerous but we will allow our users to download and
| install apps from the internet".
| neogodless wrote:
| Related article from theverge.com
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132487
|
| _Apple is allowing alternative browser engines in iOS 17.4 - but
| only in the EU_
| olliej wrote:
| Looking forward to being required to use Chrome for basic
| browsing.
|
| I already see numerous sites that with chrome variations on the
| old "we only support IE", but at least until now devs had to at
| least allow at least one other browser. Now they'll just say
| "here's a link explaining how to install chrome".
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| Most of these websites should be accessible using user agent
| spoofing.
| olliej wrote:
| Which we know from the IE dominated era does not matter,
| people just switch to the browser they have to use. The
| overwhelming majority of users do not know what a user agent
| string is, let alone how to change it they just see an
| increasing number of sites saying "you need to use
| IE/chrome".
|
| Moreover, again from the IE era - and we already see this
| with chrome - people make their sites work in IE/Chrome and
| then label any browser doing something different as broken so
| as people are increasingly forced to use chrome the degree to
| which spoofing does not work steadily increases.
| winterqt wrote:
| > To qualify for the [MarketplaceKit] entitlement, you must:
|
| > [...]
|
| > Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or
| equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody's) financial Institution of
| EUR1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to
| guarantee support for your developers and users.
|
| Just let us sideload IPAs, _please_.
| stefan_ wrote:
| I must have missed this section in the DMA!
|
| All I want is a F-Droid-esque store with sane apps. You know,
| open source apps, centrally built. No in-app-purchases and
| Chinese geotracking framework for something that is 25 lines of
| code to talk to some bluetooth gadget.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Who's going to curate that?
| sureglymop wrote:
| Take a look please: https://f-droid.org/en/about/
| kaba0 wrote:
| You just need a non-profit behind (or a government) and it
| should work just fine, they are exempted from the fees.
|
| The ruling is mostly there to prevent google and meta from
| creating alt stores (which is a benefit to us).
| buildbot wrote:
| I have sideloaded IPAs now, on iOS 17.3. Altstore.
| winterqt wrote:
| Sure, but your apps have to be renewed every 7 days (or 365
| if you have a developer account).
| jerbear4328 wrote:
| And, almost more restricting in my experience, you can only
| have two (2) sideloaded apps installed at a time (3 if you
| count AltStore itself).
|
| Unless you are lucky enough to have a MacDirtyCow-
| vulnerable device+OS, of course, but if you are going there
| why not just jailbreak?
| summerlight wrote:
| > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the
| extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate,
| measures to ensure that third-party software applications or
| software application stores do not endanger the integrity of
| the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper,
| provided that such measures are duly justified by the
| gatekeeper.
|
| Looks like Apple tries to make a case to exploit this
| statement, which sounds exactly like a malicious compliance.
| olliej wrote:
| Ok, so I get that you want to be able to install random
| binaries on your phone, but I want to understand how you think
| that could happen without undermining the platform security
| model?
|
| The inability of binaries to do malicious things on iOS is the
| result of the sandboxing and entitlement mechanisms of the
| platform. The store review and approval process is what stops
| applications from including entitlements that undermine the
| platform security. If you remove that step from the process
| there is nothing stopping an application shipping with the
| system entitlements that allow the application to read or write
| to other app data, or the entitlements to talk to system
| services without prompting permission dialogs, etc.
|
| If you want to remove the review and approval systems that the
| App Store has (and it sounds like are going to be required for
| 3rd party stores?) you have to have an answer for that.
| Otherwise you just end up with the android malware problem.
| lol768 wrote:
| You tell the user what entitlements or permissions are being
| requested at the point of the app trying to use them, stop
| treating the users like stupid children and let them make an
| educated decision about how to use the hardware that _they
| own_.
|
| There are limits on Android anyway, what your side-loaded
| apps can do without you using a custom ROM or rooting the
| device is restricted somewhat.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| Have you ever seen a random windows user? Do you think
| Grandma understands that?
|
| I'm all for allowing power-users to side loads apps, but
| average user _definitely_ needs to be thought as a child
| that will use 1234 as their password, and click 'ok' on
| every pop-up without even reading it.
| lol768 wrote:
| Require the super scary "break app sandbox" entitlements
| to be activated behind an adb-command-mutated flag (or
| whatever the iOS equivalent of adb is) after jumping
| through the USB debugging hoops?
| twism wrote:
| Android (Pixels specifically, so not a derivative of Android)
| does this and platform is just as secure
| miracle2k wrote:
| Which Android malware problem? Android has a permission
| system, every permission an app has needs to be approved by
| the user, and some permissions only system-apps can request.
|
| There is no need for an app store review process to stop apps
| from requesting the "write to other application's data"
| entitlement; this can be enforced by the phone itself.
| GaggiX wrote:
| This is complete nonsense, the permissions are enforced by
| the OS, not by the store approval process, same for accessing
| the various parts of the file system.
| lol768 wrote:
| Welp, that rules out anything like F-Droid.
|
| > The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the
| installation and effective use of third-party software
| applications or software application stores using, or
| interoperating with, its operating system and allow those
| software applications or software application stores to be
| accessed by means other than the relevant core platform
| services of that gatekeeper.
|
| > The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the
| downloaded third-party software applications or software
| application stores from prompting end users to decide whether
| they want to set that downloaded software application or
| software application store as their default. The gatekeeper
| shall technically enable end users who decide to set that
| downloaded software application or software application store
| as their default to carry out that change easily.
|
| > The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and
| providers of hardware, free of charge, effective
| interoperability with, and access for the purposes of
| interoperability to, the same hardware and software features
| accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual
| assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to
| Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided
| by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow
| business users and alternative providers of services provided
| together with, or in support of, core platform services, free
| of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the
| purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system,
| hardware or software features, regardless of whether those
| features are part of the operating system, as are available to,
| or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services
|
| How is requiring them to have access to $1M acceptable, or
| compliant with the legislation?
|
| > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking _strictly
| necessary and proportionate measures_ to ensure that
| interoperability does not _compromise the integrity of the
| operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software
| features_ provided by the gatekeeper
|
| Apple state the $1M requirement is to allow for providing
| support to customers. There is no allowance for doing that in
| the regulation, and no reasonable argument can be made that
| lack of customer support has an impact on the integrity of the
| operating system or hardware. I can understand scanning
| software or asking for it to be uploaded and signed, that could
| be justified. Not this.
| shuckles wrote:
| Having a $100k bond to get a license to provide professional
| services is pretty common in other industries.
| tech234a wrote:
| There are also mentions of web browser-based installs, but all
| apps are being notarized and encrypted.
|
| Edit: Upon looking into this further, it appears that only
| marketplaces can be installed from a web browser. [1]
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/marketplacekit
| mjburgess wrote:
| Apple had a chance to embrace the DMA, even to save face, and
| become a (albeit mandated) champion of these changes.
|
| Instead, they've gone for hostility and pettiness and, no doubt,
| fully intend to maliciously comply.
|
| > The screen also interrupts EU users' experience the first time
| they open Safari
|
| And it will be the last time.
| rahkiin wrote:
| Please no needless notifications all the time..
| thebradbain wrote:
| Separate any discussion about the "tone" of the article, could
| someone who is better at reading between the lines better than I
| explain the changes to Out-Of App Store payments?
|
| Is it a 10-max 20% fee to Apple, no matter the distributor, in
| the EU? Or are those rules only for the App Store, and anything
| else won't be touched by commissions to Apple?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| It sounds like the percent fee is for apps downloaded from the
| app store plus the 3% if you use apple payment processing. Then
| theres a .5 euro annual fee per user over 1 million no matter
| which market the app was downloaded from.
| semiquaver wrote:
| The latter.
| Kab1r wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App Store
| and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| This seems unusually high. I would expect that a large number of
| apps meet this threshold. Am I correct in thinking this applies
| to apps that aren't monetized?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| It's high - but it's not _that_ crazy.
|
| Assuming this doesn't count updates - the service is probably
| costing Apple EUR0.10 on average. Apple has a very hefty margin
| on everything it sells.
|
| If each update costs EUR0.5 - I suspect this is going to lead
| to a massive decline in European apps. That's simply too
| expensive for almost every app.
|
| There's probably less than 1000 apps this would make any
| material money off of.
|
| This is just another way for Apple to try to tax Facebook,
| Google, and a handful of other big apps.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I don't _think_ it includes updates. From the calculator [0]:
|
| > The first time an app or game is installed by an Apple
| account in the EU in a 12-month period.
|
| [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-
| apps-...
| internetter wrote:
| > A first annual install may result from an app's first-
| time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app
| distribution option -- including the App Store, an
| alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip,
| volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple
| School Manager, and/or a custom app.
|
| It does
| anvuong wrote:
| Well it does count updates. So this is just bullshit from
| Apple.
| Yujf wrote:
| It is not per update and the most significant thing is that
| it is also for apps that get distributed outside the app
| store. Which is the real issue and that is definitely insane
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Wouldn't be surprised if the US allowed this - but I'll be
| shocked if they get away with it in the EU.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| paying for what? for NOT using their infrastructure? it's not
| just crazy, it's criminal
| halostatue wrote:
| This counts one install per 12 month period, whether update
| or fresh install (new user). So it's EUR0.50 per user device.
| For application providers that opt into the new terms and
| release updates every two weeks like clockwork even if there
| are no meaningful updates for 300Mb application bundles
| (Facebook, Duolingo, a few others)...this is likely a fair
| cost (and my suspicion is that yes, there's a premium, but
| it's probably not Apple's usual 20%+ premium on products
| since many applications would not be subject to this fee at
| all, even under the new terms).
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Am I correct in thinking this applies to apps that aren't
| monetized?
|
| You are correct according to their calculator [0]. If I say I
| have 2M annual installs (1M over the "free tier") and no in-app
| purchase it will cost $45,290/mo
|
| [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-
| apps-...
| Aachen wrote:
| > This seems unusually high.
|
| Looking at Unity wanting to charge 20 cents and the game
| development industry falling over itself to explain how that
| will never ever work for them... I dunno, maybe other app types
| (firefox, a mastodon client, osmand, local public transport..
| looking at random examples from my homescreen) make enough
| money from their users and this will be doable for them when
| microtransaction-laden games couldn't make 2/5ths of that price
| work out
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Imagine how much money they missed out on by not charging
| $0.50c for every install of those government COVID tracking
| apps all over the world.
|
| Apple is a scumbag company. Any developer who continues to
| support Apple by building software for their ecosystem is a bad
| person.
| graphe wrote:
| Hitler watch out, apple app developers are trading your place
| in hell!
| Kwpolska wrote:
| The support doc is slightly more informative:
| https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
|
| Free apps aren't exempt. The fee is only for EU users. If you
| take the EU iOS market share of 33.3% [1] and the number of EU
| citizens (448 million) [2], you get ~150 million -- and that's
| assuming 1 smartphone/citizen, which is probably too much.
|
| [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_U...
| Yujf wrote:
| Yes, I think so.
|
| So apple wants to require they approve your app and then charge
| you EUR0,5 for every time it is installed for the privilege of
| avoiding using their infrastructure. It is honestly insane. I
| don't know the DMA in detail but I hope it is not and gets
| smacked with fines. And I hope if this is allowed the DMA gets
| updated so this is no longer allowed.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| It might be effectively even higher if it's per device rather
| than per user.
|
| A Spotify user could cost EUR2 on per device terms if they
| installed on their Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad and AppleTV.
| underdeserver wrote:
| They specifically excluded iPadOS, watchOS and TvOS.
| hedora wrote:
| They say its a bit under 1% of developers. According to this
| article, they have 34 million registered developers:
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/06/apple-now-has-ove...
|
| So, it's probably within a factor of ten of 340,000 developers.
| That's a lot of apps.
| pi-e-sigma wrote:
| I wonder what happens if you travel from the US to EU and then
| back. Will you be able to install alterative browser while in EU
| and then it gets blocked?
| sebazzz wrote:
| It will apply to EU citizens probably, so who have the location
| of the Apple account in a EU member state. You can change the
| location, but only once per half year.
| COGlory wrote:
| Isn't that implying that EU laws only apply to EU citizens?
| Surely that can't be the case.
| Pandabob wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App Store
| and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| If I'm reading this right (and I did double check this with
| ChatGPT [0]) if you have an app with two million unique installs
| annually, you owe Apple 500 000 euros. That seems to include free
| apps as well.
|
| [0]:
| https://chat.openai.com/share/905c5c45-657b-477c-a746-0468dd...
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Oh, wait, is this the Unity situation again ?!?
| bgirard wrote:
| Is there any record of another browser _engine_ being summited to
| the app store and the outcome? AFAIK when I worked at Mozilla I
| 'm not aware that Gecko was ever submitted even though I saw a
| working local build.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| That's a good question, I don't understand how this is enforced
| either.
| stefan_ wrote:
| There is (was?) no mechanism for JIT, so even if there was a
| working local build, it wouldn't be a competitive browser
| engine.
| toyg wrote:
| What would have been the point? It was explicitly forbidden.
| bgirard wrote:
| IANAL but I speculate that having explicitly rejected
| competition could hurt Apple in certain legal proceedings?
| shippintoboston wrote:
| These changes are the definition of Malicious Compliance, I hope
| the EU goes down hard on this bullshit
| Spivak wrote:
| > Notarization for iOS apps -- a baseline review that applies to
| all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on
| platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a
| combination of automated checks and human review.
|
| > Authorization for marketplace developers...
|
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App Store
| and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| Amazing. All this regulation and hand-wringing to just to make it
| _exactly_ the same developer experience as before but now you can
| click the download button in another app. Plus now _every app_
| not just ones that use IAP for digital goods is gonna get a $500k
| annual fee once they hit 2M users. The EU really showed em who 's
| boss.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I've got to say, this whole thing is... clever. I'm not
| defending Apple here, but I am saying that the way they seemed
| to figure out policies to comply with the letter of the law
| while making it seem pointless for a developer to switch to a
| third-party app store... well, it definitely does make Apple
| look smarter than the EU, that's for sure.
| Spivak wrote:
| Right?! It's a masterclass in being petty. They seem to know
| exactly what screws government's won't turn and built the
| "not-app store" on top of them.
| user_7832 wrote:
| If it really is as it sounds, I give the EU one month max
| before they "fix" this. The EU doesn't like it when large
| corpos purposely use loopholes to go against the spirit of
| the law.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Not even close. These things take at least a year or two to
| analyze and draft and debate and redraft and so forth. Then
| even when they're passed, there's a year or more to give
| companies time to enter compliance. Not to mention that
| there isn't necessarily the political impetus or appetite
| to revisit it right now -- they passed the DMA, now other
| things have higher priority.
|
| The idea of "fixing" this in just one month isn't how
| anything happens -- it would take multiple years if it
| happened at all. The EU simply does not move anywhere near
| that fast -- not legislatively and not in the courts
| either.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| >Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App Store
| and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| The... _fuck_? Apple, did you literally just pull a Unity?
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Will Apple Users also have the option to use other search engines
| in Safari than the default ones? Or is this something that the
| DMA does not cover?
| bogwog wrote:
| I thought this was already possible, albeit with extensions.
| Kagi for example has an extension for iOS users.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Yes, but these extensions work by intercepting the search
| results to your default search engine e.g. google and then
| redirectin that to kagi.com.
|
| For example you type in "hacker news" it will first redirect
| to https://google.com/search?q=hacker%20news the Kagi
| extension will intercept this and redirect you th
| https://kagi.com/search?q=hacker%20news but this is often a
| hit and miss and the Kagi extensions had/has many problems.
| Which all could be easier if one could just select Kagi as a
| search engine natively in Safari.
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| A significant part of this announcement seems to be the EUR0.50
| "Core Technology Fee" that Apple will now charge for "each first
| annual install per year over a 1 million threshold".
|
| I think this essentially means that large developers pay EUR0.50
| * (num apps they publish) * (num devices each app is installed
| on) per year. There are 2 billion active iOS devices [1], so I
| think that for the biggest apps like YouTube the fees could be in
| the hundreds of million USD per year.
|
| 4 of the top 5 most downloaded apps of all time [2] are published
| by Meta (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp), and I think
| they will pay this fee for each app?
|
| [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/02/apple-two-billion-
| activ...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)#Of_all_time
| BonoboIO wrote:
| YouTube will not pay that amount of money. There will be deals
| in the background like usual.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Why wouldn't YouTube just distribute through App Store like
| normal? It's not like they are paying Apple per download
| there.
| axlee wrote:
| I think Apple will be a lot more hurt by not having Youtube
| on their devices than the other way around. Youtube is
| ubiquitous and has no alternative. If I was Alphabet, the
| price would be 0.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative_
|
| If it isn't on iOS it isn't ubiquitous. It's left the
| highest-earning viewers on the table.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| If Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd
| be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-
| haste.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then
| I 'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets
| post-haste_
|
| Sure. Most wouldn't. YouTube and Netflix would lose tens
| of billions of present value overnight. Hell, _Apple_
| might capture a good fraction of that surplus.
| realusername wrote:
| Yeah sure, people will give up on YouTube and Netflix to
| use iOS, that's not going to happen. They'll suffer
| through using Safari to access those and that'll reduce
| the perceived value of iOS devices for future purchases
| since it will be seen as clunky and not seamless.
|
| Not being able to use YouTube properly is also one of the
| reasons (among others) of why Windows mobile failed.
|
| Youtube is a monopoly and there's no way around it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _people will give up on YouTube and Netflix to use iOS,
| that 's not going to happen_
|
| People will swap phones to watch short-form videos? (But
| not the young; they're on TikTok. Nor anyone in other
| streaming demographics.)
|
| > _Youtube is a monopoly and there 's no way around it_
|
| Wat. Where are you getting this? Spotify has better churn
| statistics than YouTube.
| realusername wrote:
| Tiktok is additional to Youtube, it doesn't replace it.
| Teens are using both TikTok and Youtube. They are
| different formats.
|
| Youtube Shorts is there especially because it's a
| different market that they want to capture.
|
| > Wat. Where are you getting this? Spotify has better
| churn statistics than YouTube.
|
| Unless you live in the few countries where YouTube has a
| competitor, they have a 100% market share on this kind of
| format.
|
| Youtubers don't even bother to republish the video
| somewhere else because they know themselves that its a
| monopoly.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they have a 100% market share on this kind of format_
|
| YouTube videos being the format?
|
| Google owns YouTube. Google pays Apple tens of billions
| to keep its search front and centre. If Google thought
| YouTube had the leverage you do, wouldn't you think
| they'd try swinging that around?
| threeseed wrote:
| YouTube is not a monopoly especially globally.
|
| In fact in countries like Japan and South Korea nobody
| was using it until the last year or two.
|
| This idea that any mobile device will fail unless it has
| X app is baseless. Everyone has a different set of X that
| is important.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| YouTube's dominance is due to a network effect and the
| complexity of monetizing and moderating video hosting.
|
| If YouTube pulled itself from iOS devices, a shell
| company of Apple's would create a competitor in three
| months.
|
| It would be more likely that Google bundled Chrome and
| YouTube into one app.
|
| Hell, maybe they'd do that with mail and calendar as
| well.
| hot_gril wrote:
| I still don't get the point of that app, aside from a few
| misc features like Chromecast. YouTube works in-browser.
| babypuncher wrote:
| YouTube works in browser, but the native iOS app offers a
| much more polished experience than the mobile web UI,
| especially for actually browsing the library.
| hot_gril wrote:
| I'm not so sure about that because it gives them more
| ways to bother you about stuff.
| halostatue wrote:
| Not likely. I haven't had YouTube installed on my device
| in 18 months (mostly because of Google's insistence on
| using it as an authentication verifier).
|
| I don't miss it.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The .5 euro fee is for all apps, no matter where theyre
| downloaded.
| throwaway918274 wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App
| Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay
| EUR0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1
| million threshold.
|
| It's for everyone, app store or not.
| mikeocool wrote:
| You can stick with the existing terms, or switch to the
| new ones (which is when the core technology fee kicks in)
| -- you only have to switch to the new ones if you want to
| use your own payment processor or distribute on another
| app store.
|
| So they've basically made distributing popular free apps
| on an alternative app store really unappealing.
| warp wrote:
| No, you can choose to stay on the current terms.
|
| "Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms,
| or stay on Apple's existing terms. Developers must adopt
| the new business terms for EU apps to use the new
| capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative
| payment processing. "
| yardstick wrote:
| Yeah apparently they will be according to the article...
|
| " iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an
| alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each first
| annual install per year over a 1 million threshold."
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Afaik there are currently no exceptions to apple's 30% fee.
| There are some apps, like netflix, that dont have to provide
| a link to subscribe, but I think thats the biggest exception.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| And there won't be since Google just got caught giving
| Spotify a lower rate and now face anti-trust issues. That
| doesn't mean Apple doesn't give certain apps certain
| permissions. AFAIK, Apple gives Google special permission
| to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding [0] and that's just what
| we know of.
|
| Whether you like it or not, we're heading towards a future
| where Apple and Google choose who wins and who loses. A
| good app built on merit will never be able to compete.
|
| 0. https://github.com/yattee/yattee/wiki/FAQ
| Despegar wrote:
| The Epic v. Apple trial showed that no one got special
| deals. And Epic v. Google did show Google gave many
| companies special deals, like Spotify. Ironically that
| played a big part with the jury deciding against Google.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Apple doesn't make backhand deals as far as the 30%
| commission, but they do give special privileges to
| certain apps.
| threeseed wrote:
| If you're going to make definitive statements it would
| help to provide sources.
|
| Infuse have said that VP9 is supported on AppleTV which
| requires the same entitlements as iOS.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| The Yattee FAQ:
|
| What are the differences between using AVPlayer and MPV?
|
| AVPlayer is a system player component delivered by Apple.
| It provides best efficiency, performance and system
| integrations, but number of playable videos formats is
| limited. This means for Invidious/Piped videos the
| maximum resolution you can play with it is 1080p. There's
| no way to play higher resolution files as they are not
| provided in the right formats. Obviously, modern Apple
| devices are more than capable to hardware decode and play
| these formats. And in fact, Apple seems to be giving
| special entitlement to Google that allows them to enable
| VP9/AV1 formats decoding. Just remember that next time
| you hear how Apple treats all developers equally.
|
| Source: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-m1-vp9
| -av1-decodi...
|
| It's from 2020 so it might've changed but it proves Apple
| gives certain apps special privileges. Who knows which
| other apps are given privileges and to what extent?
| thund wrote:
| Your sources?
| lucb1e wrote:
| Someone I know pays 15% because they're a small business,
| so that would be one exception
| kaba0 wrote:
| Well, that and meta is the very reason behind these changes.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Well it's _per install_. And knowing apple, they might even
| count an update as an install.
|
| I suspect there's a DMA v2 coming, and it's going to be much
| much harder on them with this behaviour.
|
| EDIT: https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-
| apps-...
|
| 2,000,000 installs is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with $0
| USD revenue
|
| this seems obscene
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| It says "each first annual install per year over a 1 million
| threshold" which I think means as long as you're updating
| your app at least once a year, you pay for each device your
| app is installed on (minus 1 million, which is a rounding
| error for the biggest apps).
| shagie wrote:
| Not device - account.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-
| eu#d...
|
| > First annual install. The first time an app is installed
| by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each
| first annual install, the app may be installed any number
| of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no
| additional charge.
|
| Multiple devices with one account or new devices over the
| course of the 12 months are still a single install.
| soegaard wrote:
| "first annual install"
| gumby wrote:
| They've been discussing the implementation with the EU for
| some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed
| already.
| jeffxtreme wrote:
| As an aside, look how clear and well-written this web page
| is. I'm always blown away by how well the whole Apple
| ecosystem (even the the developer documentation) is designed
| Wytwwww wrote:
| I always (for the last ~10 years or so at least) found
| Apple documentation extremely poor overall.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Indeed. Clarification here in the calculator's pop up:
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-
| apps-...
| radley wrote:
| According to the calculator, a game that has 5M installs
| and earns $1M per year will have to pay Apple $2.37M per
| year.
|
| Worse, a game that has 5M installs and only earns $1 per
| year will still have to pay Apple $2.17M per year.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| Or they stay on the App Store and none of those fees
| apply.
| devrand wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an
| alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| So App Store or not, you need to pay the fee.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| >Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms,
| or stay on Apple's existing terms. Developers must adopt
| the new business terms for EU apps to use the new
| capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative
| payment processing.
|
| You don't have to pay the fee if you stay on the existing
| business terms.
| devrand wrote:
| ah! Good catch. I missed that the alternative terms were
| opt-in.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| If you are a new business starting _after_ this goes into
| effect, are you presented with the choice of business
| terms?
| throwaway-blaze wrote:
| Yes.
| lilyball wrote:
| I would assume so.
|
| > _Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms
| available for developers' apps in the European Union.
| Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms,
| or stay on Apple's existing terms._
|
| Nothing here suggests the new terms replace the existing
| terms, just that it's now a choice for developers in the
| EU.
| Vespasian wrote:
| The vast vast majority of apps doesn't
|
| But I agree, as expected, this will go to round two.
|
| Probably not even a new DMA just a court case about malicious
| compliance. The DMA was written expecting apples reaction
|
| Still that they will reduce the commission fee is quite
| important on its own.
|
| If this reduces the flood of free ad financed apps and moves
| the market to a more sustainable model I'm all for it
| (although I realise this stance is probably controversial)
| akie wrote:
| > this will go to a round two
|
| And there is only one possible outcome: Apple will bend to
| the EU's will, because in the end the European market is
| too profitable to ignore.
| Vespasian wrote:
| One interesting switch up could be the EU elections this
| year.
|
| Right, Far-right and EU-sceptic parties are predicted to
| become much stronger.
|
| So their stance might change on some topics
| blibble wrote:
| I wouldn't expect so
|
| The european far right are hardly fans of large American
| tech companies
|
| now, if they were domestic, that would be entirely
| different
| tivert wrote:
| > Right, Far-right and EU-sceptic parties are predicted
| to become much stronger.
|
| Do they have a much more favorable attitude towards
| American tech giants than whoever is in power now?
| akie wrote:
| If anything they're in Putin's pocket, not in Big Tech's
| pocket.
| tivert wrote:
| And if that's the case, I'd expect them to be _more_
| hostile to American tech companies than European social
| democrats, because those companies are instruments of
| American power.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| The parliament is hardly relevant though, it's pretty
| much a joke. The non directly elected commission and
| council control EU's policy.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| > Right, Far-right and EU-sceptic parties are predicted
| to become much stronger.
|
| Those parties are running predominantly on nationalism
| and populism. If anything they will be happy to screw US
| tech companies even more.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| You know these rules were drafted in cooperation with the
| EU right? Vestager was at Apple's HQ 2 weeks ago, and the
| EU spends millions to keep a regulator presence in
| Silicon Valley.
|
| The commission knows they really don't have much to stand
| on, if they go any farther they know other EU countries
| are going to step in again (these rules are not very
| popular anymore after GDPR and now that the EU is falling
| even farther behind the USA economically).
|
| The EU commission is a lot less powerful than a lot of
| terminally online Americans like to believe. EU courts
| constantly rule against them for overstepping their
| bounds and they have been caught submitting fake evidence
| before (see: Qualcomm case)
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple didn't make this up 2 weeks ago.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| They will, the question that really matters is will
| developers. Is the case for DIY that compelling amongst
| European companies? I think it will cost companies more
| to rebuild their own walled garden then what it's worth.
| I suspect we're not going to see much change, and that
| most will stick with what they have. There doesn't seem
| to be any financial incentive to leave at this point.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > just a court case about malicious compliance
|
| This I don't understand. What exactly would the court case
| be about? "You're following the law but we didn't mean it
| like that?"
|
| If you want them to do things differently, don't you need
| to either 1. prove that they aren't following the DMA, or
| 2. change the DMA?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance
| Vespasian wrote:
| The rules (payment per install) differ for apps installed
| from the app store to those not installed from there.
|
| That gives preference to apples own app (the app store)
| which they can only do because they are still
| Gatekeeping.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| So you're arguing that they aren't following the DMA?
| That's not malicious compliance, that's non-compliance.
| mh8h wrote:
| No they don't:
|
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the
| App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay
| EUR0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1
| million threshold.
| kristofferR wrote:
| The new business terms including the Core Technology Fee
| are only required for developers who will want to be able
| to upload their apps to alternative app stores like
| f-droid:
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-
| eu/#...
|
| Pretty clear malicious compliance. "Oh, you want to be
| able to distribute your popular free apps on other app
| stores? You gotta start paying us massively then."
| madeofpalk wrote:
| _Or_ take advantage of some of the new capabilities, such
| as NFC access or alternative browser engines.
| cmelbye wrote:
| I wonder how they should comply with the law in your
| eyes. What is a fair way for Apple to recoup the
| investment they make into their developer programs?
| kristofferR wrote:
| Selling devices and App Store revenue. To charge
| free/open-source apps for your OS is absurd.
| fyrn_ wrote:
| Oh, that's sneaky. So if someone wants to also distribute
| their app on something else, they pay the fee on their
| existing installs?
| SllX wrote:
| So I've got to ask, is malicious compliance a real
| actionable legal theory or is it just something that has
| been written about but never prosecuted?
|
| It reads like one of those buzzwords that doesn't
| actually mean anything useful in a the context of a court
| of law, at least as a prosecutable offense, but gets
| talked about like it does, because the statement itself
| reads like an oxymoron. You're either compliant with the
| law or you're not, and malicious is subjective. Am I off
| base by saying that? What am I missing?
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Whether "malicious compliance" is a legal term or not,
| the intent of the law does count and transparent
| workarounds are not appreciated.
|
| It depends on the area of law, traditions, common sense
| etc how much that ia true, but in general, disregarding
| transparent workarounds is a thing.
| SllX wrote:
| Yeah, except the text matters a whole lot more than the
| intent. A legislative body can always rewrite laws passed
| by a legislative body, and the EU is a supranational
| entity formed by treaty between peoples with few in the
| way of what can be called shared legal traditions or
| sensibilities so you have to think the text has to really
| matter here.
| dblitt wrote:
| $45k per month. Annually it's > $540,000
|
| Also, updates do count.
|
| "A first annual install may result from an app's first-time
| install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app
| distribution option -- including the App Store, an
| alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume
| purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School
| Manager, and/or a custom app."
| 98codes wrote:
| Reinstalls -- RIP these budgets come new iPhone release
| season
| shagie wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-
| eu#d...
|
| > First annual install. The first time an app is
| installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period.
| After each first annual install, the app may be installed
| any number of times by the same account for the next 12
| months with no additional charge.
|
| This is on a per account basis - not a per device basis.
| The install for a phone and iPad are the same install.
| throwaway-blaze wrote:
| Note there is zero way to audit this charge from apple.
| There's no way to identify an install on iOS anymore
| unless the user signs in/signs up for an account.
|
| There's also usually up to a 10% "breakage" between
| people who install from the App Store but never run your
| app.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| You don't have to sign up for an account, an app can
| install some type of opaque object in iCloud that they
| can use to identify someone who uses their account.
|
| If I delete Overcast from my iPhone or install it on a
| brand new iPad, all of my data is kept in sync. That data
| is stored in a database where the user id is that opaque
| blob.
|
| Marco Arment (the author) does all he can to discourage
| users from storing a user name/password/email address as
| part of the login and only requires you to have one to
| associate your user to your account to access your
| podcasts on the web.
| tech234a wrote:
| "App installs on iPadOS, tvOS, macOS, visionOS, or
| watchOS" do not count towards the fee [1]
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-
| connect/distribut...
| tech234a wrote:
| iCloud app transfers, automatic downloads on other
| devices, and restoring offloaded apps are exceptions [1]
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-
| connect/distribut...
| radley wrote:
| It looks like updates can count as a first annual install:
|
| _A first annual install may result from an app's first-time
| install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app
| distribution option -- including the App Store, an
| alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume
| purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School
| Manager, and /or a custom app._
|
| However, there's extra mumbo jumbo about "it doesn't count
| for 12 months after a first install is counted. But the next
| one after starts a new first annual install."
|
| So it's essentially some kind of twisted Orange County MLM
| logic.
| MerManMaid wrote:
| >So it's essentially some kind of twisted Orange County MLM
| logic.
|
| Are you referring to something specific here? Does Orange
| County have some stereotyped association with MLM schemes
| or something? (I'm genuinely asking as that would be
| hilarious and I'd love to learn more)
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Yes - bored housewives and money obsession.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Orange county is stereotypically a hotbed of MLM scams.
| Stay in a hotel there sometime and half the conference
| rooms will likely be booked by one or another.
| todd3834 wrote:
| I'm from OC I didn't know this was our stereotype but
| I've been pitched a bunch of MLM schemes when I was
| younger. I thought this was all over the place. However I
| haven't been pitched anything since at least 10 years
| ago. Maybe I don't look like I have a sphere of influence
| anymore lol
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| Is this Orange County, California? Or Orange County,
| Florida? Or some other Orange County?
|
| I'm from Orange County, California, and it's hardly a
| center of the MLM universe.
|
| Honestly, if it's the center of anything like that, it's
| drug and alcohol rehabs.
| texuf wrote:
| Probably Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Becomi
| ng_a_God_in_Central_F...
| voisin wrote:
| If they publish through the App Store they pay nothing though
| (for a free app), so won't this just mean free apps stick to
| the Apple App Store and apps over the break even price
| (EUR0.50/30% commission in the App Store) go to side loading?
| kivle wrote:
| A big reason for alternative app stores is to allow apps
| that do not comply with app store rules though. Think
| emulators for instance. Or any other of the long list of
| arbitrary app store rules.
| monetus wrote:
| Apps that cap their userbase at 1 million, then fork
| themselves under a new name for the next million users?
| "Federation"
| layer8 wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if that violates the new business
| terms or the rules imposed in Apple's app review process.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Yeah, I can only see this deal right now being beneficial
| if it's your _only_ choice due to Apple simply not
| wanting to host your apps. So, 18+ apps, emulators,
| various apps banned from the app store over drama
| (Fortnite).
|
| It's also beneficial if you keep you
|
| 1. Keep your install base under 1M. So only if you're
| sure you have a niche app that you barely need to
| maintain.
|
| 2. If you somehow have a premium popular app. A $2 app
| would mean Apple is taking a 25% cut, a $5 app is taking
| 10%. Of course, since this is per device you will
| probably be hit by users who use multiple devices. Worse
| yet, apparently the install fee is "first install per
| year" and includes updates. So you will take a huge
| revenue dive if you want to maintain, de-incentivizing
| devs from supporting existing users
|
| 3. Manage your own alternative storefront. I feel this is
| where the deal may start to hit anti-trust issues
| depending on how the store takes these costs. Apple
| doesn't have to pay it's own store fee while a new store
| has to pay Apple for existing. Sounds like a way to
| suppress competition before it starts.
|
| I guess Epic v Apple part 2 will hit faster than
| expected.
|
| EDIT: oh, I don't know the logistics, but #4 can be ad
| supported apps. The most user hostile style of app but
| potentially one that can keep making it's $0.50 back year
| after year if they have an engaged user base. But since I
| know so little about adtech I am happy to be corrected on
| if this is sustainable
| tempestn wrote:
| It's per account, not per device.
| bickeringyokel wrote:
| There is 100$ a year fee for a developer account as well. A
| bit steep for a hobbyist dipping their toes.
| ben_w wrote:
| > 2,000,000 installs is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with
| $0 USD revenue
|
| > this seems obscene
|
| This is why I never cared about the 30% take: it was
| combining all the costs you'd have anyway into one simple
| number. People just acted like those things were all free
| just because Apple wasn't explicitly listing them.
|
| Could you optimise your expenses better by splitting them?
|
| Probably.
|
| And that may even be worth forcing the issue from a
| competitive PoV, because it means some customers will be
| effectively subsidising others: A weekly updated 2 gigabyte
| app that's free in the app store gets its bandwidth paid for
| in part by a 30 Mb app that charges a $10 monthly
| subscription and gets an update every 3 months.
|
| But even then, companies are expected to make profits. What's
| the level where it's fine for Apple to say "we want this much
| extra just for us"? For a lot of people the answer seems to
| be "zero!" -- while this probably would not disincentivise
| Apple from making iOS given they also profit on the hardware,
| it would almost certainly disincentivise Google from
| bothering with any updates to Android.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Let's see where they find their 30% if browsers were
| required to provide (essentially) 100% features of native
| apps, and if they were required not to charge for them.
|
| Maybe iPhone costs would increase a few percent, probably
| not.
|
| This is just egregious rent seeking.
| skydhash wrote:
| That would just require browser devs to maintain a whole
| new OS. Native API are much more complicated than what is
| available on browsers
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Fun fact: they already do. (Or at least Mozilla did, but
| given their massive engineering power it would be
| surprising if Google wasn't doing it as well). From what
| I heard at a Mozilla meetup a few years ago, the only
| thing that prevented Mozilla to ship the actual Firefox
| to iOS back then was Apple ToS banning apps with their
| own JIT compiler built-in.
| dlivingston wrote:
| Chromium targets iOS already: https://chromium.googlesour
| ce.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Does Google charge a .50 per install fee for Android apps
| not installed via the Play Store? Does Microsoft charge a
| .50 per install fee for Windows apps not installed via the
| Windows Store? Apple is just making these charges up,
| because they think they can get away with it. It doesn't
| cover any real costs to Apple, above and beyond what you
| already pay for when you buy an Apple device.
| lwhi wrote:
| Feels very much like a punitive charge to me.
|
| If that's the case, hopefully legislation will catch up.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I am wondering how the EU market will react. How many
| businesses in the EU have free apps that have more than 1
| million users? Will businesses start charging for their
| apps in the EU just to recover the cost, or pull out
| entirely? Maybe more will offer fully featured websites
| and drive customers there instead. I don't know, but it
| seems like a stupid move on Apples part, a big game of
| chicken.
| eastbound wrote:
| How many will sell Safari1 with 999,999 users, Safari2
| with 999,999 users, Safari3...
| threeseed wrote:
| Nobody is forcing developers to adopt the new model.
|
| So EU businesses will simply have more options to choose
| from.
| lwhi wrote:
| If Apple are able to make the options that aren't
| beneficial to their business, less attractive .. isn't
| this just another example of profiteering?
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I wasn't aware that there was a choice for EU developers
| to use the new pricing model or the old one? If free apps
| can stick to the "30% of nothing" commission, yeah, I
| suppose most will do that.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Is an app like eBay free in your definition? Because then
| you have Allegro, which is giant here in Poland. Apps
| from telcos. Public transit apps. InPost over here is
| quite big in deliveries. I think Alza in Czechia and
| Slovakia can easily have a couple million users.
|
| Not very many businesses, but there are quite a few biiig
| ones.
|
| Here on HN I often read startup stories about services
| which, on one hand, "nobody" has heard about, and which,
| on the other hand, "quickly grew to a couple million
| users and started having scalability problems", which
| then spawns some story about scalability tricks. Always
| leaves me astonished as to how the heck some another
| glorified todo list/cat picture thing can rake millions
| of users so fast, but here we are.
|
| I suspect there are way more niches in which tens of
| millions of users live, which the rest of us can just be
| ignorant of. It's only when you approach a billion users
| that you can be sure "everyone" at least has heard the
| name of the service/app.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| eBay is a great example for this case, yes. It would be
| very easy for ebay to stop distributing an iOS app in the
| EU, and instead push those users to using the ebay web
| app. Ebay could put more resources into making the webapp
| better, and avoid paying Apple a ridiculous annaul per
| installation charge.
| jeffxtreme wrote:
| As threeseed mentioned, most free apps esp. those without
| a per-install revenue source (e.g., Wikipedia) will
| likely not use the new model and stick with the old model
| which doesn't charge per app install
| lxgr wrote:
| The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit, and these are
| exempt anyway.
| lwhi wrote:
| It's interesting seeing this play out.
|
| I suppose ultimately, the market is fragmenting and Apple
| is aiming to pull and set levels to encourage as many
| developers as possible to stick with the current system.
|
| I suppose they're counting on the fact that inertia and
| laziness will encourage continued loyalty when it comes
| to non free apps.
| jeffxtreme wrote:
| Right I agree, the new model does seem quite punitive
| especially if you don't have an existing business model.
|
| Imagine a new developer publishes a free app without a
| plan for monetization, and then it goes viral. They would
| be on the hook for thousands of dollars.
|
| Unless they have a reason to switch most new apps will
| likely stick to the old model
| charcircuit wrote:
| More fees can make them more money, but if they raise it
| too high developers will stop developing for the
| platform. It's up to Apple to decide on the right trade
| off where they make money and have a competitive platform
| to Android and Windows.
|
| This applies similarly to many other businesses. There is
| a sweet spot for prices to maximize profit.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Does Google charge a .50 per install fee for Android
| apps not installed via the Play Store?
|
| Give it about a month, and I'd guess so.
|
| > Apple is just making these charges up, because they
| think they can get away with it.
|
| Yes, with my non-existent MBA I assumed that's how most
| businesses set prices?
|
| Business are not your friend, they're looking out for
| themselves only. This is why I do actually like
| governments: they can force businesses to be more aligned
| with public interests, even when that costs shareholders
| some dividends.
| macNchz wrote:
| I don't see why smartphones inherently have to be a special
| case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer
| gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. I can
| install any software I want on my desktop or laptop, and
| nobody gets a cut of it unless both the seller and I freely
| choose to use an app store.
| lokar wrote:
| The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from
| aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories
| (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then
| mass direct installs would be.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority
| choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending
| some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the
| majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any
| android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues,
| ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd
| be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal
| that mindshare away.
|
| If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers
| to keep their apps on the Play store?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-
| project-h...
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit
| confused about the decision as well given some of the
| subjects that suppressed.
|
| I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular
| gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P
| mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm
| sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed
| Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA
| store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if
| most other apps would still be on the play store. So
| better not to risk it at all.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Objection, argumentative: being doubtful of X, and a
| company wanted to move X to 0 probability, aren't in
| tension.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality
| is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the
| real hole in the argument being made is that OS
| developers _do_ make money off of us using our computers.
|
| We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For
| many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on
| our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed
| against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a
| fee isn't being paid.
|
| But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and
| others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My
| feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too
| much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out
| in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was
| too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see
| where I might have been mistaken about what the
| amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look
| like.
|
| I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get
| it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a
| good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell
| me everything that went into that. Consumers should be
| _informed_ , that's probably more what I believe now. I
| no longer believe we should change the model before we
| get a better idea of what the costs will be going
| forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right
| now.
| graeme wrote:
| The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that
| open model. Just as no one has made a video game console
| with that open model.
|
| Anyone is free to enter the hardware market with an open
| platform. There are some devices for sale which allow
| this. But they're enormously unpopular.
| latortuga wrote:
| Arguably the Steam Deck is a video game console with that
| open model. It gets fuzzy though because an open video
| game console looks like a general purpose computer.
| baq wrote:
| 'Looks like' is a bit of an understatement ;)
| rajamaka wrote:
| You are right, the smartphone industry is a monopoly and
| should be regulated as such.
| grishka wrote:
| > The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that
| open model.
|
| Android is fully open. No one is making you use Google
| services. You can, in fact, buy a Pixel and _simply
| uninstall the Play Store_. As a developer, you can
| distribute your app without any Google involvement
| whatsoever.
| spookie wrote:
| Well, it's important to make the distinction between the
| Play Store and Google Services (the software). Plenty of
| things _depend_ on Google Services, some of them you have
| no option, like bank apps.
|
| It's true however that you can use microG to replace
| Google Services, but even then some banks will block your
| account upon doing that (happened to me).
|
| Granted, this really is a completely different point to
| what you were discussing, and I do agree with you. But,
| if we want truly open ecosystems, we need standards that
| ensure the authenticity of the user. Unfortunately, that
| gets distopian fast.
|
| I really don't know what to think of all of this.
| rstat1 wrote:
| Really? There are tons of ways to get apps on an Android
| device that don't involve a store charging ridiculous
| fees.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And how many people are going to actually do that?
| kivle wrote:
| Samsung phones come with a Samsung store in addition to
| Google Play for instance. All of Samsungs software go
| through their own store, and they also sell apps on it.
| ericmay wrote:
| So instead of "opening up" the iPhone if customers really
| care about the multiple app stores feature they could buy
| the phone with that feature correct?
|
| It's not really any different in my mind than phones with
| more battery life, a better camera, or any other product
| mix.
| fsflover wrote:
| GNU/Linux phones exist: Librem 5 and Pinephone. They're
| based on free drivers and don't prevent you from
| installing any OS.
| spookie wrote:
| I hope those get more mature and stable, I do have one
| but it's kind of a mess to have things not break on you.
| Updates corruption and all.
|
| This is on the Pinephone Pro btw.
| fsflover wrote:
| Pinephone software is written by volunteers. Librem 5 is
| more stable: https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-daily-
| driven-in-profession...
| techniquetech wrote:
| There's also Ubuntu Touch which I hope gathers steam. I
| installed it on an old Pixel 3a I had lying around mostly
| for fun, in much the same way I did for GalliumOS install
| on an old HP Chromebook.
| azinman2 wrote:
| > There are some devices for sale which allow this. But
| they're enormously unpopular.
| fsflover wrote:
| > The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that
| open model.
| nottorp wrote:
| Android... before that, PalmOS...
| threeseed wrote:
| Because most people don't think of smartphones as
| computers.
|
| They think of them far more like consoles or appliances.
|
| And the people that want pocketable computers have plenty
| of options.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| There's no demand for that or we would have already seen
| it. No one wants to help their geriatric parents
| uninstall malware on a regular basis
| bentcorner wrote:
| There is demand and we do see it. Cydia and fdroid.
| jasode wrote:
| _> I don't see why smartphones inherently have to be a
| special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS
| developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the
| sale._
|
| In a pure technical sense, you're right, a mobile phone's
| computer _doesn 't have to be locked down such that the
| manufacturer like Apple controls the subsequent financial
| transactions on it_.
|
| Instead of technical reasons, what happened was Apple
| taking advantage of _historical control of cellphones by
| the carriers_ that was in place before Apple flipped the
| relationship around in 2007:
|
| - (1) before 2007, the cell carriers like AT&T and
| Verizon controlled what kind of software could be on the
| Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc.
|
| - (2) Apple showed an iPhone prototype to Cingular/AT&T
| that impressed them so much that they were willing to
| _give up software platform control to Apple_. This was
| the first time a phone manufacturer had the leverage to
| do this. Cingular was lagging behind Verizon so that 's
| why Cingular was willing to play ball and relinquish
| control.
|
| - (3) after 2007, Apple now controls the phone's software
| ecosystem with their App Store restrictions and it's a
| power they want to keep. In their mind, they feel
| justified since they are the ones who spent money on
| developing the phone and they're allowing more "freedom"
| of 3rd-party software than the carriers did.
|
| Apple's perspective is that its smartphones are not
| "open" computers like the IBM PC and Macbooks. Instead,
| it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation.
|
| Another "closed" computer is the AMD Ryzen + Linux system
| in Tesla's infotainment system. There is no "Tesla app
| store" for it. Instead, a 3rd-party app like Spotify has
| to _forge a formal contractual partnership with Tesla_ to
| get integrated into the car 's software. Some stories
| about that: https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs
| +partnership+wi...
|
| Likewise, is there any _technical reason_ why Tesla can
| 't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla
| doesn't let you.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > - (1) the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon
| controlled what kind of software could on the Palm Treo,
| Blackberry, Motorola, etc.
|
| It's worth watching "Blackberry" (2023) to see an
| instance of this in the style of a documentary drama.
| refulgentis wrote:
| This is a really nice well-researched take that rhymes
| with a lot of stuff I used to read back around 2007-2009.
|
| But it's 2024.
|
| I grew up on the App Store, maybe I'm just old and cranky
| at 35. But my guess is 95% of people cry in pain when
| they see a wall of text about how Verizon charged for
| J2ME apps in 2004, therefore iPhones iPads Apple Watches
| Vision Pros are special exemptions and Apple should be
| able to bill "$0.50 per install per year." whenever a
| binary is installed on a device you paid for. There's 0
| reason for it.
| flemhans wrote:
| It's also a US-specific scenario. I could load whatever I
| wanted on my Sony Ericsson.
| nicole_express wrote:
| I had a Palm Centro back in those days; you could install
| anything you wanted on it, and as far as I know the WinMo
| devices were the same. The situation you describe was the
| case for "dumbphones" or "feature phones", but Apple is
| the one who extended it to smartphones.
|
| Of course, Apple are also the ones who extended
| smartphones to a mass-market product, as before then
| devices like the Centro were very niche.
| macNchz wrote:
| Indeed this is something that has bothered me for 20
| years, though significantly more so as phones have come
| to resemble general purpose computers more than just
| phones. Back then, I explicitly bought a Cingular phone
| instead of Verizon, because it ran a stock flavor of the
| Motorola OS, rather than the custom whatever that Verizon
| models shipped with which didn't let you install mp3
| ringtones or j2me games.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| While there were certainly closed phons prior to iPhone,
| there were also open platforms like Windows Mobile. You
| could run whatever app you wanted to on Windows Mobile.
| wvenable wrote:
| The relationship between phone manufacturers, OS
| providers, and careers was pretty complex that nearly
| every combination of openness and restrictiveness was
| part of the market before 2007.
|
| But if it was a smartphone then it allowed third party
| apps to be installed without restriction. However, the OS
| itself might have been heavily controlled and/or modified
| by the carrier. It was common that say, Microsoft, would
| release an OS update and then that OS update goes to the
| carrier for testing _and modification_ and then sometime
| later you get it. Apple, of course, was not interested in
| participating in that system.
|
| Part of the early success of Android was that being an
| open platform meant that carriers retained a huge amount
| of control and they would release heavily customized
| carrier-specific phones.
| tomp wrote:
| > Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't
| let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla
| doesn't let you.
|
| Cars are effectively bullets, they can kill people, so
| you can't just install anything in a car. I'm sure
| there's plenty of laws requiring Tesla and other car
| manufacturers to lock down car software.
|
| (Just like there are laws requiring phone manufacturers
| to lock down phones - you can't just install an app that
| lets you override the GSM protocol and mess with the
| spectrum, not even on Android!)
| amlib wrote:
| Well, if you have a desktop/notebook with any kind of wi-
| fi chip you also cant override the protocol as not to
| mess with the spectrum, but you still get free reign over
| the rest of the machine.
|
| All that to say that if things are properly
| compartmentalized there is no danger in letting the user
| install any software he desires.
| ben_w wrote:
| > All that to say that if things are properly
| compartmentalized there is no danger in letting the user
| install any software he desires.
|
| I'd like to agree, but that's a big "if". The more I
| learn, the less I trust any of these things I use
| continuously.
| grishka wrote:
| > it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation.
|
| PlayStation is seen by most people as an appliance for
| playing video games. Phones, on the other hand, are
| explicitly general-purpose computers. The iPhone is
| literally the only case of a "closed" general-purpose
| computer in this entire universe.
| pmontra wrote:
| I own an HP laptop. Why should HP get any money from what
| I do on my laptop and the software I install on it? I
| already paid them. Their product is the laptop.
|
| Let's suppose that I still use Windows, which was
| installed on that laptop. I'm using Debian instead, but
| let's forget about it. Anyway, HP probably paid Microsoft
| for the OS. That's all that should be. I don't see any
| reason for me to pay Microsoft.
|
| Now, let's suppose that both HP and Microsoft switch to a
| subscription model where the laptop costs some xx Euro
| per month and for the OS. Then it's different, I would
| think if I want to enter into that relationship and if I
| do then I would be OK for them "to keep their finger in
| the pie".
|
| I won't use Windows anyway and I probably won't buy a
| subscription based computer. On the other side that would
| make me upgrade more often. It's more or less what some
| people do when selling their Mac to buy a new one.
| Sometimes the new one is not that good though.
| chongli wrote:
| They're not a special case, they're just like game
| consoles which are similarly locked down. The PC is the
| special case and I think that's an accident of history.
| If the PC were brand new today it would be a locked down,
| walled garden like all the rest.
|
| The PC is "the one that got away" in fishing parlance.
| macNchz wrote:
| I think the distinction in my head is that game consoles
| are explicitly single-purpose (or very limited-purpose),
| whereas smartphones are playing at being general purpose,
| but only insofar as their manufacturer approves of that
| purpose.
|
| Personally I see the broader trend towards highly-
| restricted corporate-controlled hardware (of all types)
| as something explicitly detrimental that we should push
| back on wherever possible.
| irq-1 wrote:
| You should read this from 2012:
|
| Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing
|
| https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
|
| or watch the speech:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE
| scarface_74 wrote:
| You mean like consoles, set top boxes, and smart TVs?
|
| Personal computers are the special case where you don't
| have to pay the platform provider - there are far more
| phones+consoles+set top boxes than computers
| macNchz wrote:
| As far as I know I can sideload apps onto my smart TV,
| and Sony isn't get a cut of my streaming subscriptions.
| Ultimately, though, those devices generally don't pretend
| to be general-purpose, whereas I think smartphones do,
| just with restrictions such that the manufacturer can
| keep a revenue stream going.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| That's not according to case law. Google got in trouble
| explicitly because they advertised their operating system
| as "open" and then changed the rules.
|
| Apple was very explicit from day one and anyone who buys
| an iOS device knows exactly what they are going to get.
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| > _I don't see why smartphones inherently have to be a
| special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS
| developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the
| sale._
|
| Battery life. Simple as that.
| ben_w wrote:
| Perfectly valid, I feel that way about all subscription-
| based non-ownership -- I want to buy a thing and have it
| and "they" can't take it away from me.
|
| On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when
| operating system upgrades were around 10% of the price of
| the original computer (for each upgrade, about once per
| year but not at all regular), and when I couldn't afford
| a compiler.
| brnt wrote:
| Arguably with notarization your laptop and desktop aren't
| safe anymore either, if they run Macos.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| What costs that are rolled into Apple's 30% are you saving
| on? Payment processing is let's say 3% (including
| chargebacks). Delivering updates is just pushing bits,
| practically zero. What else are they doing?
|
| If Apple features you, then I guess it's pretty fair to say
| you've paid a marketing expense, but they feature a tiny
| percent of apps. Most of us get nothing but buried in the
| app store.
|
| 30% is a lot.
| threeseed wrote:
| > What else are they doing?
|
| The exact same thing Epic is doing with their games
| engines.
|
| Building and supporting the SDKs that developers use to
| make money.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Yes, and Epic charges a lot less for their support. We
| say how Unity was eviscerated for a much cheaper runtime
| fee, I can't imagine Apple gets away with triple the
| pricing.
| threeseed wrote:
| The SDKs that Apple provides are far broader and more
| lucrative than Epic's game engine.
| qwytw wrote:
| > Building and supporting the SDKs that developers use to
| make money.
|
| You're implying that this is a somehow onesides
| transaction and Apple is doing developers a favour while
| Apple always needed third party developers as much as
| developers need them (with iOS of course this balance
| changed a bit which allowed Apple to become a lot more
| exploitative than they were before/still are if we're
| talking about macOS)
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Maintaining a high trust ecosystem is worth a LOT
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/
| stefan_ wrote:
| Nothing quite says "high trust ecosystem" as when the
| people charging you 30% also make a buck on top from
| competitors putting their app in front of customers
| looking for your app by name.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| 999 million users don't give a hoot about that. At all.
| losvedir wrote:
| I'm not the person you responded to, but I'd also include
| stuff like developing the APIs developers use, Swift and
| SwiftUI, Xcode, developer docs, etc. Basically everything
| that Apple does that makes it possible for a developer to
| produce a high quality app on their phone. Apple has to
| pay for all that somehow, and that revenue has to come
| from somewhere. Product sales are one place, but it's a
| one time purchase and so there's even less incentive to
| support old phones. Charging per app install is a pretty
| easy way to do it, aligns the incentives decently well,
| and a cost to the developer proportional to how much
| users/benefit they get.
|
| They could also just charge a large cost for access to
| the SDK a la console systems, or not actually track the
| downloads but have a license agreement where you pay
| based on your user base like other ecosystems (Unity?).
| qwytw wrote:
| > Apple does that makes it possible for a developer to
| produce a high quality app on their phone
|
| This is not one sided at all. Historically generally
| Apple benefited more from developers releasing apps on
| their platforms than the other way around. Arguably
| that's still the case.
|
| > Apple has to pay for all that somehow
|
| So by selling devices? How did they pay for developing
| OSX/macOS and their APIs and tools for decades?
|
| > They could also just charge a large cost for access to
| the SDK a la console systems,
|
| There are many exploitative and unfair things they could
| do because of their dominant positions in the market, yes
| that's correct.
| blueelephanttea wrote:
| To add to this historically Apple charged for OS updates.
| Windows still does. With iOS Apple switched their model
| to making the updates free and charging developers on the
| backend to monetize their software.
|
| But most companies have some plan to monetize their
| software even if they also make money on the hardware.
| bogwog wrote:
| Apple doesn't develop those SDKs and tools in order to
| make money selling them to developers; Apple develops
| that stuff in order to sell iPhones.
|
| Third party devs can and will develop their own tools and
| frameworks. Apple charges 30% simply because they can,
| and nobody has stopped them.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Apple doesn't develop those SDKs and tools in order to
| make money selling them to developers; Apple develops
| that stuff in order to sell iPhones.
|
| Nobody buys an iPhone because of the SDK.
|
| Nobody... except perhaps developers.
|
| Apple makes those things so that developers make more
| apps for their phones, which they want to support in
| order that people continue to buy new phones.
|
| > Apple charges 30% simply because they can, and nobody
| has stopped them.
|
| Yes.
|
| And unless the government says "the thing we don't like
| is specifically the price", what you're going to _get_
| from demanding side-loading and other app stores is going
| to look like the same price charged in a more complex way
| that 's distributed differently over all the developers.
|
| This also means that it's likely some app providers will
| suddenly discover their costs go _up_.
|
| As a consumer, I'm fine with however this shakes out: I
| spend almost nothing on apps anyway, and the selection is
| too large for me to care about the size and diversity
| within the marketplace.
|
| As an iOS app developer, I have no idea how any of these
| options may or may not affect the demand for my skills on
| the job market, but I still don't care much because GenAI
| is a much bigger change than all of these options
| combined.
|
| As an investor, I've been expecting Apple to hit the
| upper limit for corporation size before monopoly lawsuits
| 2 trillion dollars of market cap ago, which is one reason
| why I bought S&P 500 instead of APPL (the other being I'd
| like my income and my investments to _avoid_ too many
| correlated failures).
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Counterpoints:
|
| 1. Apple and Microsoft have both developed these things
| for 40 years without the fees and restrictions. They do
| it for the health of their ecosystem to sell
| devices/OSes.
|
| 2. The only reason there are two mobile OSes with
| significant marketshare (instead of more than two) is the
| app library. WinMo never took off because even though it
| was a wonderful OS, they couldn't get developers to make
| apps. It's hard to imagine now that any party, even one
| with practically infinite money like Amazon or Apple or
| Samsung, could develop a successful mobile OS because
| they'd be launching with two million fewer apps.
|
| Chromebooks have been selling briskly with a relatively
| new OS because people no longer cared about apps on
| desktops when everything started working in a browser.
| This is the obvious attack vector for phones. If you can
| do everything in a browser you can do in an app, the door
| is open for another OS. That's why Apple doesn't want
| third-party browsers.
| kwanbix wrote:
| For me, the problem is that the 30% is crazy high. 1/3!!!!
|
| Had they charged 10%, nobody will be complaining.
| sholladay wrote:
| I don't think that's true. People complain about tipping
| culture, which generally demands about 15-20%, sometimes
| less (e.g. for whatever reason, hotel housekeeping only
| gets a few dollars even if the room is $100 per night).
| If tipping 10% was the norm, you think there would barely
| be any complaining?
|
| The buyer always wants the transaction to be more
| affordable and the seller always wants the transaction to
| be more profitable. The exact numbers don't change that.
|
| I think the thing that angers people is that the cost
| feels hidden, even if it's common knowledge. You look at
| menu prices and see a price but tips, taxes, and credit
| card processing fees aren't included. It can take you by
| surprise if you're not thinking about it, even if you've
| been through the same dance many times before.
|
| If I were running Apple, I would instead find a way to
| charge for developer accounts, code signing, etc. Things
| that are set up ahead of time and can have a known value,
| charged for upfront. I believe this would feel more fair,
| no matter the cost.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It drops after the first year
| Ringz wrote:
| >A weekly updated 2 gigabyte app that's free in the app
| store gets its bandwidth paid for in part by a 30 Mb app
| that charges a $10 monthly subscription and gets an update
| every 3 months.
|
| I've been wondering for a long time why there are no delta-
| updates at Apple...
| sroussey wrote:
| If you have $1B in revenue, your costs to host the app
| yourself are nowhere near $300m, lol.
| matwood wrote:
| Maybe not, but discovery is worth something as Epic found
| out when they pulled Fortnight off the Play store.
| agsnu wrote:
| This is nonsense. Apple executives have repeatedly claimed
| that the 30% fee was a good deal compared to retail boxed
| software which they say was the norm in 2005 or so, but
| really there were large numbers of small independent
| software vendors making good money through specialised
| e-commerce vendors like DigitalRiver or the original Kagi
| with fees in the 8-15% range iirc, or just selling direct
| with payment processors like PayPal for ~5%. Bandwidth was
| not a big cost back then and still isn't today unless
| you're doing something like 4K video streaming.
| pcammeraat wrote:
| And if your revenue is under the 1 million per year you can
| apply for only 15%. That is well worth it what you get back
| for it.
| stavros wrote:
| This is only for devices in the EU, there aren't 2B devices
| here.
| asmor wrote:
| You're off by about 3 zeros.
| stavros wrote:
| I meant to reply to the top-level comment about YouTube.
| skywhopper wrote:
| "First install per year". So reinstalls after a year will be
| charged again. Honestly, it makes sense to charge for the
| bandwidth Apple provides. I'd rather see it broken out than
| baked into a 30% fee. Doing so would massively incentivize
| smaller binary sizes.
| ephemeral-life wrote:
| > Honestly, it makes sense to charge for the bandwidth
| Apple provides
|
| The bandwidth that everyone is forced to use. The web has
| shown that decentralizing distribution is not only possible
| but works well. This is just another way for the worlds
| most profitable company to continue to rent seek.
| kmonsen wrote:
| This applies for other app stores so is not related to
| Apple bandwidth.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Exactly. People would conisder these alternative stores
| precisely so they don't have to rely on Apple's
| Bandwidth. But Apple apparently wants to get their money
| no matter how you host your app, and $100/seat/year is
| not enough money for them I suppose.
| asmor wrote:
| The technology fee is for notarizing (thanks, nobody asked
| for this), phoning home during installs and supposedly the
| existence of Xcode?
| megous wrote:
| $500000 per 20TB*average number of updates per year. On a
| 20MiB app is a great deal, for sure, lol. You get the same
| bandwidth on a $20-40/month VM.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Is there VAT on that too?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Feels like Unity all over again. This time with a trillion
| dollar company instead of a billion dollar one.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| And 10x higher fees (Unity is/was about 0.05 to 0.1, not
| even close to $0.5
| bickeringyokel wrote:
| I suppose the difference being gamers seem to hate
| everything large game companies do, but tech community is
| pretty split down the middle on Apple being beyond reproach
| vs them being evil incarnate.
| da_chicken wrote:
| > 2,000,000 installs is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with
| $0 USD revenue
|
| > this seems obscene
|
| The web browser is _right there_. You don 't _have_ to have
| an app.
| wbl wrote:
| So force the consumer to pay everything in a two sided
| market?
| pcammeraat wrote:
| Yes also for updates or pushed via mdm. But only once per
| account. Doesn't matter how many devices you have on that
| account. It counts as 1 install every year.
|
| Yes the fee is insane.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| Larger spenders never pay list price. There's always a
| negotiation.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Except the price only exists for large spenders in the first
| place.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Historically, from emails and the such made public through
| the courts, Apple has resisted making such deals.
| buzzert wrote:
| There is significant cost associated with complying with the
| ever increasing demands of the EU. I have seen this personally.
| It makes sense that they have to recuperate this somehow.
| asow92 wrote:
| Many of the companies I work with have completely given up on
| operating in the EU because of this.
|
| edit: Why downvote me for stating a matter of fact?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Yup. I got asked to block anyone from the EU from using a
| specific university software. Hope you're not an exchange
| student on holiday!
|
| Fortunately, they aren't in business anymore. (For
| unrelated reasons.)
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| This is good. An app that can't survive without stealing
| your private data isn't worthy to be on the European
| market.
| switch007 wrote:
| You're happy with only large tech giants existing then.
| Because lots of regulations are just barriers to entry
| and allow the existing players to keep playing
| asow92 wrote:
| It's not like these companies are trying to steal your
| private data. They just don't see working through legal
| compliance as worth the squeeze -- especially when they
| are young and don't have the resources to comply
| properly.
|
| edit: > worthy of the European market.
|
| Also, what an entitled, elitist thing to say. Maybe the
| US would be better off pulling out of Nato and letting
| Europe alone after all.
| babypuncher wrote:
| If you're company cannot subsist without stealing user data
| then it does not deserve to survive at all.
| asow92 wrote:
| That's not what I said. Some of these companies are non-
| profits that have nothing to do with the EU or ads at
| all, but are blocking EU users.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| How is the EU blocking non-profits from operating there?
| asow92 wrote:
| This is from a US small non-profit, and small for-profit
| operating with way less than $1M in funding, and not
| necessarily intending to deal with people in the EU
| context: Not every company has money to pay for the hours
| to ensure they are GDPR compliant, so they opt out of
| serving EU clients altogether. It's not always a problem
| forever, but it's definitely a blocker sometimes.
| donkeybeer wrote:
| What does your app or website do that its having trouble
| complying with GDPR?
| asow92 wrote:
| That's the thing: when I come onto a project they might
| not even know, nor have the hours to allocate to figure
| it out, and I ain't working for free to figure it out.
| donkeybeer wrote:
| What was your app trying to do? Be clear.
|
| If for example its just an information website with
| static content and its putting cookies on the users
| device, its a you problem, not a EU problem.
| asow92 wrote:
| Let me make this clearer: I'm not trying to do anything
| but work a job. These aren't my apps, and it's not a "me
| problem", but a them problem. I'm just the third party
| messenger relaying anecdotes.
|
| Cookie disclosure/consent can be an issue, and again,
| sometimes companies would rather just not serve EU
| clients altogether than build a simple disclosure and not
| set any cookies. Not saying that's good or bad, but
| that's just what it is.
| donkeybeer wrote:
| If you don't want to share what these apps are doing yet
| insist EU laws are troublesome, you won't be surprised
| for people to interpret them as doing something unneeded
| or anti user instead of just some "legal complexity
| barrier".
|
| The apps could be perfectly fine, its just that people
| will speculate.
| kaba0 wrote:
| How is it any different than an EU company complying with
| Russian/US/whatever laws? International laws have always
| been crazy expensive, if anything, being able to (mostly)
| target quite a big market by only making it EU-aware is
| more of a plus, than a negative.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Not to mention that California essentially has had GDPR
| rules for the past five years now. Are these non-profits
| also not operating there?
| realusername wrote:
| Those are just basic things which should have been
| implemented 10 years ago though. The fact the EU had to push
| laws for that is a bit shameful.
| sph wrote:
| Apple is never gonna financially recover from these
| impossible demands.
|
| Come on now, that is utter nonsense. Apple has simply found a
| way to make even more money out of what seemed like a bad
| deal for them. They are not _recuperating_ anything, they are
| increasing revenue.
| buzzert wrote:
| > Apple is never gonna financially recover from these
| impossible demands.
|
| That's not at all what I said. These regulations are
| increasing the cost of business in the EU. I'd much rather
| have those costs paid by those who democratically (?)
| decided these regulations that those in other countries who
| decided otherwise.
| waffleiron wrote:
| Apple isn't forced to do business here, I much rather
| have large corporations that engage in rent seeking
| behaviour paying the costs.
| AlanYx wrote:
| Europe has a fairly blase attitude towards compliance costs
| in general.
|
| For example, the official EC report on the cost impact of the
| EU AI Act finds that, for businesses who already have a
| Quality Management System (QMS), "An enterprise employing 50
| persons would pay roughly EUR 159,000-EUR 202,000 for
| upgrading and maintaining the QMS, and bringing one AI
| product to market." (Notably, that estimate _excludes_ costs
| of legal review.)
|
| Around 200000 EUR for one product making use of AI would be
| seen as a heavy burden on startups and small enterprises in
| much of the world, but as far as I can tell, it's considered
| not particularly noteworthy by the EC.
|
| Apple's cost structure announced today probably needs to be
| assessed in that context. Tech companies doing business in
| Europe are already used to various additional compliance-
| related costs of doing business.
| pachorizons wrote:
| Apple chooses this level of control for the iOS store. Being
| told your previous version was illegal doesn't entitle you to
| recoup the costs of compliance.
| kj99 wrote:
| The previous version was never illegal, and Apple isn't
| being punished. The EU created a new set of rules and Apple
| is complying.
| buzzert wrote:
| The use of language here, such as the word "illegal", is
| a psychological trick. It's an intentional conflation
| with past behavior/the status quo with being "immoral"
| (as illegal implies immoral).
| kj99 wrote:
| Agreed. Ironically I'd say the use of manipulative
| language like that is much more of a moral problem that
| society is contending with.
| dave_atx wrote:
| There's also no 1MM install threshold if you list your app on
| an alternative App Store, which seems like it will kill the
| attractiveness of using a different storefront unless you're a
| developer with a an app that has a recurring subscription
| that's either a) just not allowed on Apple's storefront, and/or
| b) has an subscription price expensive enough that the $0.50
| annual fee is less than the amount of commission you're
| avoiding from Apple.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App
| Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50
| for each first annual install per year over a 1 million
| threshold.
|
| Sounds to me like developers have to pay the per user fee no
| matter where the app is distributed.
| radley wrote:
| It's only if developers agree to any of the new terms. They
| still have the "right" to stick to Apple's original 30/15
| model and not pay the fee.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Right, but they have to agree to the new terms if they
| want to do alternative distribution.
| radley wrote:
| I'm just pointing out that there's a third option of
| staying in the App Store and paying 17/10 instead of
| 30/15, but it also requires the Core Tax.
| gigatexal wrote:
| This is what I came here to find out. So it seems Apple will
| still get their cut. Seems they are nerfing things to make the
| existing App Store more appealing.
|
| But I guess Tim Sweeney won in the EU. He gets his new AppStore
| so he can charge his own commission on gems and fake tokens.
|
| And game streaming seems interesting I guess we will get Xbox
| streaming gaming on the Apple platform after all.
| layer8 wrote:
| This also means you can't provide an app for free anymore if it
| becomes sufficiently popular. Monetization is the only way.
| TylerE wrote:
| It just means that the bar has been raised, no? There has
| been a certain accepted cost of doing business in the Apple
| sphere for years. They're just changing the price.
| layer8 wrote:
| Previously you only had to pay the yearly $99 for the
| developer account, and then could publish free apps to your
| heart's content (subject to Apple's app review process, of
| course).
| TylerE wrote:
| Right.
|
| So before the cost was $99 for 100% of users, and now it
| is $99 for 99.9999% of users, and a higher amount for a
| tiny, tiny, tiny fraction.
| Mogzol wrote:
| I think you are underestimating how many apps get over 1M
| downloads. According to [1], the Google Play Store has
| over 34000 apps with 1M+ installs, I assume the number is
| similar for the App Store.
|
| So if you have a popular free app, there is a good chance
| you will hit the 1M install threshold. This change is
| basically forcing you to monetize your app. Plenty of
| people can afford losing $99/year for having a free app
| that isn't monetized. Not many can afford losing several
| thousand per month.
|
| [1] https://www.androidrank.org/categorystats?category=&p
| rice=al...
| danaris wrote:
| The Core Technology Fee still only applies if you want to
| either
|
| a) distribute outside the Apple App Store, or
|
| b) pay the lower 17%/10% commission.
|
| If you're already distributing the app for free, then
| you're not going to care about (b), so this _only_
| applies to apps that meet all three of the following
| criteria:
|
| 1. Free
|
| 2. Popular enough to _significantly_ breach that 1M
| install threshold
|
| 3. Distributed through an alternative App Store
|
| Anyone who has a popular free app out there right now
| doesn't need to change anything; they'll continue to have
| exactly the same expenses they had yesterday.
| Mogzol wrote:
| Maybe I'm misreading the original article, but it sounds
| like it would also apply to apps distributed only through
| the regular App Store:
|
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the
| App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay
| EUR0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1
| million threshold.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Developers can adopt the new terms, or not, up to them.
| blokey wrote:
| Only if they choose the "new" terms, they can stay on the
| existing terms if they want to distribute through the App
| Store, as it's free so the commission change doesn't
| matter.
|
| Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a
| Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not
| being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some
| of the more brutal privacy invasions they've tried)
| zamadatix wrote:
| Small fraction of users but a huge fraction of the market
| share (and revenue generation share). Being that the DMA
| was specifically targeting these two things it seems
| quite at odds with "A free app like Chrome must pay us
| millions if it wants to distribute itself instead of
| using the legacy terms deemed illegal". If they didn't
| allow legacy terms it'd have a bit more of a leg to stand
| for opening the markets, same as if it didn't apply to
| apps distributed via third party, but the way it is now
| seems a contentious combination.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Imagine the new attack vector: You have a mildly
| successful free/very cheap app. Your competitor starts
| advertising your app, pushing it up over the 1m threshold
| and forcing you to start charging (or increase your
| price) to pay the core charge.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| From $99/year to $45,000/month. That's quite a large
| increase.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Maybe I am missing something, but can't you still just
| stay the same as the past?
|
| This is only adding new alternative choices, not changing
| or removing any current systems and methods and prices.
| layer8 wrote:
| If you want to publish a retro-gaming emulator as a
| hobby/open-source project, you can't do that on Apple's
| app store. And on a third-party app store you'll have to
| pay Apple millions once it becomes popular (which would
| seem likely).
| SirMaster wrote:
| But it's a new thing you couldn't even do before. So the
| bar is not "raised". It's a new bar.
|
| Also, is retro-gaming emulation really that popular in
| the EU? I don't think I know anyone who does that.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's certainly against the spirit of removing
| "gatekeepers".
|
| Retro-gaming emulators are quite popular here among
| nerds. I know several people who bought an Anbernic
| handheld, built a RetroPie, or similar.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| You can always release Super-Duper-Emulator-2
| layer8 wrote:
| Since apps are still subject to Apple's review process
| even on third-party app stores, they are likely to reject
| this because it obviously circumvents the new business
| terms (if it doesn't violate them outright).
| mk89 wrote:
| > If you want to publish a retro-gaming emulator as a
| hobby/open-source project, you can't do that on Apple's
| app store.
|
| why can't you do that?
| layer8 wrote:
| See item 2.5.2 in https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/.
| mathverse wrote:
| Glad this happened to be honest. Software shouldn't be free.
| andybak wrote:
| Gosh. I'd better stop work on my open source project
| immediately then.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Bet you also think it's sensible to fine people for feeding
| the homeless?
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| This is an unacceptable comment for Hacker News. Just
| because you strongly disagree with this person on
| software funding doesn't give you any reason assume they
| disagree with...feeding the homeless?
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Not sure what you're on about. It's actually illegal to
| feed the homeless in certain American cities and you can
| get fined for doing so. This is called an analogy.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| Software should be free(dom) er properly paid and
| professional. But please no freeware or ad crazy software
| blashyrk wrote:
| Care to elaborate on this (honestly wild) take?
| mathverse wrote:
| There's too much abuse of free software by either
| individuals or big tech. Its not sustainable
| fsflover wrote:
| Any example (preferably with GPL)?
| andybak wrote:
| I'm really not clear what you're arguing so it's hard to
| work out if I disagree or not. Have you considered maybe
| writing slightly longer sentences?
| odiroot wrote:
| Alternatively, greedy corporation shouldn't earn money off
| someone's free work.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Do you mean you use no open source software?
|
| Or you mean that software should not be free for other
| people, but it's okay when it's free for you?
| __jonas wrote:
| I don't understand this at all, is this really how it will
| work now?
|
| Even if you sell an App for 2EUR that would mean you will
| lose all the income from it to fees in 4 years if you release
| at least one update per year that users install? I must be
| missing something?
| layer8 wrote:
| I don't think your missing something. This is Apple's way
| of discouraging use of an alternative app store for popular
| apps, or alternatively, of encouraging subscription models.
| philsnow wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the
| App Store _and /or_ an alternative app marketplace will
| pay EUR0.50 for each first annual install
|
| emphasis added on and/or; it seems like Apple is being
| forced to break down fees according roughly to their
| costs (?). Maybe installs from altapp stores cost them
| some resources because they want to verify the
| notarization each time?
| layer8 wrote:
| Apps don't have to pay for notarization on MacOS, and
| nobody forces Apple to perform notarization in the first
| place. It's also implausible that there would be any
| notable cost per install.
| kevingadd wrote:
| That is the point. This is malicious compliance, presumably
| they expect to get away with it while the legislative/legal
| systems in the EU spend years grinding through the process
| of figuring out how to punish Apple for it.
| mrtksn wrote:
| What stops you from having limited edition apps? Only 1
| million copies and its gone, go download the next limited
| edition.
| layer8 wrote:
| Apple's business terms and/or app review rules, presumably.
| Do you seriously believe they would allow circumventing the
| fees that way?
| epberry wrote:
| This only applies if these developers move to the new terms it
| looks like. So these large apps can stay with their existing
| setups and not pay the fee.
| KomoD wrote:
| Not totally clear to me what "first annual install" means
| Waterluvian wrote:
| If I reinstall an app 10 times over two years it's 1.00.
|
| That's my guess.
| tech234a wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
| radley wrote:
| *First annual install.* This is the first time an app is
| installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After
| each first annual install, the app may be installed any
| number of times by the same account for the next 12 months
| with no additional charge. A first annual install may result
| from an app's first-time install, a reinstall, or an update
| from any iOS app distribution option -- including the App
| Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App
| Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and
| Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app.
|
| *One million free first annual installs.* Membership in the
| Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual
| installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App
| Store and/or alternative marketplaces.
|
| *Fee for each first annual install over one million.*
| Developers will pay a Core Technology Fee of EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install over one million in the past 12 months.
| KomoD wrote:
| Thanks, that's much clearer
| modeless wrote:
| This means that alternative app stores will essentially not be
| allowed to distribute free apps, right? As soon as they reach
| the install threshold they will start owing Apple money. And
| distributing an update counts as an "install" for the purposes
| of the fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-
| technology-fee/
| tech234a wrote:
| Alternative app stores have to pay the fee on every install
| with no threshold.
| StayTrue wrote:
| > One million free first annual installs. Membership in the
| Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual
| installs per year for free for apps distributed from the
| App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. [0]
|
| [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-
| fee/
| tech234a wrote:
| For alternative app stores specifically: "First annual
| installs included in your Apple Developer Program
| membership can't be used for marketplace apps."
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-
| marketpl...
| rpgwaiter wrote:
| If I run an alt app store, why the hell would I give apple
| a single penny? What are they gunna do, pull my store from
| their store?
| pb7 wrote:
| Yes?
| modeless wrote:
| They won't sign your store app and it won't install on
| anyone's phone. And they'll probably add any previously
| signed versions to a revocation list so existing installs
| of your store will be deleted immediately along with all
| the apps you distributed. That's the power of remaining a
| gatekeeper...
| Vespasian wrote:
| Now that weems only enforceable through notarization and
| the DMA clearly states that this is not allowed.
|
| (They'll argue that this fee is required to keep the
| platform save which is obviously bullshit)
| MoonlitKnight wrote:
| If only this company selling 1000EUR phones were allowed
| to make money off those phones somehow.
| AOsborn wrote:
| What? How do you think they support developing the OS,
| running security, notarizing and reviewing your apps etc.
|
| This needs to be funded somehow.
|
| I'm surprised there are commenters who have such a strong
| view - that they should just be able to access all the
| benefits of the iOS ecosystem that Apple has built over
| many years, and then have all that access for free too.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| I am equally surprised by your view.
|
| Apple sells hardware. They don't give away software for
| free, you (generally) need their hardware per their
| licensing agreements.
|
| You have to pay Apple $99/year to develop software for
| their ecosystem.
|
| I pay them for their hardware, I pay them to let me write
| software -- you want me to pay them when others use my
| software? What about when others view photos I take with
| my phone? Do they want a cut of that too?
|
| How anyone can think Apple's stance here is reasonable is
| beyond me. I haven't paid Microsoft anything in over a
| decade, I wonder how they can afford to fund Windows
| development?
| kevingadd wrote:
| It's funded by the comfortable margins on their hardware
| + the developer program fee. If the latter is somehow not
| big enough, they can raise it.
| dwallin wrote:
| I think this point is going to be the biggest sticking point
| to EU regulators. Third party app stores not being able to
| reasonably distribute free apps is a massive competitive
| disadvantage.
| shuckles wrote:
| How is it a competitive disadvantage when even regular App
| Store free apps also have to pay the fee?
|
| Oh I see: it seems like you only pay the fee if you choose
| to distribute outside the App Store.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I think the EU is going to have a hard time changing this,
| though. Because if Apple can't make money from licensing
| fees, they're asking Apple to spend all the engineering
| time developing APIs, xCode, etc. for free. They have the
| money, but in business it's not great to have a business
| unit operate without its own revenue or a path to
| profitability.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| If you've ever worked in an engineering team in a
| regulated market, this is commonplace. Regulators aren't
| here to ensure you, the regulated party, can make money.
| They are in place to ensure the marketplace as a whole is
| fair(ish). Compliance is costly.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Funny how compliance costing money is precisely what
| discourages new competitors in the market.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| A lot of sensible regulation provides escape hatches for
| smaller companies to avoid the huge costs of compliance.
| The exception is where there should be absolutely no
| exceptions, like medical regulation or privacy.
| waffleiron wrote:
| In this case regulation is the only thing causing
| competition, Apple was doing perfectly fine discouraging
| competitors themselves.
| kevingadd wrote:
| They're already pocketing 17% + the cost of every iDevice
| they sell. You're seriously going to say that's not
| enough?
| qwytw wrote:
| > they're asking Apple to spend all the engineering time
| developing APIs, xCode, etc. for free
|
| I find such arguments more than absurd,
|
| 1. They have no issue doing that on macOS
|
| 2. Apple needs third party developers as much as the
| other way around. They are not doing this for free, they
| would sell a lot less devices if third party Apps weren't
| supported.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Which can be paid for by selling hardware devices.
|
| The world does not own Apple any level of profit.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| Third party stores don't pay the per install fee, at least
| not beyond the install fee for their own store.
|
| Any apps distributed through third parties pay their own
| CTF if they meet the threshold.
|
| Threshold doesn't apply to third party app stores, they
| start paying per install of their store from the first
| install.
|
| So third party stores can host free apps without worrying
| about the CTF for those apps.
| greycol wrote:
| >Any apps distributed through third parties pay their own
| CTF if they meet the threshold.
|
| But that cost to free apps means that useful free apps
| won't sign up to the program, and therefore won't be
| available in the third party stores. It's a distinction
| without a difference. While I'm sure Apple will argue the
| distinction when they get pulled up on this, it's pretty
| obvious that the EU is expecting viable 3rd party stores
| and Apple will be forced to deliver it. The more they
| screw around the more likely that EU will set stronger
| regulations with less discretion on implementation.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| GP was talking about alternative stores picking up the
| tab for the apps they distribute. That's simply not the
| case.
|
| Now you bring up a new concern.
|
| Namely that useful free apps would get so popular outside
| of the App Store that they'll reach 1M installs on EU
| iPhones within a given year and that the cost per install
| they owe over installs in excess of that 1M would be
| prohibitively costly that they'd rather not.
|
| I think that's a pretty significant difference from the
| other scenario, one in which alternative stores are on
| the hook for all the apps they host. Normally I would
| chalk it up to a difference of opinion, but we're talking
| about significant factual differences.
|
| Meta-discussion aside, I struggle to come up with an
| example of such an app that currently exists and would be
| subject to that CTF.
|
| Non-profits, educational institutions and governments are
| exempt, so you'd almost certainly end up with an app by a
| company that extracts value out of it whether as a
| companion app to a service or some startup that's burning
| through runway money.
|
| Ultimately Apple wants to be paid for their IP, for the
| use of their frameworks and toolchain. Earlier this week
| some people were saying that Apple then should split off
| the fee for that from the commission. This is exactly
| that, and at a progressive rate where the first million
| installs is free, seems fair enough to me.
|
| I see no viability issues for third party stores here
| because one way or another there is no free lunch.
|
| > The more they screw around the more likely that EU will
| set stronger regulations with less discretion on
| implementation.
|
| As someone who used to practice law in the EU on an EU
| and international level this always makes me chuckle. The
| EU and its bodies are not some benevolent dictatorship
| that can do whatever they want. They too need to move
| within the bounds of the law and have been burned when
| crossing those boundaries.
|
| The DMA in its current form hasn't even been subjected to
| adjudication, which on its own is going to be quite
| interesting, much less some hypothetical v2 that is
| stricter.
|
| The main hurdle for the EU (and the US for that matter)
| is IP and property rights. You can't legislate your way
| around that without significant overhaul which would
| reverberate across all of commerce.
|
| Or put plainly: you can't just say "what's yours is now
| public domain".
|
| Closest you're ever going to get is "what's yours should
| be sold at a reasonable price to others" and it's going
| to be one hell of a burden to convince a court that this
| isn't a reasonable price at any given day, much less when
| there ample examples in the market that charge more.
|
| Another, more fundamental issue specific to the EU is
| that European courts really don't like laws that _look_
| like they target a specific company or individual. The
| DMA's issue is that it doesn't just look like that, it
| outright broadcasts that it does that.
|
| Apple had a decent chance at fighting the DMA as it
| currently exists, so to be quite honest, I expected them
| to make some basic concessions, await enforcement actions
| by the EC and then fight that tooth and nail.
|
| Instead, to my utter surprise, they capitulated in nearly
| everything and then went above and beyond the DMA
| requirements. The purpose of that is clear, to establish
| a very strong legal posture for the inevitable court
| case.
| kyriakos wrote:
| Seems like apple worked around the law but EU won't stay
| idle on this.
| sjwhevvvvvsj wrote:
| The way this always works is the law says "X", then
| various parties come up with self serving interpretations
| of what "X" means, if they don't mutually align they may
| go to a judge to figure out who's definition of "X" will
| prevail.
|
| It's a dance, everybody knows the steps. Tech companies
| know the longer they can keep making money with their
| version of "X" the better - even if they know damn well
| they will lose when it goes to trial - which can take
| over a decade in some cases.
|
| Microsoft practically invented the game, Google and Meta
| perfected it, and Apple is catching up.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Apple is just trying to dodge regulations. They'll get
| slapped with a fine and told to behave soon enough.
| internetter wrote:
| How can they be fined if they found a way to comply with
| the law? The law must first be ammended
| hamandcheese wrote:
| It remains to be tested if this truly complies with the
| law.
| kivle wrote:
| Apple's lawyers have been working hard to make it non-viable
| for third-party app stores while still complying with the law
| I guess. Sounds like this will be a no go in it's first
| incarnation and EU will have to come back with an even
| stricter version probably removing all control from Apple. EU
| does not fuck around when it comes down to it with things
| like this.
| modeless wrote:
| Sadly I bet they will get away with it. Apple is very good
| at this sort of thing.
| Hamuko wrote:
| For how long? EU is also pretty good at coming after
| companies. Remember when Apple dodged switching from
| Lightning when micro-USB was a thing and now they're
| forced into USB-C?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Which I think is a better outcome than if we'd gotten
| iPhones stuck on a local maxima of microUSB.
|
| As a consumer, lightning is a more pleasant to use
| connector than micro and therefore, I'm glad Apple didn't
| cave at that time.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| But you could've got USB-C almost a decade earlier tho
| sokoloff wrote:
| What was the advantage to me as a consumer if a 2015
| iPhone got USB-C? IMO, USB-C wasn't an advantage over
| Lightning then. (USB-C was not yet a common connector and
| most Apple users already had Lightning cables or could
| get by with the one included with the phone. Apple users
| had 3 years of orientation-independent convenience before
| USB-C arrived.)
|
| I still find plugging in the Lightning cable to be easier
| (less precise alignment needed) than a USB-C and by the
| time the iPhone 8 arrived with magnetic charging, any
| charging advantage to USB-C went away.
| kaba0 wrote:
| "Forced into", as if apple hasn't been producing
| literally every other items besides iphones with usb-c,
| based on their own choices.
|
| Of course if there were a law like that, they will rather
| point their fingers at the EU, over their users blaming
| apple for the slight inconvenience of changing.
| kivle wrote:
| Another example: It used to be that telecom companies
| used to milk cross country calls and data within the EU.
| The competition to provide cheap calls between countries
| was basically not working. So EU made it a requirement
| that you should not pay any extra at all for
| international calls between EU countries, and whatever
| data package you bought at home works everywhere within
| the EU with no extra charges.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > So EU made it a requirement that you should not pay any
| extra at all for international calls between EU
| countries, and whatever data package you bought at home
| works everywhere within the EU with no extra charges.
|
| Arguably that's not a new requirement, but simply the EU
| enforcing the existing single market rules.
| kivle wrote:
| It wasn't considered a part of the single market rules
| until new legislation was passed. It came into effect in
| 2019.
|
| https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/intra-
| eu-c...
|
| > Before Intra-EU communications were capped, the average
| standard price of a fixed or mobile intra-EU call tended
| to be three times higher than the standard price of a
| domestic call. While the standard price of an intra-EU
| SMS was more than twice as expensive as a domestic one.
| In some cases the standard price of an intra-EU call was
| up to ten times higher than the standard price for
| domestic calls.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| And this was such a good change! The degree to which
| companies get away with shenanigans outside of the EU is
| crazy.
| Klonoar wrote:
| I'd wager it's just going to take time, but the EU _did_
| successfully hamper Apple here. Give 'em some credit.
| tivert wrote:
| > Sadly I bet they will get away with it. Apple is very
| good at this sort of thing.
|
| Which is why new iPhones still have Lighting connectors.
| Oh wait.
|
| Just give it time to work its way out. We don't live in a
| cyberpunk dystopia yet.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Apple has zero leverage here. First, they are a foreign
| company so there is no local sympathy like in the Epic
| case. Secondly, the EU is already pissed off with Apple,
| hence the DMA. Thirdly, even if Apple doesn't care what the
| EU thinks, their shareholders surely do, since the EU has
| the capacity to inflict huge financial damage on Apple, via
| fines, import bans and/or much more punitive regulations.
|
| Fuck around, find out.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > there is no local sympathy like in the Epic case
|
| Epic is in no way more "European" than Apple.
| layer8 wrote:
| The Epic court case was in the US.
| the_duke wrote:
| The DMA gives realtively broad interpretation power to the
| the EU commission, so they can potentially shut this down
| without new regulation required.
|
| It's obviously malicious compliance that hopefully isn't
| justifiable.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's not free for Apple to host free apps either. Free apps
| get subsidized by IAP and other paid apps. An alternate app
| store would subsidize the install cost for free apps with the
| money they make from their cut of IAP and paid apps.
| EricE wrote:
| Which is why the real solution is for a mechanism to
| install code on an iOS device 100% outside of Apple's
| control similar to side loading on Android.
|
| I don't trust Apple at all with their capricious and
| arbitrary blocking of apps/updates. It was bad enough when
| it appeared to be mostly due to incompetence, but after
| what they did politically (and in concert with Google,
| Twitter and Facebook) to Parlor that's when any
| creditability they had for me in curating the app store
| went out the window. I don't care where you are on the
| political spectrum, when a company starts to go down that
| path it's a danger for all of us.
| AOsborn wrote:
| But why? Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating
| system, security, notarization etc - there are costs to be
| covered.
|
| Of course there are costs incurred per install. Previously
| there were covered by a higher 30% fee on app costs. Now,
| with opening up the platform to alternative stores, the EU
| has pushed Apple to a per-install model.
|
| So to me, this seems completely reasonable as a standard
| iPhone user.
|
| I understand the security and performance of the platform
| costs more - that is why I use an iPhone not an Android.
| coolspot wrote:
| > Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating system,
| security, notarization etc - there are costs to be covered.
|
| I paid $1300+ for my iPhone, I already covered those costs.
| tomp wrote:
| What costs are incurred per install?
|
| Exactly zero, for alternate App Stores.
| qwytw wrote:
| > Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating system,
| security, notarization etc - there are costs to be covered
|
| How are they covering it on macOS?
| layer8 wrote:
| Yes, except for nonprofits, educational organizations and
| such.
| radley wrote:
| > I think this essentially means that large developers pay
|
| This actually affects small devs as well. It's not that hard to
| hit 1M installs for free or inexpensive apps.
| zaphirplane wrote:
| I would love to easily hit a million installs on a side
| project app
| seszett wrote:
| Maybe not side projects, but I'm running Android and Kde
| Connect, Home Assistant, Element or Mastodon are all listed
| as having more than 1 million install. I can't imagine
| these FOSS projects paying any significant amount of money
| just to distribute their free apps.
|
| OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100
| million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't
| have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every
| month to Apple.
| otoburb wrote:
| >> _OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more
| than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They
| obviously don 't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on
| hand to pay every month to Apple._
|
| VideoLAN (VLC developer) is a non-profit so they are
| exempt from the Core Technology Fee even if they
| distribute on an alternate app store.
|
| "OsmAnd is developed by a Dutch private limited company,
| OsmAnd B.V. located in Amstelveen, the Netherlands"[1] so
| it looks like they would be subject to the CTF if they
| choose to distribute from an alternate app store or
| utilize a non-Apple payment processor; or they could
| stick to the existing business terms and continue as-is
| in the Apple App Store.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OsmAnd
| kaba0 wrote:
| Then they can distribute on the AppStore for 100 bucks
| per year.
| gmokki wrote:
| Would it be possible to create multiple separate apps each
| having max 1M users? This Firefox1 app would host first
| million, then be removed from store but still provide
| updates. It would be replaced by Firefox2 app. And so?
|
| Is there some clause in the contracts that says apps from
| same source will count as single app, no matter how many
| times they are uploaded as separate app?
| mckn1ght wrote:
| > be removed from store but still provide updates
|
| How do you provide updates after removing it from the
| store?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I wouldn't try it. :/
|
| It could easily fall under a fraud or abuse clause. If you
| decide to play games, Apple would be more than happy to
| pull their authorization and ban you out of spite. Now none
| of your apps work.
|
| It's unlikely but they could also pull a google and ban any
| company who hires you in the future.
| cozzyd wrote:
| It's about as maliciously compliant as Apple is being.
| summerlight wrote:
| Note that it also include other terms: *
| Reduced commission: 30% -> 17% * Payment processing fee:
| No fee to Apple
|
| Some big mobile games may opt in this option by removing IAP
| and using their own payment processor, if "update"s are not
| considered as "install"s. Looks like Apple is desperate on
| keeping those apps in their app store?
| rahkiin wrote:
| It seems updates also count. If they can cover that 50c for
| every non-paying user with the extra 10% profit on paying
| users they might switch.
| jsnell wrote:
| As far as I can tell, it's a bit more subtle than that. What
| Apple is doing is offering developers either the old deal (with
| all its now-illegal restrictions) or the new deal that removes
| the restrictions but adds the punitive Core Technology Fee. The
| intent is obviously for nobody with a large app to take the new
| deal, but for Apple to be able to claim that they've lowered
| the App Store fees and made allowed alternate stores.
|
| I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy
| into this scheme, but who knows.
| blibble wrote:
| > I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will
| buy into this scheme, but who knows.
|
| I think they're quite aware that they won't
|
| but that will take half a decade, and in the meantime, Apple
| will have made another couple of hundred billion dollars
| zarzavat wrote:
| The commission can (for example) put an import ban on
| iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the
| commission's interpretation of the DMA.
|
| Apple is free to argue their hopeless interpretation in
| court, but in the short term they will not get away with
| these delaying tactics.
| blibble wrote:
| > The commission can (for example) put an import ban on
| iPhones/iPads until Apple starts complying with the
| commission's interpretation of the DMA.
|
| yeah, but they won't
|
| the euroskeptics would absolutely LOVE it if they did
| Vespasian wrote:
| And it's a CYA against shareholder lawsuits.
|
| If they give in "without a fight" by following the spirit
| of the law (or even the letter) they will use a lot of
| income.
|
| Companies are not our friends (not our enemies either) and
| only form a fleeting alliance if the goal of makeing money
| aligns with the interest of the user.
|
| On this subject, for this company it doesn't.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It's a play for time hoping public opinion will change
| a1o wrote:
| Per month
| mandeepj wrote:
| > There are 2 billion active iOS devices
|
| Those are global numbers. So, when counting EU specific
| revenue, you can't use that number.
| baxtr wrote:
| As I understand this, no app developer is forced to change to
| the new terms:
|
| _> New Business Terms for Apps in the EU
|
| Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for
| developers' apps in the European Union. Developers can choose
| to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple's existing
| terms. Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps
| to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or
| alternative payment processing._
| asmor wrote:
| Well, duh, it's designed to keep every app with reach bound
| to the Apple App Store.
| mcfedr wrote:
| Here's hoping the EU just says no to this bull that Apple are
| coming up with. The so called "core technology" is sold by
| Apple to the user in iOS.
| buzzert wrote:
| It's not, actually. It's the salaries of the engineers who
| work on the frameworks and OS that underpin the apps these
| developers are writing.
|
| Are you proposing we should go back to charging users for
| software updates? Personally, I think it makes more sense to
| take a cut from other people doing business on top of the
| platform.
| summerlight wrote:
| Profit from the iPhone business alone should be much more
| than enough to pay those OS/framework developers since
| Apple claims that iOS and iPhone are
| indivisible/unsubstitutable parts to each other.
| kevingadd wrote:
| If Apple inexplicably chooses to sell iDevices so cheaply
| that they can't afford to pay the people who build the
| software for it, that's _their_ mistake. The EU isn 't
| forcing them to do that, neither are app developers.
| They've had years to remedy any pricing mistakes they made
| in the past and price their hardware appropriately.
|
| They also pull in billions of dollars every year from their
| 30% cut on gambling/gacha games, and do almost nothing to
| earn that (those games have to provide their own
| updater/CDN because the Apple/Google ones aren't good
| enough, and those games don't meaningfully rely on
| Apple/Google for things like quality assurance or
| marketing.) Apple will be fine even if their Europe-
| specific cut is halved.
|
| Claiming they're going to suffer or be unable to pay
| employees is simply not supported by any evidence.
| buzzert wrote:
| There's a difference between the one-time upfront cost of
| purchasing a device, and the recurring cost of supporting
| it with software updates (which is, in the most recent
| case, sometimes mandated). It's not a "pricing mistake".
| kevingadd wrote:
| You can bake that into the list price of the device based
| on how long you offer warranty coverage and/or updates.
| Every device vendor is already doing this unless they're
| completely clueless.
| layer8 wrote:
| Yes it is a pricing mistake. If I only use the built-in
| apps, Apple will earn nothing from my app usage, but they
| still have to provide security updates. And that should
| be the end of it.
| summerlight wrote:
| It's their job to set the proper price to cover the
| recurring cost, like all other companies.
| jeppester wrote:
| If they can't fund OS development without their App Store
| profits, which I highly doubt, then they should charge more
| for their OS.
|
| It cannot be a valid argument against regulation that your
| monopoly product supports other nonprofitable parts of your
| business.
|
| Such constructions are hurting competition and maintaining
| the status quo. It is very difficult to compete against a
| product which is priced unsustainably cheap.
| bryan_w wrote:
| Ideally you want your customers to be your customers and
| not your products. That way, the incentives are aligned
| orenlindsey wrote:
| What if someone malicious makes a bot to install an app on a
| ton of accounts? The dev would get charged for every single
| install.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| This was an issue when people were discussing unity per
| install fees.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Correct, and this includes app updates but they will only pay
| once per year. It is per "first annual install", not per
| install.
|
| Given that you have to update apps every year to support new
| iOS versions, this is essentially an annual tax per user.
| bluecalm wrote:
| One thing EU regulators could do is to say "ok but you have to
| charge the iOS user for it instead of the developer". Then if
| users accept it - fine, let them have it.
|
| The same should go for 30% appstore fee: make it explicit and
| add it to the user's bill: "1$ for the developer and your card
| is also charged separately with 30c Apple tax". That would
| actual competition for the best platform real.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| This only applies to install numbers within the EU.
|
| It's exactly what many have said Apple should do to get payment
| for usage of their IP: split it from the commission.
|
| So now you can pay separately for the IP, separately for
| payment processing and separately for App Store services or a
| combination of all of the above.
| sjwhevvvvvsj wrote:
| Eh, we know from the DoJ trial Google is already sending trucks
| full of cash down to Cupertino every day for search defaults.
| This may just add a little extra overhead on the next
| "protection" payment.
| jgrizou wrote:
| Is this going to make web Bluetooth work via Chrome on iOS?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Why isn't that possible right now? Couldn't they just code the
| Bluetooth side and put a bridge on top of Safari to it?
|
| Pretty sure some apps exist already that do this.
| tech234a wrote:
| Yes [1]
|
| [1]:
| https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143144...
| TobyTheDog123 wrote:
| What are the chances the United States (and others) follow suit?
| For startups, I assume most will continue to live on the App
| Store lest they force their users into two different experiences
| based on their location.
| ckorhonen wrote:
| The problem with the US, and we're already seeing it play out
| with things like CCPA (California's GDPR-like privacy
| legislation), is that it is difficult to get momentum and bi-
| partisan support for sweeping changes in Congress. It either is
| watered down or gets deadlocked, so you end up in a situation
| where you have patchwork legislation, often conflicting in
| scope, state-by-state. I wouldn't expect much to change in the
| short to medium term.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Right now, very slim. It's not in line with how the US views
| antitrust, and there isn't any real demand from voters.
|
| But it depends how this plays out in Europe. If 95% of popular
| apps stay on the App Store, then there will continue to be no
| appetite for change in the US.
|
| But if suddenly Europe is getting different, better apps than
| Americans are, there might be popular demand to change things.
| But in that case it's still easier to see Apple making the
| changes out of public demand, rather than US legislation.
|
| The most likely change in the US I would expect is Apple
| deciding to let Chrome and Firefox distribute their own browser
| engines in the US, if Chrome with a Chrome engine becomes
| popular in Europe and provides a lot of features Safari
| doesn't.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| My take is this will follow in the US IF a few large states
| make rulings on this and higher courts decline to hear appeals.
| Ex. GDPR -> CCPA -> most companies just did compliance anyway
| for the US because of California's size
| 911e wrote:
| They are way too kind, they should disable iMessage and iCloud
| for any alternative App Store due to "security issues" and call
| it a day, we don't need a meta store, they should have just let
| us install IPAs to avoid all that
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| You can already do all that on macos yet its somehow not a
| security issue and just how computers work in general there,
| and is somehow this huge security issue on mobile by apples
| marketing of the issue. The cognitive dissonance makes no
| sense. You'd have to gaslight everyones experienced with
| personal computing since its inception to make it make sense.
| Its solely about locking down the device to enforce their 30%
| cut because it started out that way. If they released desktop
| OSs today and not decades ago they'd try and pull this crap too
| alexsereno wrote:
| Yea and if the UX and safety are actually better consumers
| will pick the better, safer option in the whole. It's like
| wow I have my entire life's financial documents on my Mac but
| somehow downloading Firefox via Safari on my iPhone is so
| risky and unsolvable.
| bearjaws wrote:
| Not to mention, you cannot install Chrome on a non iOS
| device via the app store. It has to be done via Safari.
|
| So every time you see a Chrome MacOS user, they actually
| have successfully navigated the tReAcHeRoUs waters of
| _gasp_ downloading something.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| This can destroy the product experience.
|
| Worrying about browser engines was always misguided. Letting 5
| people use Gecko will be fantastic until Gecko is so irrelevant
| that even those people give up.
|
| Vendors like Microsoft having a large userbase attracted to good,
| reliable software to counter another browser's overt influence
| was always the solution. It's all about users.
|
| 25 million people on Firefox is not enough. Neither is 5,000 that
| switch their rendering engine in iOS. Firefox needs users for
| relevancy, not its own engine.
|
| To be clear, I'm not outraged by this EU edict. I'm saying it's
| irrelevant and misguided as most regulations are.
| timeon wrote:
| > as most regulations are
|
| This is bit too vague. For example, thanks to regulations most
| people do not need to work 12h a day.
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| So disappointed with the per install charge. Now the hoards of
| censored/banned apps still won't see the light of day on IOS.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Apple needs a Microsoft-2000s-era slapdown to put them in their
| place. Regardless of your thoughts on the situation, a mega/giga-
| corp flaunting the spirit of the rules is a bad sign for the
| future.
| olliej wrote:
| So we're agreed that playstation, xbox, and Nintendo stores
| should also be regulated in the same way?
| mmastrac wrote:
| Yes, 100%. But the size of the corp dictates the priority of
| the action. That puts Apple and Microsoft at the top of the
| list.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Each of these platforms' value propositions from earlier
| days was that some day it'd profit from its own controlled
| ecosystem. This is how they got investment. Apple and
| Nintendo in particular each held out a long time protecting
| the brand. There'd be no point in doing that if you're
| forced to support the competition anyway.
|
| And in each of these markets, users have other options if
| they want full hardware control. Clearly it wasn't a
| priority for many of them.
| mmastrac wrote:
| There's a long runway from "early market" to "total
| domination" to make money for investors. Nobody is
| shutting down the ability of limited or emerging markets
| to extract value, but once you reach Apple's size it's an
| entirely different story.
| hot_gril wrote:
| The runway is less than one human generation, or less
| than a home mortgage period. Some of these ventures are
| unprofitable for a decade. If an investor isn't thinking
| domination early on, they're thinking of getting it to
| the point where another investor would think that.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Perhaps profits-at-the-expense-of-everything-else is
| _not_ the right way we should be running the show.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Perhaps it is. The EU can see if their way helps them,
| though.
| mmastrac wrote:
| If you really believe that, I'm not sure what to say.
| riversflow wrote:
| So you can cheat against console players? Every device
| capable of doing computing doesn't need to be regulated as
| a general purpose computer.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I've yet to see any company solve the cheating problem in
| any game. People forget that Valve gave up on the ring0
| stuff not because it was unpopular, but because it
| stopped being effective.
| zmk5 wrote:
| Yes!
| progbits wrote:
| Always the same whataboutism in these threads. Do we have to
| solve all things at once, or do you hold some weird belief
| that the world must be absolutely fair?
|
| For what it's worth I would answer your question with yes,
| but this question has no bearing on this thread.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's already perfect. Those game console-makers etc get to
| run their platforms the way they want, I get to choose what
| to buy, and I'm glad that this will probably never
| meaningfully change.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| No, because they are gaming consoles, not (Very) Personal
| Computers.
| neogodless wrote:
| Yes, as they are general computing devices I use widely for
| my everyday computing, and I should have complete control
| over all software I put on them!
| kube-system wrote:
| Game consoles are often used as examples of special-purpose
| computers, in contrast to general-purpose computers.
| musictubes wrote:
| Why? Why _should_ every device that is capable be forced to
| be capable? This is such a wide held assumption in tech
| circles. Why is it not good enough that there are devices
| that allow that while other companies pursue a different
| business model? I do not see the upside of catering to
| techie's entitlement to using every device as they see fit.
| I certainly see the downside of limiting what business
| models companies can purse. As as been pointed out it isn[t
| clear that companies like Nintendo would have been able to
| make what they have in that regime. And there's no question
| that the trajectory of the iPhones would have been
| different as well.
|
| It is so frustrating to constantly hear that a popular
| device should be forced to work a different way. The
| typical reasons given are inevitably tied up with piracy,
| porn, and techbro condescension revolving around how people
| should adapt their usage to accommodate their technical
| superiors. Why can't people that demand that they should be
| able to do whatever they want on their device simply use
| the devices that allow that?
| hot_gril wrote:
| I'm not fond of calling people names, but yes, for all
| the times I've heard this, nobody has convinced me of
| _why_ every piece of hardware and software needs to be
| forcibly open-source or whatever.
| danielbln wrote:
| Yes.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Priorities! Sure yes we should fix them but they are so far
| down the list of goals we focus on important issues first.
| summerlight wrote:
| Why not focus on Apple? That will give Sony, MS and Nintendo
| some lesson.
| realusername wrote:
| If that can stop that argument yeah why not, lets open
| markets.
| zitsarethecure wrote:
| That would be great.
| hot_gril wrote:
| My thought on the situation is these rules are dumb and deserve
| to be flaunted in this case.
| pennomi wrote:
| Allowing users the ability to choose their preferred app
| store is dumb?
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yes, and more importantly, EU forcing Apple to do it is
| also dumb.
| timeon wrote:
| Why?
| riversflow wrote:
| You can just buy another product. That's why it is dumb.
| There are plenty of great non-Apple smartphones on the
| market.
| bnt wrote:
| First they need to slim down the hardware offering. I can't
| even recommend an iPad to family members anymore, because there
| are so many of them with minor differences. Same for the
| phones. Even the MBP line is now convoluted with MBP14 getting
| the baseline M3 processor.
| legitster wrote:
| I mean, if a company is being mandated to do something dumb or
| bad, I think it's fine for them to say so publicly. They are
| complying with the law, they don't have to like it, and we
| don't have to care.
|
| The alternative is PRISM stuff where they were mandated not to
| disclose any of the regulations they were being put under and
| society largely suffered for it.
| timeon wrote:
| > alternative is PRISM stuff
|
| There is country based on "free speach" [0] and then there is
| EU.
|
| [0] "Empty vessels make the most noise."
| Yujf wrote:
| Except they are not mandated to do something dumb or bad.
| They are choosing to do something dumb and bad instead of
| doing something great
| legitster wrote:
| I'm not arguing they are, but they are free to make their
| point. We all change our tune when companies criticize and
| fight encryption backdoors.
|
| A key component of fascist economies was that industries
| were completely captured by politicians and bound to
| perform the duties of the state. So I pretty strongly
| believe that companies providing feedback to politicians
| and the public about the impact of proposed laws is
| generally a good thing.
|
| This is said as a lifelong Apple hater. I'm enjoying a bit
| of a popcorn moment here, but I also give them the right to
| bitch about it a little.
| throwaway918274 wrote:
| How did that slapdown work for Microsoft? They are about as
| bad, if not worse today than they were back then.
| layer8 wrote:
| They sure could use another slapdown.
| Yujf wrote:
| Yeah clearly they need to be slapped around consistently. Not
| just once.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| About time. Can't wait to see this roll out worldwide!
|
| With users able to access bleeding edge browser technologies like
| WASM and WebGPU, developers and users will finally get an
| alternative to native apps.
| axlee wrote:
| A clear sign that good anti-monopoly regulations result in a
| better world. Less rent-seeking from Apple at the expense of
| smaller software developers, more agency for users when it comes
| to choosing their browser engine. I am sorry for non-EU
| consumers.
| wvenable wrote:
| Apple has found a way to comply with the letter of this law but
| not the spirit. Although there are a few good results from this
| legislation and Apple (alternative browser engines), Apple has
| otherwise managed to mitigate nearly everything else to where
| there will be no significant difference for end users or
| developers.
| andylynch wrote:
| They certainly have. Even re: browser engines, they are
| saying alternative ones will only be permitted in the EU.
| multimoon wrote:
| I would argue that the regulation seems pretty ineffective
| since it was clearly too vague to force any change productive
| to the average end user. You can only get things through
| "approved marketplaces" where apple still has to notarize and
| still collects a fee. This new "core technology fee" is also
| concerning.
|
| The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an android
| level of openness, and it seems to have failed at that and
| apple has made the experience altogether worse in retaliation.
|
| For the record - I'd love to have side loading on my phone. I'd
| love to be able to load IntelliJ on an iPad, but it is not the
| place of a government to regulate how a company is able to use
| their own platform that they developed with their own money and
| tools. It is not a monopoly, android exists so there is still
| user choice. Are we going to start worrying about the inability
| to download doom to your Samsung fridge because it doesn't
| offer user choice?
|
| I'd argue that this isn't a good example of an effective anti
| monopoly regulation, it's a good example of how government
| regulation tends to just result in things being worse and more
| complex as everyone enters a race to sidestep.
| wvenable wrote:
| > but it is not the place of a government to regulate how a
| company is able to use their own platform that they developed
| with their own money and tools.
|
| Umm, yes it is. There are plenty of government regulations of
| companies that are like this but you're so used to it
| elsewhere that you don't notice or think about it.
| multimoon wrote:
| I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both
| spent billions developing and maintaining their respective
| platforms. A government entity shouldn't be able to
| overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and
| distribute their own platform.
|
| If Apples decisions were truly so anti-consumer, then
| consumers would use a different platform, such as android.
| This is as a developer who has to pay the App Store fees.
|
| All this regulation has done is make the app acquisition
| experience on iOS worse as a whole and laid a minefield of
| vague legal regulations and lawsuits yet to come.
| wvenable wrote:
| Apple (and every other company) is already subject to
| tons of consumer regulations -- many of them already
| concerning how they maintain, manage, and distribute
| their own platform. So why are all those regulations ok
| but this one isn't? If we remove all consumer protections
| and regulations then consumers could still -- as you say
| -- choose to use a different platform.
|
| You could argue this specific regulation itself is bad --
| like you can with all other regulations -- but the
| concept of regulating a business for the benefit of
| consumers has long been already decided everywhere in the
| world.
| multimoon wrote:
| I don't have any substantive basis to argue some other
| regulation versus this one that isn't an emotional basis
| as a developer without doing further research, but this
| regulation has now inadvertently made it a worse
| experience. To my perception this regulation has gone far
| deeper than any before defining the "market gatekeepers"
| and attempting to govern how a company can monetize its
| own market. Regulations are usually "how a company can
| sell a product in the free market" not "how a company can
| monetize the services of its already existing product".
| That is a consideration of the consumer during purchasing
| of the product, or a consideration of the developer when
| developing for it.
|
| At the minimum, this was a poorly planned and executed
| regulation as displayed by Apple here.
| toyg wrote:
| You should read up on the evolution of business
| regulations in the XIX and XX century.
|
| TL;DR: this is nowhere near the most-reaching one, nor
| the first to regulate how businesses can sell stuff in
| their own markets.
|
| Apple and Google (and Facebook, and Amazon, and Adobe,
| and and and...) are not special: they are just entitled.
| multimoon wrote:
| Digital services revenue didn't exist in the 19th and if
| even at all during the end of the 20th century, so this
| is still a relatively new space in the timescale of
| government regulation, and is an entirely new type of
| market.
| toyg wrote:
| Financial services, subscriptions, and other service-
| based commercial relationships pre-date digitalisation by
| decades. The main differences for digital products are
| actually items that Apple are rejecting even today: the
| fact that national borders are disappearing, and that
| unregulated everything-as-subscription creates neofeudal
| relationships. Hopefully we'll address that at some
| point.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| EU citizens are so used to onerous regulation they don't
| connect it to their non-existent tech sector.
| toyg wrote:
| Regulation is not the problem in Europe; lower
| concentration of capital and higher risk-aversion are.
| drooopy wrote:
| What kind of "onerous regulation" are we used to,
| exactly?
| kaba0 wrote:
| > The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an
| android level of openness
|
| And if I'm reading it right, both apple and the eu (and its
| citizens) can share a cake happily - a nonprofit org can
| create an app store without any fees (f-droid alternative),
| where end-users can _safely_ install actually free and not
| freemium software, while meta /google will be blocked from
| leeching on the platform due to their network effect, at
| least doing free apps as a for profit company (aka, where the
| user itself is what gets sold) will not be financially
| sensible way, so they have to play by apple's ways (which is
| again, both a win for apple and the end-users for stricter
| privacy regulations).
|
| Also, I do think that certain specialized, commercial
| software may find its niche on alternative stores, and that's
| also a win for everyone - they surely calculated that
| transaction costs not going through apple is better for them
| even with the cost.
|
| So, I don't see the problem.
| matwood wrote:
| > The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an
| android level of openness
|
| If regulation is supposed to help consumers, and a large
| percentage of consumers have chosen the non-Android option,
| why was any regulation needed? No one was being forced onto
| iOS.
|
| I think the (supposedly approved) rules ended up convoluted
| because many (most?) users are perfectly fine with iOS when
| given the choice, and the EU had to accept that fact.
| grishka wrote:
| > I am sorry for non-EU consumers.
|
| I'm sure there will be a way around this geoblock in no time.
| It may be as simple as changing the country in your Apple ID --
| just put a random address from that country in there and you're
| done.
| akmarinov wrote:
| As someone who has tried to get the non-VAT US prices - you
| need a credit card issued in the country you claim you're
| from before downloading any apps.
| grishka wrote:
| That's if you plan to pay. You can download free apps
| without a credit card. I changed my app store country from
| Russia to the US this way because I got fed up with some
| free apps being unavailable _because reasons_.
|
| But even if you do want to pay for things, I suppose you
| can make a second account for the desired country, activate
| your iPhone and set up alternative app stores with that,
| and then log into your real one.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >Less rent-seeking from Apple
|
| Core technology fee
| drooopy wrote:
| Their entire response is so petty. Borderline unprofessional in
| its tone, really.
| nomel wrote:
| Could you quote an example?
| drooopy wrote:
| Sure: "This change is a result of the DMA's requirements, and
| means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default
| browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the
| options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU
| users' experience the first time they open Safari intending
| to navigate to a webpage."
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Read the article?
| user_7832 wrote:
| It's the corporate equivalent of throwing a tantrum. A far cry
| from the professional image they try to project.
| Agingcoder wrote:
| I had the same feeling, and was very surprised. It's like a
| child being told there are rules ( I'm not saying whether the
| rules are good or not ).
| toyg wrote:
| Absolutely. If I were an employee I'd be utterly ashamed right
| now. They had to be dragged into this literally kicking and
| screaming. Atrocious behaviour.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Yeah it's incredibly out of character as well. Apple has always
| been very clear in their comms with end users. While this is
| directed towards developers mostly, it's still a public
| announcement where the tantrum is mixed with incoherent and
| vague information. The fact that they are not communicating
| clearly what all these scam/fraud/safety risks are strengthens
| the belief that this is a tantrum in the style of a kid who's
| reluctantly following the parents rules at a friend's
| sleepover, but makes it a sport to circumvent them. Perhaps
| because they can do whatever they want at home?
|
| Also, why have this publicly antagonistic relationship with a
| large governmental organization in the first place? It reeks of
| entitlement "we're above the law" and/or misreading the room
| that Europeans are unanimously dissatisfied under the tyranny
| of EU bureaucracy, when that's not the case at all. In fact,
| the EU has recovered well in public perception after several
| massive crises.
| Readerium wrote:
| Key facts to note:
|
| * Apple has 22 percent market share in EU [1]. * EU Economy is 15
| percent of World Economy [2]. * EU population is 5.5 percent of
| World Population [3].
|
| [1] https://appleworld.today/apple-now-has-22-of-the-
| smartphone-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
|
| [3] https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-
| histor...
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Weak. What happened to Schrems 2 de facto banning GAFAMs (and
| other companies from rogue states like the USA) in the EU ?
|
| Instead they are legitimizing these companies ?!?
|
| (Also, we'll never see serious competition from EU companies as
| long as these giants are allowed to operate here... and also just
| buy any potential competition.)
| bsaul wrote:
| Was the EU decision that people should be able to install other
| app stores, or that they could install apps the way they wanted ?
| panzerboy wrote:
| I'm wondering if these new regulations apply to Switzerland as
| well.
| layer8 wrote:
| > The new capabilities will become available to users in the 27
| EU countries beginning in March 2024.
|
| So no.
| tkems wrote:
| This seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a
| simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few
| warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-
| priced lawyers think this up.
|
| Also, what is this Core Technology Fee for all apps? Maybe Apple
| has been losing money on the App Store infrastructure so they
| want to make it up? Or is this just a bid to try and keep as much
| control as possible? Seems that Apple wants to go into this
| kicking and screaming...
|
| As someone in cybersecurity, I understand the need for secure
| apps, but I think Apple has been going about it in the wrong way.
| acdha wrote:
| > This seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a
| simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few
| warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-
| priced lawyers think this up.
|
| You know how every few weeks there's an article about something
| dodgy in an alternate Android store which the scammer never
| even bothered to submit on iOS? There's a real problem here and
| these seem generally like solid technical moves but paired with
| heavy handed language which reminds me of the way so many
| websites put up those "look at all the cookies the mean old EU
| is making us tell you about!" warnings. Notarization in
| particular seems like a good move for avoiding the common
| problems around impersonation or silent alteration of binaries,
| and I think the browser engine requirements are justifiable
| solely by looking at how many popular Electron apps take months
| to patch critical vulnerabilities.
| timeon wrote:
| > reminds me of the way so many websites put up those "look
| at all the cookies the mean old EU is making us tell you
| about!" warnings.
|
| "so many" shady websites
| kevingadd wrote:
| "Maybe Apple has been losing money on the App Store
| infrastructure so they want to make it up" is a plausible
| theory, but there's no data to support it since mobile
| gacha/gambling apps pull in billions a year and Apple pockets
| 30% of it. Those games don't make particularly heavy use of
| Apple's infrastructure either, so I would guarantee that they
| are making a healthy profit every year on the store.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It has become absolutely impossible for alternative with Apple on
| this. They are loving these regulations.
| ljm wrote:
| I remember when Riccitiello announced per-install pricing for
| Unity last year and it, quite literally, cost him his job
| gigatexal wrote:
| Unity didn't have an App Store with 3B devices.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| Unity didn't have a monopoly on PC gaming or installing
| software on PCs.
| gigatexal wrote:
| that too
| threesevenths wrote:
| Unity also announced that it would retrospectively apply to all
| developers who already publish games. Apple is apparently going
| to let developers remain in the current model or opt into the
| new one, and if that is correct, makes a difference here.
| atlasgcx wrote:
| just want to point out that 1 "update" is also considered 1
| "first annual install". So essentially you need to pay for
| previous acquired members/installs. Like for facebook,
| assuming they have a force update this year, then they need
| to pay for every iOS install even if it occurred before.
| oakesm9 wrote:
| Yes, but only if they proactively switch to the new fee
| terms. They can still with the current terms (which doesn't
| allow non AppStore distribution) and not pay the CTF.
|
| Makes switching to the new fee structure pretty
| unattractive for a lot of big companies.
| gretch wrote:
| The AppStore is a distribution channel. It's a plausible
| business model to charge per unit of distribution, just like a
| freight company might do.
|
| Unity is a game framework/toolkit/engine. It does not do
| distribution (I sign into unity to download games?). It is
| literally impossible for unity to even know about the amount of
| distribution that is happening. That's why the guy lost his
| job.
|
| Same way the CEO of McDonald's would be ousted for instituting
| subscription based pay for cheeseburgers, even though Spotify
| can do it just fine.
| leereeves wrote:
| This fee is charged even if the app isn't distributed on the
| App Store.
| choppaface wrote:
| Except Apple's App Store has a monopoly on half of all
| phones, and there are plenty of other potential distributors
| that would be happy to enter and compete but are locked out.
| Apple wants you to accept that "just a distribution model"
| position because it helps them further cement their illegal
| monopoly.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> Apple ... on half of all phones
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-
| ma...
|
| 40% in some places, not even that high globally (android
| wins by a large margin). But android isn't "one company".
|
| In the states, AT&T was a monopoly. They owned phones, the
| cables, the service, the device in your house... All of it.
| The rise and fall of ATT is a fascinating story, unix is
| free today because ATT was a monopoly (it's an interesting
| side effect not an argument for them).
|
| If you dont like apple, you have the choice of android. If
| you dont like nividia, you can pick AMD, if you dont like
| AMD, pick intel. Dont want to get on that Boeing flight,
| take Airbus...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly they exist all over
| and sometimes behave like monopoly's! Vendor lock in is
| real... I dont want to give up my iMessage bubbles is not
| that much different than not wanting to re-train pilots for
| something other than a 737 (and we get the max).
|
| Apple is much easier to pick on in this space because they
| have always aspired to be a vertically integrated company.
| YKK is a great example of one of these. They (ykk) make the
| zippers that DONT suck, they are just expensive vs
| everything else (sound like apple vs android).
|
| SO while the situation with apple might be lamentable, it
| isnt illegal or uncommon...
| goosedragons wrote:
| Over 50% in some places like the U.S and Japan...
| kaba0 wrote:
| 2 options is no choice. An oligopoly is not necessarily
| better than a monopoly.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >monopoly on half of all phones
|
| So, not a monopoly. If Apple is doing something
| inappropriate, you'd think we could discuss it without
| using boogeyman words that describe explicitly different
| situations.
| jimkoen wrote:
| > The AppStore is a distribution channel.
|
| Except that EU regulators are of a different opinion, that
| the app store is a _market_ and not a _distribution channel_
| and thus subject to antitrust regulations applicable for
| markets, as can be observed by spelling out the acronym DMA
| to "Digital Markets Act".
| gretch wrote:
| Market places and distribution channels are not mutually
| exclusive concepts
| supermatou wrote:
| Firefox hardcore user here -- and someone not at all versed in
| anti-monopoly laws.
|
| Could someone explain why the EU forced Apple to allow
| alternative browser engines in their own eco-system ("walled
| garden")? It's theirs, shouldn't they do whatever they want with
| it? It's not like there aren't any alternatives to iOS - Android
| is excellent and you can use many different browsers on Android.
| So... where's the problem?
| dharmab wrote:
| The EU has a law called the Digital Markets Act.
|
| https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
|
| The EU's position is that a company is large and influential
| enough, with an entrenched market position, it does not get to
| "do whatever they want" because of the harm that causes to the
| economy overall. A monopoly is not a criteria for this.
| supermatou wrote:
| > a company is large and influential enough, with an
| entrenched market position, it does not get to "do whatever
| they want" because of the harm that causes to the economy
| overall.
|
| I'm not sure I understand: this would be applicable if Apple
| was the only provider of phone/mobile OS. But... Apple is
| just one of the players; if I was adamant that Firefox -
| which, again, I've been using for the past 20 years - is the
| only browser I want to use on mobile, I'd simply give up on
| iPhones and buy something else. So, again, as long as I have
| a choice, where is the problem?
| toyg wrote:
| You'll still have the choice to just use Safari and Apple
| AppStore products, so nothing is changing for you as a
| consumer. But _other_ consumers will now have more choices.
| So why is that a problem for you?
|
| Btw, Apple is not "just one of the players". Them and
| Google completely control the mobile computing software
| market. Both them and Google are now required to stop
| abusing their position.
| dharmab wrote:
| As said preciously, the EU considers large companies with
| gatekeeper status a problem _regardless of whether they
| have a monopoly_.
|
| In your example, Firefox/Mozilla is harmed, because they're
| locked out of the iOS market unfairly.
| darrenBaldwin03 wrote:
| It's actually getting really hard to like Apple
| mjburgess wrote:
| > https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
|
| 2,000,000 installs acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees, even if
| you don't make any money
|
| That's up from $0 USD.
| TillE wrote:
| Yeah this is brutal for any truly free app that risks getting
| popular. The only exceptions are for "Nonprofit organizations,
| accredited educational institutions, and government entities",
| so I guess at least Mozilla will find a way to distribute
| Firefox.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
| lxgr wrote:
| I wonder if Mozilla will even be considered a nonprofit,
| given that they have a for-profit subsidiary, and they're not
| the only nonprofit with that structure.
| audunw wrote:
| Wait what? The nonprofit organisation thing seems very
| significant. That makes it fairly easy to get around if
| you're just developing an app for fun, or for open source
| organisations to get apps distributed.
|
| So what are we left with? Apps where users are the product,
| like Facebook, and freemium apps where you end up paying to
| get anything useful done with it anyway. Apps where the
| parent company is making millions if not billions. Is anybody
| upset that those guys have to chip in for iOS development?
|
| I personally think Apples approach is the lesser of two
| evils. We don't pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at
| Windows and Android... you end up paying somehow in the end
| anyway. I'd rather it be through fees on apps than more
| insidious approaches.
|
| And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for
| the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates
| for old phones. And we know that's a real issue. As long as
| we pay through app fees the phone makers are incentivised to
| keep releasing OS updates for old phones.
| rany_ wrote:
| > Windows and Android... you end up paying somehow in the
| end anyway
|
| I'm not sure why I have to mention this, but you could be
| paying for something and get screwed over at the same time.
| The issue isn't that Google/Microsoft/etc NEED to make
| money this way, but that this is legal to do.
|
| Also, Windows isn't exactly cheap and I personally couldn't
| fathom paying more than 100 bucks for an OS and still get
| treated like crap. I'm sure Android at best only makes 10
| bucks from their users with their current model throughout
| the device's entire lifetime.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their
| users with their current model throughout the device's
| entire lifetime.
|
| I'm pretty sure Google pays Apple more than $10 per year
| per iPhone user to be the default search on iPhones and
| Mac. They were paying 18 billion back in 2021. I don't
| think Apple's marketshare is over 1.8 billion active
| users yet. Do you think Apple users are just that much
| more valuable to have searching?
| amaranth wrote:
| According to [1] the estimated number of iPhone users
| (leaving out any Mac users) in 2024 is 1.46 billion.
|
| [1] https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/number-of-iphone-
| users
| ankit219 wrote:
| > So what are we left with?
|
| Gaming apps. A huge majority of Apple's revenue (from IAP)
| came from gaming purchases. This would continue to be the
| case. A gaming app would have ads + options for purchases
| (none can survive without it) and Apple now earns both on
| downloads and IAPs. Many games cross the 1M threshold once
| they are popular enough. Gaming apps have low retention,
| and a power curve in paying users.
| kaba0 wrote:
| And? Other's shitty shady app store would never have been
| a good thing - now it is just gonna be financially
| disincentivized.
| eptcyka wrote:
| As someone trying to contribute to an open source iOS
| app, an app store that doesn't require me to pay money to
| use the NFC entitlement, muck about changing bundle IDs
| to be able to build an open source app and run it on my
| own device, or build an app that I can use for longer
| than 7 days without publishing to an app store, I take
| issue with your framing of other app stores. The original
| app store is already shitty, this legislation will make
| it not worse, but it will not be the solution to my
| personal woes with the shitty app store.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs
|
| Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to
| that outcome.
|
| They can either stick with the 15%/30% commission without
| install fees. Let's assume it has a revenue of >$1m, so
| that would be 30%.
|
| Or they can opt into the new EU offering.
|
| Then they're immediately subject to a EUR0.50/unique
| install in 12 months per install in the EU _over_ they
| reach a 1M installs _in the EU_.
|
| The baseline is just that, that install fee. Which Apple
| calls the Core Technology Fee (CTF), in other words a fee
| for using Apple's IP in your app.
|
| If they also choose to distribute via the App Store then
| they'll pay a commission of 17% and if they also choose
| to use IAP then they pay an additional 3% in processing
| fees.
|
| Ironically, the CTF pushes bigger devs to use alternative
| stores, assuming they will offer a lower commission rate
| than 17%.
|
| But it's definitely possible to only pay the CTF if so
| desired.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _But look at Windows and Android... you end up paying
| somehow in the end anyway._
|
| Microsoft updates Windows OS for longer than Apple updates
| MacOS or iOS, despite charging a one-time fee that most
| end-users don't pay themselves.
|
| And is backwards compatible.
|
| And works with 99.999999% of the computer hardware ever
| made.
|
| It seems like with Apple, you're just paying for a lot of
| nothing.
| pharmakom wrote:
| I once would have agreed with you, but the advertisements
| and pushiness in Windows are simply unacceptable at this
| point.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The EU is fixing that as well - we'll soon see the
| privacy version of Win 11 launched in the EU as well.
| daemonologist wrote:
| Do you need to be an "official" nonprofit, or is it
| sufficient just to have an app which generates no revenue?
| If the former, how difficult/expensive is that in the EU?
| markus92 wrote:
| Depends on the country, but in The Netherlands it's
| around 500ish to set up a Stichting (foundation) plus
| some annual fees.
| kaba0 wrote:
| You only need a single nonprofit that creates an F-Droid
| alternative, and then it can distribute other's open-
| source projects freely
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I wouldn't call that "fairly easy" in most senses of the
| term.
|
| For instance I didn't even have an idea of what's required
| in my place to get recognized as non-profit. And it turns
| out it's specific to each region, and I need to go ask for
| the paperwork in the first place.
|
| If the requirement is really a non profit legal status,
| Apple just raised the bar from "apps that just make no
| money" to "apps that registered to their local governing
| bodies that they have a goal of not making money", and
| that's a huge leap with a crazy high barrier for a random
| dev (imagine a kid in uni) to push a free app.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But then don't pick the new terms.
|
| If you want to continue to distribute your app for free in
| Apple's app store, literally nothing changes.
| kevingadd wrote:
| This approach is a gotcha: If you want to distribute
| Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome for free, this isn't
| possible under the old policy, and the new policy would
| mean 'open source web browsers cost half a euro per
| update'. It's nonsense.
| natch wrote:
| But the old policy allows distribution of these apps for
| free and developers have the option of sticking with the
| old policy -- so I don't see the problem.
| greycol wrote:
| Apples argument that they're complying is about as
| brilliant as "I don't need a liquor license because I'm
| not selling beer I'm renting glassess for the time it
| takes to drink a beer". The only way to get into 3rd
| party stores is to pay (or be at risk of having to pay)
| Apple which is not the case if you only distribute
| through the Apple store, this clearly disadvantages 3rd
| party stores in comparrison to their own store.
| kaba0 wrote:
| In general, getting into a 3rd party store is _not_ a
| good thing, and it doesn't benefit end-users.
|
| I only ever want to see 2 app stores on my phone, the
| AppStore, and an FDroid alternative full of free, open-
| source apps. Anything else is good to be disincentivized.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Do they have a provision that one will be able to JIT
| code in their blessed AppStore in EU now? If so, I've
| misread the announcement, as I didn't get that.
| MrDarcy wrote:
| Doesn't seem like nonsense to me. Mozilla is a registered
| nonprofit so they're fine. Google could donate Chrome to
| a non-profit if they wish, or not and pay. Seems
| reasonable.
| crazygringo wrote:
| As far as I can tell, alternative browser engines are
| going to be allowed in the old terms.
|
| Apple points out that the new terms are required for
| third-party app stores and third-party payments. Not for
| browser engines.
|
| I'm expecting both Google and Mozilla to make their
| browsers, with their engine, available in Apple's regular
| store.
|
| (And even in the new agreement, it's not half a euro per
| update. It's per year that contains an install or update.
| If you update 12 times a year, you're not paying 12
| times. You're paying once.)
| turquoisevar wrote:
| Truly free apps can remain on the current agreement of
| 15%/30% without install fee.
|
| The new EU stuff is opt-in.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Aren't they then subjected to the current AppStore's
| limitations on open source licenses ?
|
| I thought that's what barred many open source programs from
| getting into the AppStore, and this would be a different
| but still PITA hurdle.
| qilo wrote:
| per month
| ladberg wrote:
| Nope:
|
| > will pay EUR0.50 for each first annual install per year
| over a 1 million threshold
|
| EDIT: I misread, I thought they were arguing that the 50c was
| per month, not the total number at the end of the
| calculation.
| halostatue wrote:
| Yes. The calculator shows a monthly amount assuming you get
| your annual-user-device-install spread evenly over the
| year. It _should_ be showing the annual cost as the total
| and as a convenience show the average monthly cost.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Well. It's still $0 USD if you distribute via the App Store.
| lxgr wrote:
| It's not, at least not if developers opt into the new terms,
| which is a trapdoor decision. It's also unclear how long the
| old terms will remain available, and whether new companies
| can still sign up for them.
| yreg wrote:
| It's $99 USD per year.
| matwood wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted. Developers are given a choice
| on the new system or the current. Anyone distributing a free
| app will stick with the current.
| boolemancer wrote:
| There exist free apps that Apple doesn't approve of in it's
| store.
|
| And there are also free apps that might want to be
| distributed through Apple's store alongside an alternative
| store, which would require them to accept the new terms, as
| far as I can tell.
| layer8 wrote:
| ...which you can't if your app is excluded by Apple's current
| restrictions (emulators etc.).
| TheCapeGreek wrote:
| Far too many comments are glossing over this.
|
| To comply with the regulation they've introduced _even more
| egregious pricing_.
| dt3ft wrote:
| Also known as malicious compliance.
| natch wrote:
| Protective compliance.
|
| Protect the users from misguided legislation.
| rvba wrote:
| Alternative ways to download apps has nothing to do with
| user protection.
|
| All Apple is doing is protecting their pockets.
| oblio wrote:
| Protect the company from losing $10bn per year, more like
| it.
| AOsborn wrote:
| I don't think it is egregious at all.
|
| Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view
| that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or
| done out of goodwill.
|
| So, now there is the option for alternative marketplaces, the
| costs have been shifted to those marketplaces.
|
| Makes complete sense.
|
| It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a
| monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to
| operate.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| in what way would an alternative store, managed by a third
| party, be a cost for Apple?
| kaba0 wrote:
| The reviewing process done by apple still applies to
| them.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| what review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and
| per install? come on...
| layer8 wrote:
| A review process which the DMA does not require.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| The reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do.
| What a racket this whole thing this is.
| timeon wrote:
| Just let me install my own app ok? No need for review.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Would you be OK with that if it voided your warranty?
| boolemancer wrote:
| As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party
| app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to
| be covering, sure.
| baobun wrote:
| The spirit (someone else may fill in with the letter) of
| the DMA is that this can not be enforced by Apple.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They've introduced pricing that their lawyers think is
| compatible with the regulation (the regulations don't ban
| egregious pricing). Frankly, I think Apple should have just
| allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of
| malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves
| if they want to risk it or not.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Frankly, I think Apple should have just allowed third
| party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud
| protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they
| want to risk it or not.
|
| Apple did not do this because consumers do not value
| malware and fraud protection nearly as much as Apple would
| like everyone to believe.
| kaba0 wrote:
| It's up from $100 USD, which is the yearly fee of a developer
| account. And you can choose the now-existing model, which
| obviously makes sense for a free app, so no, it stays 100.
| natch wrote:
| That's only if the developer opts into the new needless system
| imposed by the EU.
| ljm wrote:
| This press release could not be more passive aggressive. Barely a
| sentence goes by without a petulant remark about _gasp_ being
| regulated by a system of governance that doesn 't pander to big
| business.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I kind of enjoyed their passive aggressive bitchy tone, it
| reminded me of sosumi[0]
|
| iPhones have become great with the EU forcing the USB on them,
| the new capabilities are making me consider a new iPhone
| despite my iPhone 14 Pro is still excellent. I really want to
| be able to film directly on external SSD for example.
|
| I think with the DMA, EU is making Apple a favour again by
| saving them from themselves. Although sales are still great,
| other brands are doing amazing things and Apple lacks in some
| areas. I think its very possible that if the developers find
| ways to do interesting things with iPhones outside the Apple's
| walled garden, we can see another golden age for iPhone because
| many things that Apple doesn't allow are simply due to brand
| protections. Apple can sell more iPhones and people can do
| questionable things(porn, crypto etc) on their phones without
| blaming it on Apple. The iPhone has become great but boring,
| even one can argue that its forcing SV culture over people all
| over the world. When you don't have to ask Apple employees what
| you can do on your phone, actual original things can come up.
| Apple might lose a bit control and revenue but might become the
| impartial platform of an exciting future.
|
| Still there are some unclear stuff though.
|
| [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
| user_7832 wrote:
| > sosumi
|
| Apple of the past was the underdog, complete with a more
| aggressive attitude. Today's apple is the largest (tech?)
| company in the world, with a highly "refined" corpo-speak
| sheen.
|
| If they were still small their tone might've been funny (eg
| dbrand), but coming from a company that no longer plays nice
| (see: walled garden and anti consumer practices), it just
| feels cheap and petty.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I still enjoyed it. The libertarians are probably freaking
| out but that's why we have a government, to keep companies
| in check.
| remix2000 wrote:
| Could this mean that third-party apps will be able to use
| MAP_JIT?
| nerdjon wrote:
| As a user, for now I am glad this is only in the EU. I am not
| looking forward to how this will degrade the user experience in
| favor of "choice" for User, when in reality its choice for the
| developers and Users have to follow.
|
| I have yet to see a convincing argument that this was really
| necessary from a User prospective. The only argument I will buy
| is the limitations in what could be on the store like Adult apps,
| emulation, and similar. Which is valid, but not something
| requiring a separate store.
|
| The day that an app requires me to install a separate App Store
| to use is the day my smartphone becomes less useful and I stop
| using that particular app. Being on the App Store has benefits to
| me as a User, particularly when it comes to privacy and billing.
| Do we really need to bring up just how much companies like
| Facebook pushed back on the app tracking bulletin and the scary
| popups many apps put up to try to convince you to allow them to
| track you?
|
| Or the dark patterns that many companies continue to engage in
| regarding billing? Right now we are dealing with Cable companies
| complaining about yearly notices of renewal and being able to
| easily cancel, and you are going to try to tell me that companies
| won't find a way to abuse this?
|
| Literally today I was trying to cancel a task management app that
| I mistakenly signed up on the web instead of through the app, and
| I have to email them to do so. But they are more than happy to
| let me increase the cost of my subscription with a single click.
|
| So no this is not about choice for Users as this continues to be
| framed as, my choice was to go with an iOS Device in the first
| place for this walled garden. In the coming years the choice will
| be more and more made for me by developers. There is basically
| zero chance that Facebook, maybe Amazon, and companies big enough
| to try it won't jump at this chance when they have a big enough
| name to be able to leave the App Store and other developers can
| just piggy back on that.
| paxys wrote:
| Do you consider your PC "less useful" because there isn't a
| single app store for all your software, a single browser
| engine, a 30% surcharge for all your spending etc.?
| nerdjon wrote:
| My PC is a single purpose device, and that is for gaming.
| Which considering I use Steam for many of my games (not all)
| that 30% commission is already there.
|
| The reality is many people use their PC's far differently
| than they use their phones. When my PC was my primary
| computing device many of the things I use and pay for on my
| phone either simply didn't exist, or I would never dream to
| pay for them.
|
| Also you are missing the point, my phone becomes less useful
| because I flat out refuse to hand over access to my phone to
| a company which wishes to abuse that privilege of an
| alternative store. If they were going to act the way I want
| them to act, they would have no reason to use an alternative
| store.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Did your PC ship with Steam installed?
| nerdjon wrote:
| No, which in reality emphasizes the point I am trying to
| make. As a gamer I basically have zero choice but to
| install Steam, Epic Game Store, EA Store, or any other
| stupid launcher that a publisher decides to force on me
| when there is a perfectly fine game store built into
| Windows and Mac.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| The "or" in your sentence indicates the choice in the
| market.
| riversflow wrote:
| There isn't user choice, only developer choice. For
| example, if I want to play Fortnite with my IRL friends I
| must download Epic Launcher. If I want to play WoW with
| my friends I must download BattleNet, if I want to play
| Counter Strike I must download Steam. I don't get much
| choice in what my already existing community of friends
| decides to play. This is likely to be mirrored in phone
| app stores. Need whatsapp/facebook/instagram on your
| phone? download the Meta Store! Don't like their T&C?
| Pound sand.
| shaan7 wrote:
| Don't like their T&C, don't use them. As simple as that.
| I do not like Trucaller's T&C, so I do not use it. If
| some day I don't like WhatsApp's T&C, I won't use it. My
| friends and family will be asked to contact me via Signal
| (as an example). To your examples with games, there are
| lots of games that I do not install simply because I
| don't like those launchers. Whats wrong with that? It is
| _my choice_. I am not forced to use only Windows Store,
| for example.
|
| The argument that "because third party app stores can be
| shitty, they shouldn't be possible" is strange.
| riversflow wrote:
| Exile yourself from your social group to own the
| corporations. Got it.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Maybe "And" would have been better, but I assume you are
| not a gamer if you think that.
|
| The reality is no, if I want to play Fortnite I have to
| install the Epic Game store. If I want to play GTA, even
| if I buy the game through steam I have to use the
| Rockstar Launcher.
|
| There are multiple instances of this situation in gaming
| and it is the exact thing I don't want to happen here.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > but I assume you are not a gamer if you think that.
|
| Why would you assume that? I play video games on my PC.
| I'm not forced to install any software. I can make
| informed decisions and understand the trade offs with
| what software I want to use.
|
| _Chosing_ to install Epic Launcher and playing Fortnite
| is you sending a signal into the market. Competition
| exists, users can express their opinion and act on it.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Then you are conceding that the choice is to ether
| install those stores or not play the game?
|
| That is the exact point that I am trying to make in my
| post. That is not giving a user a choice that should
| matter to the User. That is removing the opportunity to
| me to play a game from where I want to play it.
|
| The problem is, many people are just fine doing it
| because they want to play a large enough game. Which
| again is my point. In reality most users would likely
| download a Facebook apps store if it was required to use
| Facebook, same for Twitter, TikTok, and whatever other
| thing that people are addicted to on their phones.
|
| That is my problem here and why comparing it to the
| situation with gaming is a good example. I should not
| loose the CHOICE to use an app from the App Store that I
| already use, because a developer is making their choice
| to push their own store.
|
| That is the situation we are looking at here, that to use
| the apps I want to use I have to use those stores. Which
| is ridiculous, and it is naive to think it isn't going to
| happen when it is the state of gaming right now.
| shaan7 wrote:
| > That is the situation we are looking at here, that to
| use the apps I want to use I have to use those stores.
| Which is ridiculous, and it is naive to think it isn't
| going to happen when it is the state of gaming right now.
|
| Consider the alternative where the only place to install
| apps (and hence games) is the Windows Store. Would that
| really be better? Windows Store's update process is lot
| worse than Steam (flaky download status, no way to make
| backups etc), and in many cases Steam has better
| integration with local payment processors.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Maybe I shouldn't have said that there was a perfectly
| fine store on Mac and Windows, that isn't really true. I
| mean they do their job but yeah.
|
| But I can't even stay within Steam only if I wanted too.
| Which is well established as the standard platform, but
| that hasn't stopped publishers from pushing their own.
| Including Epic for that matter thanks to how popular
| Fortnite is.
|
| Sure ok Windows Store sucks but that is changing the
| conversation here, I fail to see what features a general
| App Store on my phone would add that would truly benefit
| to me as a user.
|
| But again my point here is that the choice on gaming has
| been removed from me if I want to play a particular game.
| Just saying don't play it, is not a valid argument to me.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Sure ok Windows Store sucks but that is changing the
| conversation here
|
| It's _exactly_ the conversation. The platform allowed for
| competition and better options to exist.
|
| You think the Windows Store is bad now? Imagine if it was
| a captive market that didn't have to compete with Steam
| and others.
|
| Lack of competition for payments on iOS means Apple faces
| no competitive pressure to reduce their fees. Developers
| and users lose out because of this.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Steam has seemed perfectly fine with basically no real
| competition. For the most part the consensus seems to be
| that users only leave Steam when they have too not
| because they want too.
|
| The iOS App Store is fine with no competition (for
| users).
|
| How do users loose out from payment competition on iOS? I
| can't think of how I loose out on anything, in reality an
| app trying to convince me to use their payment option
| instead of iOS saves me money because I don't want to
| fall victim to dark practices when I want to cancel.
|
| Sure developers get a 30% cut but that seems to be the
| norm in the industry, that is what Steam charges.
| Developers can't just not tell me a yearly subscription
| is about to charge, make me call to cancel, but as a USER
| that is a good thing.
|
| If a developer tries to push me outside of the App Store
| to pay them, once again that is the Developer making the
| choice for me.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >when there is a perfectly fine game store built into
| Windows
|
| I am surprised to see this sentiment, given how much
| trouble I've had with the Windows store the few times
| I've been forced to use it. The way it puts files into
| locations I have limited rights to even while operating
| in admin mode... game files... made it a nightmare.
| Especially when it stopped working and the installer
| couldn't even identify those files as existing for the
| sake of removing them. It was to the point now I'd rather
| skip playing a new game than use Window's store if it was
| my only option, even if the game was offered for free.
| lttlrck wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were coming from a
| different angle and couldn't quite reconcile it.
|
| This is a _very_ good point.
| post_break wrote:
| No choice, proceeds to list off multiple app stores.
|
| Apply that same logic to the iPhone. Why not just take
| the abstinence road when it comes to any other store than
| steam?
|
| What's the safest way to Skii? Don't ski. Don't want to
| download any apps from a different app store than
| Apple's? Don't do it then.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I am listing off those stores because I am making a point
| that as a gamer, I do not have a choice in using certain
| stores and launchers if I want to play the games I want
| to play.
|
| That is the exact situation I want to avoid on my phone.
|
| What is so hard about that to understand. This is
| removing a choice from a user.
| post_break wrote:
| You have a choice. Don't use the other store. If there
| was only one AppStore for games on PC you'd have no
| choice. That's the point. If it was only Steam, and Steam
| said they won't allow any games that depict war, what
| choice would you have?
|
| But that's the magic of having multiple App Stores, they
| have to compete. They can't be the world police of
| software.
|
| What's so hard to understand that having a choice means
| you can choose to do something, or not.
|
| If you want to use your phone with only Apple's Appstore,
| continue to do so, if an app you really want is not on
| the app store, then DONT BUY IT, except now, someone
| besides you has the CHOICE to download it.
| nerdjon wrote:
| You are advocating for an indirect choice, I have no
| benefit to installing Epic Game store, rockstar, or any
| other launcher. None, it just isn't there.
|
| Where as my direct choice is, I want to play this game.
| If I want to play a specific game, the choice of launcher
| is being made for me.
|
| That is not competition.
|
| I should not have to make that choice, and until this
| roles out I have not had to make this choice with my
| phone. I have been able to confidently install anything I
| want from a single source and it's great.
|
| That choice will be removed from me, that DIRECT choice.
| Not indirect which is what the App Store change will be.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The "perfectly fine game store built into Mac" wouldn't
| even accept many of the games currently available on
| Steam. Anything with the "Adult Only" rating would just
| be outright rejected.
|
| Obviously you also wouldn't be able to install the games
| you bought on there on any device that didn't have an
| Apple logo. Sharing the same game library between
| Windows, macOS and Linux? Nope, buy them again.
|
| You might also have to kiss goodbye to cloud saves. The
| macOS App Store version of Resident Evil 4 doesn't
| support cloud saves between macOS and iOS devices whereas
| the Steam version has cloud saves.
|
| And this is the state of Apple's game store when they
| _are_ facing competition.
| TylerE wrote:
| The reality is most users don't have a PC, period. Even
| laptops are increasingly dinosaur-like, except for work-
| provided ones. It seems many home users are more than happy
| with some combination of phones, tablets, smart TVs, and
| consoles.
| nerdjon wrote:
| If I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't have a PC. I mean
| technically I would still have a Mac but much of what I
| use on my Mac is through the Mac App Store.
|
| The vast majority of my general computing happens on my
| phone or tablet. My PC and Mac while technically general
| computing devices, are not in practice anymore and I
| would wager that is true for most people.
|
| Not counting my Work computer for obvious reasons.
| spullara wrote:
| For sure. I agree with their whole post. There isn't any
| advantage whatsoever as a user to have Steam, Microsoft App
| Store, Epic Store, etc. All those stores take their pound of
| flesh and it is up to me to manage them all. It sucks.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Wasn't the Epic Game store also found to be a privacy
| nightmare? I could be wrong but I felt like that was a
| major reason the Heroic Game Launcher got so much traction
| (which is fantastic btw)
| smoldesu wrote:
| F-Droid gets this right out of the box. A one-stop-shop for
| Free, Open Source applications has annihilated my desire to
| purchase apps at all. I don't buy PDF readers or file
| browsers or launchers or basic system utilities any other
| user would expect for free. I install it, because I have
| that choice.
|
| Without F-Droid or the ability to install Open Source
| software, I wouldn't use Android. It's that much of a game-
| changer, and I suspect Apple wants to avoid a similar
| disruption at all costs.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| This attitude is completely baffling to me. I certainly
| understand if you don't _want_ to use those other stores
| and loading options, but I feel like everyone has Stockholm
| Syndrome thinking it 's a good thing that alternative ways
| to run software on a device you own _should be forbidden_
| by our tech overloads. On a site called Hacker News no
| less!
|
| Seriously, WTF???
| Agingcoder wrote:
| As a user of said stores, I understand the frustration :
| because of exclusivity deals, some games are available on
| shop x but not shop y, and you end up with a fragmented
| view of your games, different rules etc.
|
| Now as you pointed out forbidding alternative ways is not
| necessarily the one true solution !
| spullara wrote:
| Happy to just download stuff and run it. Multiple app
| stores is the problem.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| "useful" is too coarse a metric.
|
| It includes the concept of what you can build or create with
| a device. A personal computer wins that by a long shot.
|
| It includes accessibility- pre-literate and illiterate people
| can use an iOS device.
|
| It includes the risk. How many iOS users have suffered
| viruses/malware vs laptop users?
| s3p wrote:
| Why do we keep pretending PCs are comparable with phones?
| They compute, that's the end of their similarities. They have
| completely different use cases and are needed for different
| reasons. Things that are good on a PC might not be good on a
| phone.
| kehrin wrote:
| None, except for the fact that the 30% fee will be reduced
| (not eliminated), has been achieved by the EU ruling.
|
| - Alternative browser engines are useless if the rest of the
| world doesn't test for them (which they won't because they
| don't have access)
|
| - You cannot start another marketplace without showing Apple
| you have the ability to financially support it
|
| - And thanks for the need to support it, 30% surcharge will
| only be the ceiling
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I mean some of these changes are excellent... like the ability
| to use your own non-WebKit/Safari browser.
| nerdjon wrote:
| That one on paper I don't mind, I mean I don't particularly
| enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a
| stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome
| heavily on iOS.
|
| But yes, that is a good change that should have happened a
| long time ago. Same with the game streaming one.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able
| to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market
| by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS.
|
| Aren't you just describing... competition?
|
| If Apple's browser product is superior, users will use it.
| If those users want a feature Chrome has, Apple can either
| implement the feature or ignore it. That's no different
| than things are today, if you wanted to avoid a Chrome
| hegemony then we should have invested in a better cross-
| platform delivery mechanism than Electron. We didn't get
| one.
|
| Apple's support to WebKit and Safari is entirely
| compulsory. I agree that it's a positive impact on the web
| as a Firefox user, but I'd also argue Apple's ends did not
| justify their means. The development of Safari is very
| distinctly neglected to increase demand for native (read:
| taxable) APIs.
| nerdjon wrote:
| My problem here is Google, we can't deny they have used
| their position in Search, Gmail, Maps and others to push
| users towards Chrome with constant reminders to use their
| tools. I mean if I sign into Google on my iPhone I
| basically instantly get an email about setting up my
| iPhone with google or something, which is ridiculous.
|
| Competition in this space is great but Google has far too
| much control of the browser market for my comfort and we
| are seeing the harm of that with third party cookies,
| tracking, AMP, and other things.
|
| And again I welcome this particular change, I am just
| worried about what it will mean as Google pushes harder.
| smoldesu wrote:
| You're not wrong, but unfortunately I'm hard pressed to
| treat Apple any differently now. Apple also uses their
| position on the web, desktop and mobile to set
| unfathomably destructive standards for modern computing.
| AdSense and the App Store are two sides of the same con;
| circular marketplaces where the players scramble and the
| house always wins. They both feed back into terrible UX
| decisions and encourage the darkest, most manipulative
| side of either company.
|
| It'll be different regulation that comes for Google, but
| you can take solemn certainty in knowing they're up next.
| My biggest concern is that Microsoft won't receive enough
| scrutiny, but on the other hand I can barely trust them
| not to capsize Windows over the next decade.
|
| Regardless, 10 years from now I hope we'll have a more
| competitive and vibrant future for local compute and the
| web. It's a shame (but not unexpected) that regulation
| has to draw the line.
| s3p wrote:
| I don't know.. what if every app suddenly becomes 200MB
| bigger and devs throw Chrome instances in just about
| everything? They could bring electron to iOS and make an app
| that's not even native. Not to mention it would be
| objectively worse from a tracking/privacy point of view.
| Chrome has never been on the side of user privacy and I'm
| scared that continues with its introduction to iOS.
| wharvle wrote:
| 1) As a "technical" user who started using Firefox when it
| was called Phoenix (then Firebird, _then_ Firefox)--this is
| of zero value to me. Might be to (frankly, a very few)
| others, but I will see no personal benefit from this. I have
| zero need for more browser engines on my phone & tablet.
|
| 2) The main market effect is probably gonna be that Google is
| able to cross-promote and "whoopsie" bugs its way into having
| even more market share for its engine. Don't love that, but
| it won't personally harm me _unless_ Safari market share gets
| low enough that dev shops drop from "test on Chrome and
| Safari" to "test on Chrome... and that's it".
|
| 3) Where this might _really, really_ suck is if they have to
| permit non-browsers to bundle Web and /or JS engines. I very
| much do not want that and it's likely to make my experience
| noticeably worse, if that happens. Dunno if that's required
| by the changes, though.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > I am not looking forward to how this will degrade the user
| experience in favor of "choice" for User, when in reality its
| choice for the developers and Users have to follow.
|
| That's an interesting point. I can see Apple figuring this out
| as well and choosing this model, precisely to annoy users and
| degrade the user experience. If users complain they can shrug
| and say "Well EU asked for it and we complied. Talk to your
| representatives, I guess..."
|
| I've seen this strategy in politics, when a party goes through
| some effort to subtly sabotage initiatives and projects
| promoted by their opponents only to later say "look, how badly
| they failed".
| s3p wrote:
| Yeah, agreed. I am especially upset at the custom browser
| rendering engines, as I really do like Safari and I'm not at
| all excited about my favorite apps stuffing a Chrome instance
| inside of them (electron for iOS now??)
|
| I hope user choice is prioritized, and it seems like the way
| Apple has it set up, apps won't be able to get a significant
| following by distributing outside the App store.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| You can't sign up for Netflix on the iPhone app. Users lose
| because of that.
| nerdjon wrote:
| That is Netflix's choice, they could allow it they are
| choosing not too.
|
| And your right, it is hurting users since they loose the
| protections granted to them by App Store billing.
|
| The solution to that problem is not moving to another store
| though.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| The only entity you should be blaming is Apple themselves. They
| could have eased up their grip just a little bit to prevent
| this from happening, but instead they chose to be dragged
| kicking and screaming.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| > Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that
| reduce -- but don't eliminate -- new risks the DMA poses to EU
| users.
|
| > new risks the DMA poses to EU users
|
| Oh wow. Just wow.
|
| Thank you based Apple for '''protecting''' the EU users from the
| bad, evil Digital Marketing Act. You are so awesome and great!
|
| Truly evil stuff this DMA, you can read more about it here:
| https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
| duringmath wrote:
| How the EU is getting away with all these restrictions targeting
| US businesses is beyond me
| Neil44 wrote:
| How US businesses think they can operate in the EU without
| being subject to their laws is beyond me
| duringmath wrote:
| That's not how global free trade works, these laws weren't
| already established they were added to specifically target
| American companies which must be in violation of several WTO
| ordinance.
| alainv wrote:
| That is a very strong assertion. Please provide the WTO
| ordinances in question and/or case law. Unfounded
| assertions do not add to the discussion.
|
| Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this
| malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO
| grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought
| that had half a chance of succeeding?
| planb wrote:
| Huh? Apple is free to stop selling iPhones in the EU
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| Just like EU customers are free to buy a different phone...
| oh wait
| modeless wrote:
| So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-
| run review process and they will keep charging developers
| fees[1], even when distributing through alternative stores. In
| fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free
| apps because they will owe Apple EUR0.50 per install after the
| installed base passes 1M (updates count as "installs").
|
| They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting
| process that will probably exclude anything community-run.
|
| Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting
| the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims
| that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide.
| Clearly they feel that their service _doesn 't_ justify the fees
| in a competitive market (even though any competition will be
| minimal with the anticompetitive measures they're still clinging
| to in these changes).
|
| The most interesting thing that's _not_ mentioned here is exactly
| how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest
| of the world doesn 't get to use alternative stores or browser
| engines.
|
| [1] On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they
| conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds
| and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.
| samcat116 wrote:
| Where did you get that apps going through alternate app stores
| would be reviewed?
| modeless wrote:
| "a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of
| their distribution channel [...] a combination of automated
| checks and human review."
| madeofpalk wrote:
| For what it's worth, this already happens on macOS for non-
| app store apps.
| boucher wrote:
| There's a pretty big difference between notarization on
| macOS and what's being described here.
| rmorey wrote:
| What would that difference be?
| teg4n_ wrote:
| The fact that notarization is not required to install an
| app on MacOS.
| andreyvit wrote:
| The "human review" part.
| mcfedr wrote:
| Notarization is also optional, annoying as a user, sure,
| but still optional
| Aeolun wrote:
| Only if you want them to run without the annoying scary
| virus warning.
| rahkiin wrote:
| They cut it to 10%+0.50c (or 30%)
| charcircuit wrote:
| >it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free
| apps because they will owe Apple EUR0.50 per install
|
| Apple spends billions of dollars to develop iOS and allows a
| user to exclusively install free apps if they want. This
| behavior is subsidized by other users doing IAP and buying paid
| apps. Alternate app stores can also subsidize free apps from
| the money they make from IAP and from paid apps.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| No, it's subsidized by the thousand+ dollars users spend on
| the hardware.
| ankit219 wrote:
| It's the standard strategy of making things so complex that no
| one bothers with it.
|
| > Users will be able to download an alternative marketplace app
| from the marketplace developer's website.
|
| That is, an alternate app store will only be downloaded via the
| website and not app store. All this when an app developer will
| have to choose via App Store connect where they want to host
| the app.
| bredren wrote:
| Allowing this is the intent, can anyone share examples of
| similar maneuvers and uptake / outcome?
| donmcronald wrote:
| The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the
| installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it
| sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users
| away from alternatives.
|
| I hope the EU brings the hammer down on them. It's obvious, in
| my opinion, the goal here is to make the EU version as bad as
| possible so Apple can "prove" regulation is bad for developers
| and users.
|
| I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their
| side. I thought the app store would flop when they announced
| they'd gatekeep distribution, but here we are. I'm sure there
| will be plenty of developers claiming this current development
| is good for everyone.
|
| It seems so obvious that all the platform owners are working
| against everyone (developers, advertisers, users) and I just
| can't understand how they have so many supporters.
| dmix wrote:
| > Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and
| disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to
| do their best to scare users away from alternatives.
|
| It does sound very European though.
| Nathanba wrote:
| Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU
| should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US
| companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the
| longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices
| entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can
| import it "illegally" then.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics
|
| You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is
| power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money.
| The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows
| competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.
| TwentyPosts wrote:
| I don't know, seems to me like the EU is providing plenty
| of value to me.
|
| In fact, the EU is making changes that will in fact make
| it easier for competitors to arise, so I really don't
| know what you're on about.
| trealira wrote:
| This situation is like if the majority of the EU's
| transportation infrastructure (e.g. roads, train tracks,
| etc.) were owned by a handful of private American
| companies. Whatever value they provide (maybe it's really
| good infrastructure), their power comes from their
| overwhelming dominance and control of these sectors of
| the economy (i.e. transportation/tech). Don't act as
| though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Developers unfortunately don't have any practical choice. As
| long as rich people keep buying Apple phones (I am
| specifically targeting phones here, because I think those are
| the ones that matter for this discussion, not Macbooks), this
| shit will continue.
|
| Buying an Apple phone is as strong a signal as you can get
| that someone has a) a lot of discretionary income and b) a
| propensity towards paying for luxuries that no app developer
| who intends to make money can afford to ignore them in this
| "you'll own nothing and be happy" hellscape we have created.
| sneak wrote:
| Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far the
| best smartphones.
|
| I'm not defending Apple's anticompetitive nonsense but this
| comment seems to ignore the elephant in the room about
| _why_ they have the opportunity to be anticompetitive: they
| make the best smartphone user experience by far and
| consumers really really want that. They don't understand
| that the censorship and racketeering comes fully integrated
| and inseparable (until today) with the rest of that UX.
|
| Most users are happy to outsource the sysadminning of their
| phones to Apple, and the job Apple does is good enough for
| them. This is why iOS malware in the wild isn't a
| widespread thing like it is on Android.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| "Everyone wants iPhones"
|
| Anyone is free to "want" anything. But they need to be
| rich to actually afford it.
|
| Also, I think it's a HN bubble thing to think that the
| vast majority of iPhone users know or care about Apple's
| fine-tuned App Store-related extortion or their privacy
| promises.
|
| In fact until recently Apple had made it literally a
| bannable offence on the App Store to EVEN INFORM PEOPLE
| that Apple was taking a cut of their money.
|
| FB collected money through their apps for charity
| fundraisers and Apple not only wanted 30% of that, but
| they refused to let FB EVEN INFORM their customers that
| this was happening.
|
| I am sorry for using all caps but if you seriously do not
| see how insane this is becoming, we are operating on very
| different axioms.
|
| Apple makes good hardware and decent software and has
| managed to maintain a patina of luxury and class and
| 'high society' for all these years, yes. Completely
| agreed.
|
| Side note: I don't want an iPhone and have in 20 years of
| adult life never paid for an Apple product.
| cyberax wrote:
| Best experience? Lol, nope.
| simsla wrote:
| I don't. And I don't actually know many people with
| iPhones apart from my parents who've been buying
| everything Apple releases since the nineties.
|
| There seems to be a big difference between the US and the
| EU here.
|
| (FWIW, I love MacBooks, but in my opinion iOS is just
| subpar.)
| andrewaylett wrote:
| I quite like Apple hardware -- and indeed I'm typing this
| on a (second-hand) Macbook. I'd prefer not to have to use
| their software though, thank you very much. The good news
| is that Firefox works on pretty much everything that's
| not an iPhone or iPad.
| mr_toad wrote:
| By worldwide standards you need to be rich. Even a cheap
| second hand iPhone is a months wages in some countries.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far
| the best smartphones.
|
| Why do people think this? I've been using a Samsung Note
| with the Wacom stylus for over a decade. Every now and
| then I try an iPhone and the experience is good, but not
| great. The UI noticeably lags on any iPhone over a year
| old. The keyboard is annoying and lacks features I use,
| and third party keyboards don't integrate properly. No
| consistent back button behaviour, it's up to apps to
| implement and each does it differently. There is no way
| to sync the calendar or contacts with Webdav, not even
| with third party apps. So far as I know, there is no ADB
| equivalent.
|
| Other than the phenomenal camera, which I think the newer
| Samsung S-series phones with the stylus match, I fail to
| see the appeal of the iPhone. Well, it is an appealing
| device, but not the "best" device for many workflows.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| You said something negative about iPhones on HN. Prepare
| for the incoming wave of downvotes.
| orasis wrote:
| iOS developer here. As long as you make < $1M/year their cut
| is 15%, which is absolutely worth it considering the quality
| of the App Store and payment experience and the fact that iOS
| users actually pay unlike Android. When I hit that 30% fee,
| however, I'm not going to be so stoked.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| it is worth it only because they forbid alternatives
| rollcat wrote:
| Consider the context. There are alternatives (Android,
| and everyone else in the mobile space that tried and
| didn't make it), and as orasis pointed out, the users
| there aren't that keen on making purchases.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store
| users". They're only the same because apple forbids
| competition with itself.
| bloppe wrote:
| This is what people struggle so hard to get. You wouldn't
| say 15% was "worth it" if you could get the exact same
| quality for 3%.
| barkerja wrote:
| But could you get the same user base?
| bloppe wrote:
| At least you can try
| orasis wrote:
| Sure I would like higher margins, but I'm running a
| business, and if the rent I'm paying is worth the
| location then it's worth it.
| bloppe wrote:
| Of course. But if it's not, you shouldn't be stuck.
| sureglymop wrote:
| Exactly. To give an example, on macOS there is the mac
| app store. But over time other distribution platforms
| such as SetApp [0] have emerged. But developers can
| actually enlist their apps in both of these "stores"
| (setapp is subscription based) which probably increases
| their potential revenue.
|
| [0]: https://setapp.com/
| shmatt wrote:
| I know the Android vs. iOS conversion rates first hand for
| many years. Working for a large US fashion company that had
| >50% of transactions online, the conversion rates for
| Android were comically low.
|
| I have a feeling there will be a similar split with iOS
| users who are installing 3rd party app stores vs. iOS users
| who choose to stay locked in
| zerr wrote:
| > the quality of the App Store
|
| What does this mean? Last time I checked, the App Store was
| full of trash, similarly to Play Store.
| d0100 wrote:
| > the fact that iOS users actually pay unlike Android
|
| That's not related to store quality, but of the users
| purchasing power
| KerrAvon wrote:
| From the developer perspective, that is a big component
| of store quality.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an
| Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers
| fees[1]
|
| To a much lesser degree, but yes. The DMA explicitly allows for
| this.
|
| > In fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to
| offer free apps because they will owe Apple EUR0.50 per install
| after the installed base passes 1M (updates count as
| "installs").
|
| This is misreading. Alternative stores would only owe a CTF for
| their own store being installed (no threshold). The free apps
| within the store are subject to the threshold and are to be
| paid by the developers of said apps.
|
| > They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a
| vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-
| run.
|
| Yes. Pretty much.
|
| Apple will require a letter of credit of $1M for any potential
| alternative store, this is in part for liability reasons and in
| part to better ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in
| terms of safety etc. I think it's pretty reasonable, but yes,
| it is a hurdle for community run or grassroots alternative
| stores.
|
| > Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be
| cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to
| their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service
| they provide.
|
| Your premise is off. They claimed, the agreement structures it
| as, and the courts accepted, that the commission was primarily
| to pay for Apple's IP, with services being secondary.
|
| Whether something reasonable or not differs from reasonable
| mind to reasonable mind. So I can't make any judgement calls on
| that.
|
| But the way they've restructured the fees for the EU definitely
| suggests a consistent logic on the part of Apple.
|
| They still offer the 15% commission for small developers and
| renewals after the first year and 30% for big developers.
|
| Alternatively they offer a fee structure that is split with an
| a la carte character.
|
| Namely:
|
| - 10% or 17% commission for small or big developers
| respectively for the use of App Store services - 3% payment
| processing fee if you use Apple's IAP payment processing -
| EUR0.50/install for each unique install in a year as Core
| Technology Fee (i.e., for use of IP) after 1M installs in a
| given year
|
| With the last few, the IP fee, not being optional. Which makes
| sense because all apps use Apple's frameworks and other IP
| whether you use their payment processing or App Store services
| or not.
|
| So I don't see a lie on the count of subjectivity and on the
| count of consistent logic.
|
| > The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is
| exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that
| the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or
| browser engines.
|
| A while back there was a daemon found that fulfills this job. I
| believe it was called countryd and it uses a combination of
| cellular network, account data, WiFi country code and the like.
|
| > On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they
| conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do
| builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from
| Apple.
|
| The annual fee is negligible and spent as soon as you start
| submitting a a build or two per month.
|
| The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle
| because there's always cost in tooling involved. Whether you
| buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that point why stop
| there, why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet
| connection?
| simplyluke wrote:
| > ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of
| safety etc. I think it's pretty reasonable
|
| I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful
| information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the
| article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me
| that we've reached a point where people are considering it
| very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the
| power and intent to censor are able to distribute software.
| The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around
| before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control
| the power of individuals using it.
| oersted wrote:
| > The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me
| chuckle because there's always cost in tooling involved.
| Whether you buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that
| point why stop there, why not throw in the cost of
| electricity and an internet connection?
|
| Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of
| overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
|
| Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an
| implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There's
| nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of
| compiling a program, it's again anti-competitive.
|
| And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of
| software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a
| minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of
| course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for
| arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Apple will require a letter of credit of $1M for any
| potential alternative store
|
| This is nonsense of the highest order. How is that 'allowing'
| alternative app stores. That's just gatekeeping by a
| different measure.
| andersa wrote:
| No, apple is not going to continue gatekeeping. However, it
| seems they will need a proper bitchslap to correctly understand
| their role here. This post (by apple) is actually ridiculous.
| kj99 wrote:
| I don't think that's going to be as easy as you think. The
| DMA is a rule change for everyone, not a punishment aimed at
| Apple. If what Apple is proposing is legally compliant with
| it, then they are going to need to change the rules again for
| everyone, not just Apple.
| andersa wrote:
| It's (to me) clearly non-compliant with its intention. It's
| now for courts to decide whether that is the case, or for
| politicians to fix the law to patch this backdoor if there
| was one. But it will be fixed.
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| So, long story short, I won't be able to simply side-load an app
| on iOS like I can do with Android today, can I?
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| That's what I wanna know. How do I build an XCode project
| completely offline, not signed into my Apple ID on anything,
| not paying the 99 USD fee and just AirDrop it to my phone or
| whatever. I am hoping DMA brings this ability and lets me make
| personal apps just for myself. Reading this gave me the
| impression Apple Apple is complying in ways which might not
| give me this ability. I remain confused as to what the actual
| status of this is.
| anfilt wrote:
| Same because if sideloaded apps require this notarization
| that negates the whole point sideloading. Notarization still
| requires apple to review the app from reading the post by
| apple. If they don't like the app they can refuse to notarize
| it defeating the whole purpose of sideloading. This still
| allows apple to decide what apps can and can't be installed
| on devices they do not own!!! IF this turns out to be the
| case.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Nope, not at all. This is enabling third-party app stores.
| Nothing like sideloading at all.
| Squarex wrote:
| you already could in a way... by using altstore[0] on non
| jailbroken devices... It's not as straightforward as on Android
| but it is possible (there were even some builds of blink
| engine)
|
| [0] https://github.com/altstoreio/AltStore
| vdaea wrote:
| I want to be able to install pirated IPA files so I can, for
| example, use Spotify Premium for free. I have always been able to
| do this with APK files on Android. Will I be able to do that on
| iOS after these changes are in place? AltStore is a bit annoying
| to use.
|
| From other comments I am suspecting this won't be possible so
| this new regulation is the worst of both worlds: we will be
| forced to install 3rd-party stores for some apps but we won't be
| able to install any app we want outside of stores. And on top of
| that, one of those browser selection popups whenever we set up
| our device.
| jallasprit wrote:
| Highly recommend reading some of the actual text from the
| regulation: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-
| policy/priorities-...
| roamerz wrote:
| My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store opens
| or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users options
| and harm the users ability to effectivly control privacy.
|
| An example of this might be the Facebook app. Currently it's only
| available in the official App Store where by design Apple, on our
| behalf, defines and enforces policies that protect the users.
|
| With an alternate path to app installation Facebook has the
| option of pulling the app in from the official store thus forcing
| the user to accept policies that are more in favor of the company
| than that would otherwise happen if they needed to adhere to
| Apples App policies.
|
| Of course the users could just opt out and not use the app at all
| but what if it were something that user needed in order to
| 'exist' such as a banking app or something his/her employer
| required per terms of employment?
| realusername wrote:
| > An example of this might be the Facebook app. Currently it's
| only available in the official App Store where by design Apple,
| on our behalf, defines and enforces policies that protect the
| users.
|
| My counterargument to that is even the current status quo
| doesn't work for privacy. Facebook can still get less data from
| the browser version compared to the app and that's why they are
| pushing hard for an app install. What would work is tighter
| sandboxing similar to the web, not custom reviews.
| sourcegrift wrote:
| So the user has to be at the whims of a dominant player anyway.
| And if so, why do you prefer the whims of Apple?
| roamerz wrote:
| I buy Apple products because in my opinion, they work on my
| behalf to protect my interests better than the other options
| available to me.
|
| I think they have been leading in this area and by virtue of
| competition have pushed other vendors to do the same. I can't
| imagine Android based devices would be nearly as privacy
| focused today if it weren't for users moving to the Apple
| ecosystem in search of better security.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| You have degoogled Android options like GrapheneOS that are
| far, far better for your privacy than Apple devices.
| roamerz wrote:
| That is likely true and I was in that game for awhile but
| tired of the effort required and the limited hardware
| that would be fully functional and reliable as a
| production device.
|
| With Apple it's just easier and I can focus on other
| areas of life and just use my phone as the tool it is
| rather than spending untold hours making everything work.
|
| Truth be told there was a time in my life when I actually
| enjoyed fiddling with that but I got my fill and am on to
| other priorities. There is only so much time in the day.
| ssbash wrote:
| GrapheneOS devices lack push notifications, and lot of
| other features that make it unviable for most users.
|
| Making exceptions like installing the Aurora Store or
| microG, defeat the point of a degoogled phone.
|
| iOS can't be hardened it to a 0 telemetry state like
| GrapheneOS, but it is a fully featured OS.
|
| It strikes the right balance for general consumers, and
| prosumers like myself.
| roughly wrote:
| Because by and large they've spent the last decade building
| features that have allowed me to preserve my privacy from
| companies who've spent the last decade trying to pry into my
| personal life.
| hedora wrote:
| Only having to deal with Apple's BS is likely better than
| being at the whims of all the dominant players. The latter
| creates a race to the bottom with no hope of improving the
| ecosystem.
|
| I think that's the main reason iOS is slowly eating Android's
| global market share, and why it remains the market leader in
| the US. As bad as iOS is for privacy and respecting user
| choice, Android is worse in practice. There's an argument
| that Android's openness benefits the end user, but it falls
| apart in practice: almost all third party apps (and certainly
| the ones that other people force you to use) depend on Play
| Services, which is a giant pile of surveillance capitalism
| and battery drain.
|
| Having said that, I'd like to be able to toggle my iPhone
| into EU mode and sideload a few things.
| mcfedr wrote:
| I think lock-in (iMessage and such) better explains apple's
| growth, and an unlimited marketing budget
| cmdli wrote:
| Not OP, but Apple tends to be a lot more straightforward in
| how they make their money. Their products cost more for the
| same technology, but in return they try their best to provide
| me with a good experience (to keep me buying their overpriced
| products). I don't blame those who go with option of Android,
| but I personally prefer to just pay a set, known amount of
| money up front.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| > I don't blame those who go with option of Android, but I
| personally prefer to just pay a set, known amount of money
| up front.
|
| I don't get it, what are some examples where Android is
| more misleading about charging you?
| colinmorelli wrote:
| Unless this user has never used a device running something
| other than iOS, they've already dealt with this.
|
| But this concern requires a few things to be true:
|
| - An alternative app store is created that does not employ any
| form of restriction to protect users from this
|
| - Legitimate apps that an end user needs see value in
| publishing themselves on this alternative app store
|
| - There is a critical mass of users that prefer the alternative
| app store, such that the legitimate app publisher no longer
| sees value in publishing to Apple's app store
|
| - As a result, those users who would have preferred the privacy
| and safety that Apple provides are now forced to use the new
| app store
|
| This is a possible doomsday scenario, but it's not clear to me
| that enforcing and protecting a market in which Apple is
| effectively guaranteed a profit on everyone else's apps is the
| right solution? If this were to happen, perhaps we address
| those apps through direct legislation that targets user
| privacy, akin to what the EU has started to move on? Or a
| solution similar to this.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| > Unless this user has never used a device running something
| other than iOS, they've already dealt with this
|
| Right, and they hate it. There's a reason why the iPhone and
| App Store were such a massive hit. People will choose
| convenience and security over freedom most of the time.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| People also willingly get addicted by TikTok. Sometimes the
| masses need a little help.
|
| And before you argue against this, Apple fans use the exact
| same argument: Apple knows best, we don't want to think for
| ourselves.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple gave the masses help.
|
| You seem to be ignoring this fact and blindly arguing
| that the Mac/Windows world of installing apps is
| superior.
|
| Which many of us disagree with.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| The only way to help the masses is your way?
|
| Apple helped the masses, and the masses reward Apple by
| being the most valuable user base in the world
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/
| beeboobaa wrote:
| > The only way to help the masses is your way?
|
| That's what Apple thinks, yes.
|
| > Apple helped the masses, and the masses reward Apple by
| being the most valuable user base in the world
|
| Yes, rich people buy (perceived) luxury products. Apple's
| greatest skill is positioning itself as a luxury product.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| I hesitate to respond because the idea that Apple is a 3T
| marketing firm is moronic
|
| Let's not pretend Apple isn't building the best consumer
| silicon in the world and the most secure and user-
| friendly consumer operating systems in the world. That's
| not even considering their supply chain innovations.
|
| Apple devices are superior to their competition in just
| about every objective measure.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'm in stitches reading the responses to this comment.
| One day all of us will be dead, and only some of us will
| have wasted breath defending a soulless corporation we
| took for a savior. Smile, your wasted effort is preserved
| in candid digital amber!
| orangecat wrote:
| _Right, and they hate it._
|
| Citation needed. People hate that they can buy games from
| Steam rather than having to go through the Windows app
| store?
|
| _People will choose convenience and security over freedom
| most of the time._
|
| And if that's their choice, fine. But it should actually be
| a choice.
| danaris wrote:
| I think you may be missing part of what the GP is saying: the
| concern isn't (primarily) that an alternative App Store will
| _overall_ become more popular than Apple 's. It's that
| _specific apps_ like Facebook will create their own App
| Stores whose primary purpose is to distribute their one or
| small number of apps without the restrictions Apple places on
| privacy.
|
| So the Facebook app (and Instagram, WhatsApp, and whatever
| else Facebook owns these days) would be able to collect as
| much data as the OS itself allows, without any kind of
| warnings before install.
|
| It could potentially even use private APIs of some sort to
| bypass Apple's OS-level permissions dialogs and collect data
| without even asking the user first--it's unclear, at this
| point, to what extent Apple would be able to police this sort
| of behavior from motivated bad actors like Facebook when
| they're not being distributed through Apple's App Store.
| jamil7 wrote:
| Couple of things.
|
| iOS is sandboxed so they can't do anything outside of the
| context of that app. To use any APIs that would require a
| permission dialogue you have to make a request to get a
| handle on them which only happens after a user grants
| permission, you can't just reach into these. This is baked
| into the OS. Apps like the ones you're talking about
| already hoover up is much data as possible in this context.
|
| iOS itself is actually really good at this and can be
| improved and hardened further, Apple wants you to believe
| it's somehow their review process and strict distribution
| channel that makes this possible.
| rondini wrote:
| The EU already has robust digital privacy laws and is likely to
| continue passing laws to protect their citizens. I think it's
| much better to take control away from Apple and place it in the
| hands of regulators that represent the people directly.
| brandensilva wrote:
| I mostly agree with you but from the sounds of the news
| across the pond it seems like the EU government, as well as
| our own, wants to eliminate encryption, VPNs or add back
| doors into systems to some degree.
|
| There are obvious reasons to do so to combat crime but at the
| expense of privacy, freedom, and anonymity.
|
| And I've quite been happy to see Apple stand up against such
| government control but fear the trend this will set.
| nathanlied wrote:
| >the EU government, as well as our own, wants to eliminate
| encryption, VPNs or add back doors into systems to some
| degree.
|
| This is a continuous concern - some sectors of the EU
| indeed want to do that. So far, they've been mostly
| unsuccessful in getting their agenda through, either
| because other politicians have more influence, or due to
| listening to public protest/complaints. Still, that's no
| different than other healthy democracies - the people must
| vote, both in national elections (EU heads of state propose
| the European Commission's president to the Parliament), and
| European elections (who elect said Parliament) in order to
| keep reasonable people at the helm as much as possible.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > And I've quite been happy to see Apple stand up against
| such government control
|
| Where, exactly?
|
| Apple complies readily with thousands of warrantless
| surveillance requests[0] from around the world, every year.
| They've been a cardholding PRISM program member for over a
| decade, and just a few months ago admit that push
| notifications are also government-monitored[1].
|
| Outside of eagerly marketed examples like San Bernadino,
| Apple appears utterly compliant with government control.
|
| [0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/
|
| [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-
| surve...
| rahkiin wrote:
| The word 'directly' barely applies when it comes to the EU
| representatives or commission :)
| tfourb wrote:
| EU representatives are literally elected by the population
| under the same rules as national legislators. EU commissars
| are appointed directly by the elected governments of EU
| member states, similar to ministers/secretaries on the
| national level. Stop spreading misinformation.
| blibble wrote:
| EU commissioners are appointed by someone who is
| appointed by someone who is appointed by someone who is
| elected
|
| by definition this is not direct representation
| iknowstuff wrote:
| The commission is only one of the branches. The
| Parliament is directly elected, and the Council is heads
| of states.
|
| Most countries don't elect their prime ministers
| directly, they're appointed by their parliaments
| iknowstuff wrote:
| ugh I'm so sick of the clueless brexiteer talking point
| about bUrEauCRaTs!
| roamerz wrote:
| I would say to you that aren't those very regulators to which
| you refer doing their very best to weaken the users ability
| to maintain privacy and not be snooped on? I don't know about
| the EU but here in the U.S. there are always pushes afoot to
| break users control of encryption and other protections.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > I think it's much better to take control away from Apple
| and place it in the hands of regulators that represent the
| people directly.
|
| Those are the same regulators who keep trying to ban
| encryption, right? Just making sure.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Technically speaking no, because regulation is performed by
| national data protection authorities whereas the people
| you're speaking of are some members of the European
| parliament.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Yeah, those annoying GDRP cookie warnings on every site are
| super robust, what would we do without them... /s
| fsflover wrote:
| These warnings are not required if you don't spy on your
| users. Where are they on HN?
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Using a cookie or sessions does not equate to spying. Is
| HN in the EU? Does it use cookies? Absolutely. As far as
| those useless messages go, I just use a plugin to remove
| them at this point because they're a waste of resource.
| fsflover wrote:
| Session cookies do not require the warnings either.
|
| > Is HN in the EU?
|
| It doesn't matter as long as it's used by EU users.
| tristor wrote:
| > The EU already has robust digital privacy laws and is
| likely to continue passing laws to protect their citizens. I
| think it's much better to take control away from Apple and
| place it in the hands of regulators that represent the people
| directly.
|
| Laws don't protect privacy. What protects privacy is
| technical mechanisms for people to do so.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The very opposite is true. Technical means can't ever
| protect privacy from a determined attacker.
|
| There is even a country that intercepts and MITMs all TLS
| traffic (one of the stans, forget which one). Of course,
| browsers don't recognize their certificate. So, you have a
| choice: you either trust the government MITM cert yourself,
| or you don't access the web. Laws trump technology every
| time.
| tristor wrote:
| My most charitable response would be that /both/ are
| required, but your example is one where law is taking
| away privacy, not one where law is granting privacy. The
| law cannot grant privacy, because the law is slow to act.
| We have recently had cases where the government and
| private actors/companies have violated privacy rights in
| western democracies and it took multiple years to see any
| semblance of justice done, and the victims were not made
| whole.
|
| Laws that prevent technical mechanisms effectively
| prevent the enforcement of laws that protect privacy,
| because bad actors can still break the law. The law
| provides some means to get justice, in theory, after a
| bad actor has already violated your privacy. Technical
| means provide you a mechanism /you control/ to actually
| enforce that you have privacy. You need both, but the law
| alone is woefully insufficient.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store
| opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users
| options and harm the users ability to effectively control
| privacy.
|
| This is like some weird 1984 double-speak. How does letting
| users install Apps from more stores "reduce their options"?
| Would you have "more options" if I told you that you're only
| allowed to shop at Amazon.com and your browser will block any
| competing online retailers? Are you being harmed by the fact
| that you can buy products from more than one online store?
|
| And the whole secondary argument is some kind of joke right, as
| 80% of every "free" app in the App Store requests data on your
| location, sensitive privileges, and all of them use coercive
| techniques to trick users into accepting. Whatever approval
| process Apple is is using with the App Store is far from
| protecting users.
| babypuncher wrote:
| It depends on what we are defining as options.
|
| Right now, you can choose between getting Facebook from
| Apple's App Store, where Facebook has to comply with fairly
| strict privacy rules to remain available. Or, you can use
| Facebook on a non-Apple platform where no such rules exist
| (browser, Google Play). This choice exists because the App
| Store is the only way for Facebook to practically deliver its
| product to iPhone users.
|
| If Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, then yes,
| users have more choices on where to get their apps. But it
| would allow Facebook to take their app off the iOS App Store
| and put it somewhere without Apple's stricter privacy rules,
| taking away the users option to choose a version that doesn't
| have things like cross-app behavior tracking.
|
| I view it very much as a "pick your poison" scenario, where
| Apple is merely the lesser of two evils. I would much rather
| live in a world where government regulation renders
| Facebook's shitty business practices obsolete, then Apple
| wouldn't be able to use basic rights like privacy as a
| product differentiator.
| wvenable wrote:
| As soon as someone discovers the non-App store version of
| Facebook is somehow worse then there will be a thousand
| Facebook posts and articles telling you not to install it
| that way.
|
| I have an Android phone and I almost always install apps
| from the store but I have a very important handful of apps
| that I've sideloaded (or gotten from F-droid). Some of
| those apps do more to ensure my privacy than "official"
| ones.
| babypuncher wrote:
| > As soon as someone discovers the non-App store version
| of Facebook is somehow worse then there will be a
| thousand Facebook posts and articles telling you not to
| install it that way.
|
| The problem is, Facebook could easily take the iOS App
| Store option away and make the alt-store option
| mandatory. And they have the power to do so and get away
| with it. People are too entrenched in their ecosystem,
| and there's no viable path off of it. User protests like
| this on social media rarely end in favor of the users.
|
| I'm one of the people that quit Facebook entirely, and it
| does actually hurt me IRL. Too many friends and family
| members coordinate events and share news exclusively
| through Facebook.
| wvenable wrote:
| They could do that now on Android but they don't because
| the Play store is biggest distribution channel.
|
| I feel like the argument falls a bit flat when
| sideloading exists on Android, Android has 70% of the
| global market share, and none of these supposed evils
| have happened.
| hedora wrote:
| As an example: Some EU government could force people to turn
| on side-loading to install an app that's needed if you want
| to access public services. The app could bypass your phone's
| privacy protections, and feed the data back to the local
| government.
|
| In the US, if Android side-loading were more common, we'd
| already have this, except that companies would require it.
|
| In the EU, they'd probably crack down on companies that tried
| to do this. However, although it's technically illegal for
| governments to do such things, apparently most governments
| routinely break the anti-mass-surveillance laws.
|
| On iOS, Apple has banned many bad actors for such shenanigans
| (although they still allow spyware from large companies like
| meta and google).
| cruano wrote:
| > The app could bypass your phone's privacy protections
|
| iOS != App Store
| lukeschlather wrote:
| What do you think of this thread:
| https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445
|
| The idea that Apple is on the side of privacy here is not
| really realistic. In fact Apple has designed AirDrop etc. to
| make it easy for countries like China to control AirDrop
| traffic, and they have put down technological safeguards to
| prevent actually private tools like Briar from functioning.
| fouric wrote:
| > My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store
| opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users
| options and harm the users ability to effectivly control
| privacy.
|
| This is massively misinformed. The majority of privacy controls
| exist _in iOS itself_ completely independently of the
| distribution method, and many more unimplemented potentially
| beneficial privacy controls can also be implemented at that
| level. This has been true for years.
| roamerz wrote:
| Interested to read up on that. Do you know of any articles
| that would provide an overview of how that works? In laymen's
| terms?
| Txmm wrote:
| Even with controls on the device companies act in bad faith
| and take liberties with your privacy - I was going to the
| beach yesterday and my friend shared his location through
| messenger, to view it I had to share my precise location too
| - why? You can deny the permission all you want but that
| won't stop them blocking features unless you tick the box,
| even if it is unrelated or not needed for the functionality.
| matt3210 wrote:
| The notarizing part of the new requirements would force
| facebook to follow guidelines even if their app is not on the
| official store.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store
| opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users
| options and harm the users ability to effectivly control
| privacy.
|
| Two wrongs don't make a right. The thing protecting people from
| abusive behaviour should be the government, not a "benevolent"
| monopoly.
| jakub_g wrote:
| FWIW Huawei smart watches are quite popular in some EU
| countries, but the Huawei health app needs to be installed on
| newest Android by downloading an APK because Google kicked it
| out of Play Store.
|
| Even for me, setting this up and giving necessary permissions
| was non-obvious.
|
| I don't believe any sane big company (except maybe a few with
| extremely loyal userbase for whom it would make big financial
| difference) will pull down their app from official app store
| and force people to go via an alternative store if they can
| just stay in regular store.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Wish list:
|
| A push notification app that allows users with self hosted stuff
| to send push notifications for free without Apple's blessing.
|
| Open source browser with ublock origin
| kevincox wrote:
| I heard that Apple now supports WebPush. So you should be able
| to use this. You may need to set up the subscription in Safari
| but IIUC after clicking the notification you could be
| redirected to an app.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Checkout https://pushover.net/
|
| I paid $5 once, years ago, and can push notifications to my
| phone from my custom little self-hosted stuff.
| MR4D wrote:
| I wonder if side-loaded apps with have green icons.
|
| Seriously though, I expect Apple to do something to differentiate
| them.
| layer8 wrote:
| Maybe a green dot instead of a blue one when they are
| new/updated.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| "For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and
| expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA
| creates"
|
| Jesus. Not only is Apple serving us a shit sandwich with this
| press release, they're telling us it's filet mignon, for our own
| good.
|
| Is _anyone_ who has been in tech for the past 25 years or so not
| completely disillusioned with the state of tech as a business?
| The "tech optimism" of the late 90s seems like another universe.
| It feels like every single big tech company is only worried about
| their business and profits, service to the user be damned.
| They're _all_ "evil", rotten to the core, 100%, across the board.
|
| New technology (and I'm not talking about how we usually refer to
| it as Internet/silicon tech these days) used to be about making
| people's lives better. I think the piece of tech that I most
| value these days is probably my dishwasher. So much other tech is
| just actively hostile - think of the HP CEO's recent announcement
| that we should all owe HP money per page. Like there is a person
| on the planet who wants that.
|
| As someone who's worked in tech since the .com boom, my
| disillusionment is on the verge of depression. I'm honestly
| ashamed at the forces I've contributed to, even if only a
| minuscule bit.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I don't know what tech optimism of the 90's you're talking
| about. That was the era when people called Microsoft
| "Micro$oft" because they thought it was so greedy and evil.
|
| I don't see anything having changed at all. The more things
| change, the more they stay the same.
| seydor wrote:
| > called Microsoft "Micro$oft" because they thought it was so
| greedy and evil.
|
| Exactly , they weren't praising them for their monopolistic
| behavior
| ReptileMan wrote:
| You could literally do whatever you desired on windows. Which
| is the only thing I want from iphones. There has never been a
| good reason not to have some form of opt in root on the phone
| aside from apple greed.
| crazygringo wrote:
| In the 90's you virtually couldn't buy a computer without
| Windows because Microsoft forced manufacturers to pay them
| for Windows for every computer they built and sold, no
| matter whether that computer contained Windows or not.
|
| And you can still install whatever you want on Macs.
|
| Just saying, let's not look at the 90's as some paragon of
| openness.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| I literally could buy computers without windows in the
| 90-s. Probably 2 or 3 of them. And you could always build
| your rig from scratch - and no windows then.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm talking about the rise of the Internet, and the idea that
| the Internet would bring us all closer together.
|
| Regarding Microsoft, recall that Google's "Don't be evil"
| mantra was _specifically_ about contrasting them with
| Microsoft. That is, the idea that Microsoft used all these
| dirty tricks to gain prominence (which they did, and which is
| well documented) but that Google was going to be different
| and was just going to win by having the better product. And I
| think most people were optimistic about this, and for
| 10-15ish years I think Google behaved this way until the
| demands of "forever growth" capitalism eventually took over.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _and the idea that the Internet would bring us all closer
| together._
|
| Well that part happened! I'm so much more connected to
| people and knowledge than I was in the 90's.
|
| But I don't remember any optimism that companies would
| become less greedy. Google's "don't be evil" was an
| idiosyncrasy -- literally the only company saying something
| like that, because they were raking in cash and could
| afford to. It wasn't a trend.
| seydor wrote:
| you're a large number of years too late
| meindnoch wrote:
| So if enough EU people install a free app, the developer will be
| liable for EUR0.50 per install?
|
| T-thanks EU!
| user_7832 wrote:
| How is the EU responsible for something Apple did?
| layer8 wrote:
| Only if you agree to the new terms in order to publish on an
| alternative app store.
|
| And surely you mean "thanks Apple".
| kiwijamo wrote:
| Erm it's Apple who has made this decision not the EU.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Expect that to be challenged by the regulator/courts
|
| Obvious malicious compliance
| user_7832 wrote:
| > Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that
| reduce -- but don't eliminate -- new risks the DMA poses to EU
| users.
|
| It's hilarious how much a trillion dollar company can act like a
| petulant child when they get worried about losing their financial
| grip.
| wepple wrote:
| They're 100% correct though
| Scharkenberg wrote:
| The DMA poses big risks to Apple's profits.
| wvenable wrote:
| They are correct that there are new risks but there would
| also be new benefits for consumers. Apple has done a very
| good job of mitigating the risks and the benefits to their
| advantage.
| layer8 wrote:
| > iOS apps on the App Store will pay a reduced commission of
| either 10 percent (for the vast majority of developers, and
| subscriptions following their first year) or 17 percent on
| transactions for digital goods and services.
|
| So we'll still not be able to purchase Kindle books from the app,
| it seems.
| filleokus wrote:
| > [...] enabling developers to use browser engines, other than
| WebKit
|
| I'm afraid this announcement will turn out to be disastrous for
| the open web as we know it. Even if some enthusiasts now will be
| able to use Firefox proper, the real change is that WebKit usage
| will more than half over night. After this I guess the rendering
| engine market share will be roughly 80/20 Chromium/Webkit with
| Gecko as some rounding error.
|
| For how long will it be defensible for the average company to
| test their site on anything but Chromium?
| jayflux wrote:
| > the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over
| night.
|
| No it won't.
|
| The majority of "normal" users aren't even aware their "chrome"
| app isn't real chrome, so why would there be a mass install of
| a different browser? Some will yep but the mainstream aren't
| going to change their habits over this. Your average person
| isn't going "damn I wish I could have a different rendering
| engine on my phone".
|
| Over a longer period of time we'll see some interesting
| changes, but nothing is going to move the needle in the first
| few months or even first year.
| graphe wrote:
| If they allow desktop extensions then I can see it happening.
| filleokus wrote:
| Based on the data I've seen, about 15-20% of iOS users on
| mainstream popular (top [?]30) websites in Sweden use Chrome.
| I'm not sure how representative this is of all of EU. Those
| 15-20% will be "lost" overnight, or as soon as Chrome drops
| Webkit on iOS (which is what I meant by overnight).
|
| Maybe it was pessimistic of me to assume Chrome will more
| than double its user base with the new browswer-picker-modal
| "overnight". But I would be surprised if it's not noticeable.
| Normal people will see it and go "Oh that's the logo I click
| to get the internet on the PC in the study, let's try that,
| maybe all my football bookmarks will be synced".
| joshspankit wrote:
| No company should be allowed to both sell the hardware and run
| the store for 3rd party content.
|
| Edit: Actually I realize my thoughts on this are too emotional
| and my words aren't coming out in a way that clearly communicates
| the issues I see.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why not? Don't use it if you don't like it.
| thih9 wrote:
| What does this mean in practice?
|
| 1. Will banned categories like emulators, apps with adult
| content, or apps competing with apple's products be available for
| iOS?
|
| 2. One step further, what about apps using internal apis?
| akmarinov wrote:
| Seems like they will yeah
|
| > Unlike App Store review, notarization will not enforce
| quality or content standards.
|
| But the publishers of those emulators will need quite a bit of
| money to keep up with the Apple Core Technology fee
| thih9 wrote:
| The fee is half a euro per user per year, so a subscription
| of one euro per year should solve this.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Not if 10 million people download the app, see that you
| want 1EUR/year and delete it.
|
| Then you just owe Apple a lot of money
| legitster wrote:
| Microsoft's: "We look forward to continuing to work with the
| European Commission to finalize our compliance obligations."
|
| Google: "While we support many of the DMA's ambitions around
| consumer choice and interoperability, the new rules involve
| difficult trade-offs, and we're concerned that some of these
| rules will reduce the choices available to people and businesses
| in Europe."
|
| Apple: "The changes we're announcing today comply with the
| Digital Markets Act's requirements in the European Union, while
| helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased
| privacy and security threats this regulation brings."
|
| Android and Windows have lived in the chaos of open platforms so
| much that they can shrug off most of these regulations. Apple's
| entire business model is being a walled garden.
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| I look forward to having 6 different app stores and launchers
| installed mostly apps I open once a month.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I look forward to have emulators and ads free video players
| without having to go through cumbersome workarounds to
| install the apps.
| oblio wrote:
| You do know this doesn't happen on Android, right? There is
| the option to do it but in practice it barely happens.
| PrayagBhakar wrote:
| I look forward to having Cydia as an AppStore on my phone
| again
| Avamander wrote:
| I look forward to having uncensored versions of apps that
| don't force idiotic American puritanism on me. Who knows,
| maybe I'd also like to use a proper Python interpreter once
| in a while or a torrent client.
| manmal wrote:
| > Apple's entire business model is being a walled garden
|
| Is it really their business model? They still earn most of
| their revenue with hardware. I think they'd do just fine even
| if they opened up more. Their institutionalized control fetish
| prevents it.
| chipweinberger wrote:
| Do you need to use an app store?
|
| Can you install software yourself?
| amusingimpala75 wrote:
| I'm just as much a Firefox fan as anyone, and I use Firefox
| exclusively on desktop, even going around explaining the
| benefits, etc. to others.
|
| That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this
| spreads beyond the EU, that's practically handing Chrome a
| monopoly on a silver platter. What's to stop them?
|
| I would just like to retroactively reply to the objection that
| the government can just antitrust regulate Google. Ignoring my
| general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free
| market, I would like to point out how long it took the EU to
| implement these changes since Apple started these behaviors. If
| Chrome does obtain a monopoly, we're looking at years before the
| government even does anything.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| >That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this
| spreads beyond the EU, that's practically handing Chrome a
| monopoly on a silver platter.
|
| >Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government
| regulation on a free market.
|
| So, free market is fine until free market(the users that will
| install and use Chrome because it's better than Safari) does
| something you think it's bad.
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| That's assuming the free market is what drives users to
| chrome and not: This browser is unsupported, switch to Chrome
| now
| amusingimpala75 wrote:
| Yeah this is what I was intending. I don't have a problem
| with individuals using Chrome (I think it's a bad choice
| overall but it's their choice). However "YouTube works best
| in Chrome" and "GMail works best in Chrome" because they
| depend on some tracking API, it's not really the choice of
| the user anymore.
|
| Good thing WebDRM got delayed 'cause I don't want to
| install Chrome just to use my banking app.
| amusingimpala75 wrote:
| I think that monopolies are generally bad for the user, but I
| don't think that government regulation is the proper
| solution.
| kccqzy wrote:
| iOS users overwhelmingly prefer Safari. Chrome's market share
| on iOS is very low and allowing Chrome their own rendering
| engine isn't going to meaningfully change anything.
| a1o wrote:
| I don't understand, with this core technology fee I can't sell a
| game that is finished, only a service as it would otherwise have
| a possibility of it generating a continuous fee when selling it
| through the app store.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's easy to understand: Apple really only wants apps that make
| them money.
| kaba0 wrote:
| I mean, they are a company, what did you expect?
|
| Nonprofits are exempted from the fees, so an open-source app
| store could be possible.
|
| Win-win for everyone (except other companies, but isn't that
| the point of capitalism?)
| layer8 wrote:
| It means that you have to set up a nonprofit for your
| weekend hobby project. The reality is rather that the hobby
| project is unlikely to happen due to this.
|
| And in Europe there is a slightly different perspective on
| companies and capitalism. "Making money" is not taken as a
| blanket justification for anything. Companies have social
| responsibilities, and there is a balancing of company and
| consumer interests.
| kaba0 wrote:
| A single nonprofit can create an alternative app store,
| and distribute any open-source app from within - this is
| pretty much how f-droid works on android.
|
| I just don't see how is it a negative change -- eu
| citizens get more choices, while the eu laws won't be
| turned against apple itself (a metastore would benefit no
| one, but meta).
| crazygringo wrote:
| Of course you can. But you have to distribute it through
| Apple's App Store, using the existing terms which aren't going
| away. Then there's no core technology fee.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Apple must be crazy with their per install charge fee. I am
| impressed at how obtuse Apple is, and the level they are going to
| be petty. The hammer will only fall harder.
| toyg wrote:
| "Yay, finally! Thanks EU!"
|
| _< checks where he lives>_
|
| "... Fuck Brexit with a rake ..."
| librish wrote:
| Important to note -
|
| "New business terms available for apps in the EU -- to reflect
| the DMA's requirements for alternative distribution and payment
| processing, Apple is also sharing new business terms for apps in
| the EU. Developers have a choice to remain on Apple's existing
| terms or adopt new terms that reflect the new capabilities."
|
| So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so
| unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| So for developers it's either stay with Apple 100% or leave?
| yreg wrote:
| > So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so
| unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is
| preserved.
|
| The new terms are very appealing to the vast majority of
| developers. Most of us don't have 1M+ installs a year.
|
| They are unappealing to the likes of Facebook or YouTube.
| rvba wrote:
| Someone can run a botfarm that will download your APP 1M
| times and you need to pay 45k? Sounds unappealing to me.
| mil22 wrote:
| $45K _per month_.
| oblio wrote:
| Someone was saying that updates count as installs.
| bhelkey wrote:
| From the comments, updates count as installs.
| mthoms wrote:
| Apparently, once you sell in a non-Apple app store - you
| can't go back. Not just for the app in question; You, as a
| developer, can never sell in an Apple EU App Store ever
| again. Not even unrelated apps.
|
| Still appealing?
|
| "Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will
| not be able to switch back to Apple's existing business terms
| for their EU apps."
|
| See "Why is Apple giving developers two options for business
| terms in the EU?" https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-
| and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| And where are the pitch forks now that came out when Unity tried
| to charge per install fees?
|
| If you accidentally went viral on the AppStore you could go
| bankrupt
| nickmain wrote:
| > Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will
| not be able to switch back to Apple's existing business terms for
| their EU apps.
|
| This seems like an understated gotcha.
| 85fce wrote:
| Marketplace developers will need to pay EUR0.50 for each first
| annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs
| included in your Apple Developer Program membership can't be used
| for marketplace apps.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Why don't mac apps have a "Core Technology Fee", just think these
| things fall completely apart when they have a whole platform
| sitting there without these things.
| smoldesu wrote:
| You _almost_ feel bad for the MBAs that had to come up with
| this sad meme. On the other hand, I 'm pretty punch-drunk
| reading all this and wouldn't mind a few more months of
| corporate backpedaling. HN tends to make a good spectacle out
| of it. "A certain amount of killing has always
| been an arm of business," the Baron said, "but a line has to be
| drawn somewhere. Someone must be left to work the spice."
| akmarinov wrote:
| > If you take the EU iOS market share of 33.3% and the number of
| EU citizens (448 million), you get ~150 million
|
| That seems way too low out of 2 billion devices as per Apple to
| cause any splintering of iOS, it seems to be.
|
| Devs will be targeting the lowest common denominator and also iOS
| usually goes as the US goes, so other than the EU getting a
| couple of neat alternative apps - this won't amount to much in
| the grand scheme.
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| Citizens != Devices
| abhinavk wrote:
| Other countries might follow.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| If I'm a dev in the us and the app goes to the EU AppStore will I
| be charged with per install fee?
| user2342 wrote:
| Can anybody explain: do the possibilities of alternate
| distribution modes and fees (optionally) apply to all developers
| worldwide or only to EU based developers? I.e. is it developer
| based or App based?
|
| And furthermore, I - as an EU based developer - have an App that
| is currently distributed worldwide. After agreeing to the
| alternate fees, they are only applied to the portion of sales
| from EU customers. Customers in the rest of the world are handled
| with the standard fees?
| 1f60c wrote:
| I love Apple, and I'm frankly shocked that they would put out
| this statement in its current form. In the opening paras, their
| barely-contained rage is palpable, and sentences like
|
| > Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party
| web browser -- other than Safari -- as their default.
|
| make me wonder if anyone proof-read this thing at all. That said,
| this is a good day for EU users, and I applaud everyone who
| worked so hard to make this happen.
|
| The notarization requirement seems quite reasonable, and honestly
| better than I expected.
| TillE wrote:
| It's a very Steve Jobs tone, much more so than anything I can
| remember from Apple in recent years.
| titaniumtown wrote:
| Very well put. I honestly didn't know how Apple was going to
| announce or implement these changes, but they are definitely
| not happy!
| coryfklein wrote:
| The tone seems completely professional? I'm not sure where
| you're reading the "palpable rage" from. Because they used the
| word "already"? I'm not seeing it.
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| In the byline:
|
| > For users, the changes include new controls and
| disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and
| security risks the DMA creates
|
| ...
|
| >Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards
| that reduce -- but don't eliminate -- new risks the DMA poses
| to EU users.
|
| ...
|
| >The new options for processing payments and downloading apps
| on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit
| and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats.
|
| That being said I agree with them, the reason android is a
| buggy, low quality piece of crap is because of their lack of
| control over their platform. Apple should be able to closely
| guard the apps that get on users phones because its Apple
| that will be judged, not the app. We're going to see lots
| more malware for sure. Lots more dark patterns. I'm not
| surprised they resent it.
| kj99 wrote:
| The DMS does create a huge set of new risks. That's clear.
| Apple has advertised their platform as protecting users
| from those risks. They need to be able to explain the
| situation.
|
| These are just facts. I don't see any anger involved.
|
| Obviously opinions differ on how to manage the risk. A lot
| of people think a more open ecosystem is worth the risk.
| bearjaws wrote:
| Apple, the brave savior of cell phones.
|
| Nobody has installed an app, yet alone a stable one, prior
| to Apple. My Windows desktop currently is on fire in the
| corner of my office.
|
| I try to dial 911 on my crappy Android phone but alas, it a
| buggy piece of shit and catches fire too. "I'll just put
| that with the rest of the fire..."
|
| I literally have had one app have a problem on my phone in
| the last 12 months. You know what I did? I reopened it.
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| >My Windows desktop currently is on fire in the corner of
| my office.
|
| Funny you mention windows, an OS I also associate with
| low quality, scummy programs. Also chock full of adware,
| but that's not really relevant here.
| bearjaws wrote:
| Do you even use Apple products? My M1 MBP disconnects
| from my Airpods and track pad every few hours until I
| reboot (then it works fine for a few days). Dozens of
| threads on this. All Apple products being used.
|
| You have to install Chrome from Safari, because its not
| in the app store, and instead there's a bunch of fake
| results for Chrome.
|
| There is an entire Wikipedia article on the history of
| malware for iOS.
| 1f60c wrote:
| I meant the first two paragraphs. They seem
| uncharacteristically forceful, and the entire statement seems
| belittling at times, which is also very unlike Apple.
| tantalor wrote:
| Apple PR and marketing has always been state-of-the-art in
| superiority complex.
| frabjoused wrote:
| > The screen also interrupts EU users' experience the first
| time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage.
|
| This paints it as an unfortunate UX blight demanded by the
| DMA.
| titaniumtown wrote:
| Yes, the entire article reeks of the fight between
| corporate professionalism, complying with the law, and the
| "vision" they have for their products.
| user2342 wrote:
| Is the "Core Technology Fee" applied to free Apps?
|
| Example: I make a free App that gets very popular but has a
| rather seasonal character. Then there is a possibility, that many
| users will reinstall the App each year for a short time. Then I
| would have to pay the 50ct per install each year?
| alphabettsy wrote:
| On one hand Chrome on the iPhone is a win for choice.
|
| On the other hand Chrome gaining further marketshare and having a
| browser monopoly seems bad.
|
| I guess we'll see what happens.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sounds like the hypothetical AppStoreKit idea I suggested-
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
|
| If only Apple had deigned to try this before regulators appeared.
| hank_z wrote:
| It appears that these changes are not coming to UK. I wonder how
| UK users feel about it.
| Kelteseth wrote:
| Why would they, when they left the EU years ago?
| anfilt wrote:
| Looking through the comments here and I didn't see it. Does
| anyone have any idea how apple is going to track installs outside
| the app store?
|
| Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed
| even people sideloaded it?
|
| Also will iOS launch an un-notarized app that you side load?
| Probably not knowing apple, but if it won't I am not sure I
| consider that side loading in my opinion. This is because then
| that code still has be reviewed by apple to get notarized. This
| still gives apple the power to reject apps it does not like which
| negates the whole point of side loading.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app
| installed even people sideloaded it?_
|
| What Apple is implementing isn't sideloading at all -- it's
| enabling third-party app stores that will track everything the
| same way Apple's store does, and using Apple's newly provided
| APIs.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Of course this is only available in the EU. Why would Apple
| compromise its monopoly position everywhere else? Just like how
| Windows also only allows you to override Edge in the EU.
|
| It's starting to get on my nerves that these basic freedoms are
| being locked to specific regions. It's obvious why it happens,
| but it upsets me as a consumer.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Maybe this has already been answered in a downstream thread, but
| I think it deserves its own thread... For applications delivered
| via a 3rd party store, how is Apple going to (a) identify them,
| and (b) count their installs so that it can charge its 0.50 per
| install fee?
| Vespasian wrote:
| They'll put that as a requirement to get notarized ans spin
| some yarn how that is required to maintain "basic security".
|
| I hope the EU will put an end to that real quick.
| spiderice wrote:
| From the press release
|
| > Notarization for iOS apps -- a baseline review that applies
| to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused
| on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization
| involves a combination of automated checks and human review
|
| Shouldn't it be pretty trivial to track installs of Apple is
| notarizing every app? Even if the installs are from other
| sources?
| rahkiin wrote:
| For a marketplace to install an app they call the
| MarketplaceKit installApp() api. Apple can track this as it 1)
| then points to a url of the marketplace storage 2) the item is
| notarized and contains thus developer id that needs to pay
| matt3210 wrote:
| Per install is the worst model and Apple knows that. This is
| definitely retaliation for being forced to allow sideloading.
| matt3210 wrote:
| It looks like, while allowing sideloading, apps must still be
| signed by apple (notarized).
|
| Why do playstation, nintendo, and xbox not need to allow
| sideloading?
| popcalc wrote:
| I'm sure this is one reason many people moved over to PC gaming
| in the last decade.
| matwood wrote:
| And how can consoles get cuts of revenue when games are sold?
| It's all about licensing and contracts. Why does Epic get 5% on
| every game sold using their engine? Same reason. How can
| publishers sell licenses to libraries with a fixed number of
| checkouts and time? Same reason. And, this is the reason Apple
| will point to when demanding their 30% or per install fee.
|
| PCs are the exception in this world.
| asmor wrote:
| This is the epitome of malicious compliance, and it doesn't even
| seem very compliant in how the "core technology fee" and the
| built-in hard dependency on Apple notarizing is handled.
|
| Apple will get slapped for this.
| matt3210 wrote:
| Why is Apple subject to these rules but not game consoles?
| asmor wrote:
| because game consoles are not phones, the most common and often
| sole general purpose computing device people own?
| sureglymop wrote:
| Game consoles should be also. So, you're asking the right
| question but I hope you're not trying to make the point that
| Apple shouldn't be.
| bni wrote:
| Thats just great, more popups to dismiss, mandated by the EU
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| If we buy a phone in the EU and bring it to the USA, do we get
| sideloading in the USA?
| natch wrote:
| Just had a glance so far, but it's great to see Apple pulling no
| punches in public here.
| bitpush wrote:
| You spelled grotesque wrong.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Ah yes apple the shining bastion of what's best for the consumer.
| /s
|
| Easy fix. Don't make apple apps.
| nprateem wrote:
| I suspect they're charging $0.50 on alternative app stores as
| well as their own to be able to give something during the
| inevitable negotiations with the EU: "OK we'll stop taxing other
| stores, just let us keep taxing ours"
|
| Straight out of the claim-enormous-damages playbook to anchor the
| figure higher.
| beders wrote:
| I expect Apple to continue to provide a secure platform. I will
| not use any other app store for that reason. I like the wall
| around Apple's garden.
| edhelas wrote:
| We literally call it the Stockholm Syndrome
| yreg wrote:
| People who disagree won't like your comment, but it is a
| legitimate view.
|
| I'm all for side loading, but at the same time I would like
| Apple to have enough drag to force the big players (e.g. Meta)
| to continue to publish on the App Store and follow the rules.
| fayazara wrote:
| I hope this also opens up all the PWA capabilities as well
| Unfrozen0688 wrote:
| Android phones like Samsung and Oneplus etc are good now. Why put
| yourself through this? For iMessage?
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Ah so their new tactic is to try to scare everyone into not using
| the new things they're forced to enable. Guess that's all that's
| left.
| otoburb wrote:
| Apple provided a fee calculator so that people can run their own
| scenarios: https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-
| for-apps-...
| mcfedr wrote:
| Yet another win for Brexit
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Does this mean I will now be able to install a random .app just
| like I can on Android with .apks?
| dzaima wrote:
| Of note is that starting a marketplace takes a stand-by letter of
| credit of EUR1,000,000 [0], so no getting around the core
| technology free by just starting a bunch of marketplaces.
|
| [0]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-
| marketpl...
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Could a non-profit meet all requirements?
|
| Free Developer Association NGO?
| rahkiin wrote:
| According to the docs, an NGO has special fee waiver of they
| want to, but then all apps they distribute must also be of
| fee-waived organizations like NGOs. So there could be a
| marketplace of just NGO apps with 0EUR fee. In the EU, on
| iPhone only.
| theodric wrote:
| Am I the only one that thinks the EU is gonna take one look at
| this, determine that it's anticompetitive and completely at odds
| with the spirit of the law, and take a giant shit on Apple's
| head? I don't think governments like when anybody but them
| internalises externalities-- particularly not crawling
| bureaucratic horrors of over-regulation like the EU. (I'm an EU
| subject, incidentally.)
| Ekaros wrote:
| Time to split software from hardware. I think that is entirely
| reasonable step for EU to take.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| I love how they keep crying all over the news about LE SECURITY
| RISKS!!11 yeah man, every single person knows there's security
| risks in anything online, don't care.
|
| Do you also complain about security risks related to roads hence
| why you don't even cross a road?
| aranelsurion wrote:
| Oh but trust me this is "for your own good".
|
| - signed with love, The Corporation.
| tonoto wrote:
| Apple ambassadors comes in 3, 2, 1.. to defend even this
| ridiculous fee that Apple plans to introduce. "..but what about
| Google.."
| kaba0 wrote:
| Ridiculous fee for for-profit companies that want to sell their
| software for free, aka where you are the product?
|
| Sorry, I won't be crying that no MetaStore will be financially
| possible. But an FDroid alternative can work, and that's the
| only thing I wanted (and many end-users who didn't even know
| they wanted it)
| tonoto wrote:
| F-Droid or just give me a repository. Something of the sort
| pkgsrc to let me install the tools I want to have on my
| phone.
| leoh wrote:
| Does anyone know if the letter of the law requires Apple to
| support users abroad who are EU citizens?
| zarzavat wrote:
| I'm also curious about this. Say you install a non-Apple App
| Store app in the EU, then you go to Turkey, what happens to the
| app you installed? Does it stop working? Does it get updates?
| What happens to the alternative store?
| ssalka wrote:
| Make jailbreaking great again
| cush wrote:
| Classic Apple malicious compliance
| dangoodmanUT wrote:
| a lot of hot takes inbound... oh wait already 782 comments
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It feels like there is an almost unprofessional level of snark in
| the way this is written. I assume Apple is banking on consumers
| siding with them on it but I have to wonder about the wisdom of
| doing that. The EU seems to be very unafraid to take on big tech,
| and i wouldn't want to be the company that triggers them to
| decide to make example to deter future malicious compliance.
| atlas_hugged wrote:
| Almost unprofessional? Hahaha
|
| You're being very generous.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| EU governments love to take on big tech, but does it reflect in
| the actual populace?
| beejiu wrote:
| > but does it reflect in the actual populace?
|
| Does that matter?
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Yes, because the comment I replied to was talking about the
| consumers (aka the populace.
|
| > I assume Apple is _banking on consumers siding with them_
| on it but I have to wonder about the wisdom of doing that
| izacus wrote:
| Yes. The populace votes and supports this widely.
| rvba wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Apart from getting things cheaper, there are multiple reasons
| from country to country (people prefer to not share private
| data, generic dislike for big tech, pirate party)
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| Mostly yes.
| munk-a wrote:
| I'm jealous as hell of the EU citizens that get such good
| protections. I'm sure it's a mixed bag like everywhere but my
| experience with activity tracking is that a lot of people do
| aggressively refuse tracking when given the choice... so I'd
| imagine other tech regulations have similar participation.
| riffraff wrote:
| I've yet to encounter anyone who cheers for Big tech in the
| EU, so I guess yes.
|
| People complain about many of the commission initiatives, but
| seldom when they tackle anti competitive behavior (even tho
| they lost a few times).
| Barrin92 wrote:
| speaking as only one EU citizen but echoing what I'm pretty
| confident is a widely held sentiment, yes we're tired of
| having the rules of our digital spaces dictated to us by big
| tech and the times where companies can act like feudal
| fiefdoms is coming to an end, hopefully quickly.
| lynguist wrote:
| How salty it is, it is like 1999's Microsoft. The monopolist
| uses all dishonorable tactics of the book.
|
| We could have so much more if those monopolists weren't so good
| at lobbying their will against all ours.
| leokennis wrote:
| These forced changes feel like adding a "disable ABS and traction
| control" button to a car. Great from the perspective of race car
| drivers. But my 70 years old parents ARE going to press that
| button and they ARE going to have a digital car crash because of
| this.
|
| I'm already looking forward to the "I lost my bookmarks!" call
| because they chose a different browser and the "my battery is
| dying so fast!" call because they sideloaded the new Facebook app
| with unprecedented crap in it from Facebook's marketplace.
| bagels wrote:
| It was already hard to make money on iOS, especially for low
| priced apps.
|
| This seems like it would completely eliminate popular ad-free and
| low cost free apps?
| Nathanba wrote:
| hopefully this has the opposite effect of what Apple intends
| and ruins their app ecosystem. Non-EU developers hopefully also
| stop developing apps for Apple.
| jordansmithnz wrote:
| I have a free utility app for school kids with an install base in
| the multiple millions. I don't make much off it, but many users
| find it helpful. It's most popular in the EU.
|
| So... if I'm understanding right, I need to take the app down, or
| start charging an up front fee to school children? Nice one
| Apple. I hope I'm allowed to add a pop up explaining to users why
| the app will now incur a mandatory charge.
|
| The best way I can interpret this: it only applies to new
| downloads each year. In that case, it's still concerning --- what
| happens if there is a surge of downloads? I'm on the hook for
| $50k overnight?
|
| And if updates are included in this number like some comments
| here suggest, users aren't going to get any bug fixes.
|
| Wow. HN, please tell me I'm interpreting this wrong.
| pcammeraat wrote:
| No. Just do not switch to the new terms and keep the terms you
| are using now.
| wvenable wrote:
| From the developer FAQ on Apple's site:
|
| > Developers who don't want anything to change can stay on the
| exact same business terms available today -- continuing to
| share their apps on the App Store alone, and to use the App
| Store's secure payment processing.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
| jordansmithnz wrote:
| Thanks -- this is a relief. I hope it lasts though, I could
| see Apple deprecating this option in a few years, once most
| apps have adopted the newer terms.
| wvenable wrote:
| I think Apple would prefer that nothing changes -- they
| make the new terms unappealing so nobody would choose them.
| pyr0hu wrote:
| Jesus no. Everyone gets stuck on the install fees but thats
| only in the equation if you switch to the new terms. And you
| dont have to, only if you want to use the external app stores
| or payment processors.
|
| "Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or
| stay on Apple's existing terms. Developers must adopt the new
| business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for
| alternative distribution or alternative payment processing."
| matwood wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
|
| _Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or
| stay on Apple's existing terms._
| Xunjin wrote:
| Basically "Stay on what we want, or change to even worst
| model, that just compliance with EU law, for now".
| yreg wrote:
| You can stay on the current terms and distribute through the
| App Store. Or you can create a nonprofit and the fees are
| supposed to be waived.
| kantium wrote:
| And what about forking the application ? Kid school France, kid
| school Germany, ... just having app staying under the 1M radar.
| jonp888 wrote:
| You don't have anything to worry about. You are just stuck in a
| nice new cage Apple has built for you because they were forced
| to dismantle the old cage.
|
| So long as you are good boy and don't upload your App to any
| non-Apple app store, you won't be charged the per-install fee.
| Once you do, the gloves are off. They will start, and they
| won't ever stop even if you repent and go back to Apple-only
| distribution. Clever, right?
| mk89 wrote:
| If I understand it right, Apple was clever.
|
| The serious issue is for apps having more than 1 million installs
| (YouTube, Zoom, Slack, Outlook, Amazon, etc.). Strong
| "coincidence": these are the companies you don't want to allow to
| create alternative stores to, because they have their own
| payments methods: how long would it take Amazon, Google or
| Microsoft (the only one without a payment service, AFAIK) to run
| their brand new "Google/Amazon Store for iOS"? Probably they have
| it already half baked there waiting to be released.
|
| Now, they will have to either accept to use the App Store "way"
| (the current way, so all good) or pay huge fees for their own
| apps. Will they do it? Is it worth it? I am very curious!
|
| Alternative, smaller stores for smaller apps, instead, will be
| there and should be OK, as long as the apps don't exceed 1
| million installs in a year (which is a lot, I guess).
|
| EDIT: I missed Meta Pay, apparently another payment method from
| one of the companies with the most downloaded apps. Yeah, it
| seems really that Apple doesn't want other stores from big
| companies.
| rahkiin wrote:
| App installs through alternative stores can not use the '1
| million install credit' that comes with the apple developer
| program. As in, you pay from the first install. (Except as ngo)
| robocat wrote:
| Also steam/valve?
| kaba0 wrote:
| Non-profits are exempted, so an fdroid alternative becomes
| possible, which is the only alt store I (and probably anyone)
| care about. This is a win.
| chupchap wrote:
| What happens if Google or Meta pulls all its apps from the store?
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| That'd be suicide for them. Most valuable users advertising-
| wise is on iPhone.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| How well does the EU respond to malicious compliance?
| pxoe wrote:
| >To qualify for the entitlement, your app must: Be available on
| iOS in the European Union only
|
| kicking and screaming. i mean, yes, that is "complying". but it
| is ridiculous. and, am i getting this right, just gonna create a
| bunch of "[browser name] EU Edition" apps, which is just gonna be
| wonderful. users can look forward to having something like Chrome
| (International) and Chrome EU (limited EU edition) be installed
| side by side, i guess. can we look forward to "[browser name]
| [country name] edition" per each country that'd fancy to have
| itself some regulation similar to that? that'd be so many
| browsers! dozens, hundreds! what an optimal solution.
| wvenable wrote:
| The app store hides apps that aren't available in your region
| -- even now.
| bhelkey wrote:
| EU users should still be able to install the international
| versions of the apps, no?
|
| This they would see APP and APP (EU Edition).
| wvenable wrote:
| I assume if you built an EU version of an app with, for
| example, your own browser engine then you wouldn't make the
| other "International" version available. What would be the
| point?
| jl6 wrote:
| This reads like a masterpiece of passive aggressive malicious
| compliance.
| andersa wrote:
| It seems Apple has misunderstood their role here. They are to not
| be involved _at all_ in transactions between other businesses
| delivering software to people 's phones, just like we have done
| for every other general purpose computer.
|
| They will need a second, even stronger slap to finally understand
| it. Actually insane that they believe they will get away with
| this garbage.
| andersa wrote:
| I am not a lawyer and not interested in reading hundreds of
| pages to figure out whether this is already non-compliant with
| the DMA, but it is clearly non-compliant with its intention, so
| I trust it will be fixed.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Luckily laws in the EU are mostly enforced by the intention
| of the law, not the exact wording.
|
| Therefore I'm fairly confident that they will be found
| noncompliant. That might take many years though, allowing
| Apple a few more years profits.
| jedimind wrote:
| the noncompliance needs to be fixed before the deadline
| exe34 wrote:
| The fines should cover all the profits. I.e. seize the ill-
| gotten gains.
| threeseed wrote:
| Courts in EU and US have all agreed that Apple is well within
| its rights to charge a license fee for use of their
| technologies. No different to companies like Epic or OpenAI.
|
| And I would have doubts that any regulator would want to get
| into the business of deciding what is a fair percentage to
| charge for an SDk or API.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is what it comes down to, at the root.
|
| Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability
| to write _and distribute_ (the $100 fee is nothing) apps
| for their store, and only take payment from payment
| received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on
| Apple 's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the
| companies.
| shaan7 wrote:
| Yes, if the developers want to use Apple's App Store,
| they should pay for it, that is not the problem. The
| problem is that developers are forced to use Apple's App
| Store instead of another distribution platform. But now
| Apple is saying "Its okay if you want to use another
| distribution platform, but you still need to pay us". Why
| is that okay? (And no, an iPhone itself is not Apple's
| platform, once the user buys the phone, its their
| platform).
| kj99 wrote:
| Once the user buys the phone, they own the physical
| device, but that's not all they are receiving. They also
| receive software and services. They don't own those -
| they have a license for them.
| merlindru wrote:
| Right, but the software and services prevent you from
| using the physical device however you want
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...courts in the EU have already ruled on this new law
| before it has actually taken effect?
| andersa wrote:
| The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No
| additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded
| an app that I wrote from my website/store. Thus, Apple
| should not be paid for it. That's really simple - we've
| been doing this model for general purpose computers for
| decades already.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a
| game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the
| Swift programming language along with the rest of the
| SDK.
|
| It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual
| property rights to protect its ability to tax the app
| economy.
| trumpeta wrote:
| You can choose a different game engine or write your own.
| You can not write an app for iOS without Apple SDK
| threeseed wrote:
| a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost
| of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the
| iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being
| no additional cost makes no sense.
|
| b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs
| and in the past it used to be significantly higher than
| today. So there is a precedent for this.
| baobun wrote:
| Not true.
|
| Replace "technologies" with "services and infrastructure"
| and you're close.
|
| The DMA says that users should be able to choose other
| service- and infrastructure providers than Apple. Nobody's
| giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install
| on a Dell PC, though I'm sure they'd love that.
| plussed_reader wrote:
| "Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every
| software install..."
|
| Isn't that the nature of the OEM agreements they put in
| place with each other to package their OS?
| manojlds wrote:
| Is Apple being paid when I install a DMG?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > Courts in EU
|
| I see the Netherlands case on third party PSPs for dating
| apps, and it was in the scope of apps downloaded and
| managed within the AppStore. Do you see any other case
| ruled in the EU on this subject ?
| matwood wrote:
| Agreed. This is a licensing issue that has far reaching
| impact if addressed. As long as licensing software is a
| thing, Apple is well within its right to charge.
|
| And to your point, a judge in one of the recent cases even
| said they were not inclined to tell Apple how much to
| charge in their business.
| sneak wrote:
| The real worry is not the commercial angle, but the fact that
| centralized censorship of apps will remain.
|
| Apple will retain the ability to shut off protest or encrypted
| communications/news/social apps, even when distributed outside
| of their store, by revoking the signatures.
|
| This is a threat to a free society, not just a threat to
| Apple's price-gouging revenue.
| TravisCooper wrote:
| This is the correct take. Well said.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Use websites.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple made it clear that they will not revoke apps for the
| content they provide only if they are used for malware or
| viruses.
|
| Given that they have not behaved similar with macOS we should
| assume the same here.
| andersa wrote:
| It doesn't matter what they "made clear". Apple is not the
| government. They should not have the ability to do
| anything.
| p_l wrote:
| Apple did so in the past, and made artificial problems
| whenever it wanted.
| paulddraper wrote:
| What makes a computer general purpose?
|
| Is an XBox 360 a general purpose computer?
| doodpants wrote:
| Every computer is general purpose at its core. But some
| computers ship with software/firmware that restricts the
| purposes accessible by the end user.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> But some computers ship with software /firmware that
| restricts the purposes accessible by the end user._
|
| Which is a necessary evil if you're shipping the hardware
| of that "computer" at ultra low or negative margins in
| order to make back the investment on SW sales.
|
| Otherwise, the air force will buy boatloads of PS3s for a
| computer farm and scalpers will use PS5 for crypto mining
| and Sony would go bust from these hardware sales.
|
| Apple is in a different position as it makes crazy margins
| even on hardware which is arare for hardware manufacturers.
| andersa wrote:
| Good thing we know that Apple already makes significant
| profit on every sale of their hardware.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Yeah, it's almost as if some more healthy competition in
| the market would help instead of Apple being a monpopoly
| on mobile along with Google.
|
| Hence why we need regulations to break Apple and Google
| of their high horse.
| 38 wrote:
| Would you buy an XBOX for business use? IT? devops?
| wpm wrote:
| Would you buy an iPhone to run shell scripts and game
| emulators on?
| funkyfourier wrote:
| Actually, yes. If the iPhone was an open platform that
| could open it up for many use cases involving shell
| scripting and such. As for game emulators I already run
| several on my Android phone with great luck, so that is
| indeed a valid use case.
| armchair_expert wrote:
| An iPhone is just a tiny pocket computer. There is no
| technical reason preventing an iPhone from running shell
| scripts and emulators. The only reason why it can't do is
| because Apple controls what apps you are allowed to run
| on your phone.
| paulddraper wrote:
| No, but I also wouldn't buy a iPhone for a devops machine.
| andersa wrote:
| Mass market adoption for general purposes, relevance in
| people's lives. Many EU citizens manage their entirely
| digital life from their phone, I do not know of anyone who
| uses an XBox 360 to do that.
|
| Not that I would be opposed to game consoles also falling
| under this legislation.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It would be a shame if the way to get a closed ecosystem
| was to remove functionality to meet some arbitrary
| threshold.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| I would love if it applied to game consoles as well.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| A computer that touts to have an app for most things in life
| ?
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Personal computing/general tasks being done on the device vs
| one purpose. Like there's not just the ability to talk on the
| phone and message. People use it as their sole computer,
| apply for jobs, pay for things, research things, etc.
| gwright wrote:
| I think this perspective goes too far.
|
| Some people (me included) would actually like to have a secure,
| vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on my phone
| (and even my computer). I realize that other people want
| something different. And think it is reasonable for people to
| want different approaches for different devices.
|
| Any regulations designed to ensure the "open" model shouldn't
| prevent the "closed" model from existing. Your comment just
| seems a bit to heavy handed to my ear.
|
| That being said, it seems to me that Apple's attempt is
| guaranteed to satisfy no one.
| andersa wrote:
| You can have this! Simply only download apps from Apple's
| store. Apple still has no right to interfere in any way at
| all, or collect a tax, if I want to sell an app to someone
| else outside of it.
| jewelry wrote:
| Why don't you use android device then? You're not forced to
| buy apple product if that's a priority for you.
| andersa wrote:
| I do use an android device. Apple hardware is very good
| however, so I am interested in buying some of their
| things aswell.
| halJordan wrote:
| What about the people like you saying Apple has no place in
| between 3rd party devs and the end user? You literally said
| he couldn't have it? From your first post if you had your
| druthers Apple would be slapped harder and harder until
| they disband the App Store.
| andersa wrote:
| If the seller is voluntarily working together with Apple
| (i.e. purposefully selling the software through their
| store) that is obviously fine. The whole point of the DMA
| is we should not be forced to.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Apple still has no right to interfere in any way at all,
| or collect a tax, if I want to sell an app to someone else
| outside of it.
|
| You seem to be demanding that everyone bend to your view of
| how the world should work.
|
| But the fact is that Apple has a right to determine what
| apps are on their platform. No different to how
| supermarkets choose what items to stock or social networks
| moderate what content to show.
| andersa wrote:
| Apple does not have a right to determine what software
| people run on their general purpose computers. That is
| the whole point of the DMA. I apologize if you couldn't
| understand this.
|
| > No different to how supermarkets choose what items to
| stock
|
| And yet, you can drive to Ikea and buy a couch without
| having to pay a fee to Walmart. Very curious. Want to
| think of a better analogy?
| bloppe wrote:
| Nobody wants you to lose your ability to stay in the walled
| garden. We just want a way out ourselves, without paying
| exploitative fees.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| You 2 aren't in any disagreement.
|
| The whole point of all of these millions in legal fees is to
| even have the OPTION of an open model. Of course you'll
| always have walled garden option, that's apple's golden
| goose.
| halJordan wrote:
| There is a disagreement, the first poster clearly believes
| Apple even having a closed App Store is an infringement,
| even if he can not use it. And it's honestly almost
| gaslighting to pretend that the first poster isn't making
| that argument
| andersa wrote:
| No, this is not true. I do not care about what Apple does
| with their App Store. The point is they should not be
| allowed to insert themselves into a relationship between
| me trying to sell something and someone else trying to
| buy it from me directly. No cost to Apple exists, thus
| they should not be paid. It's really simple actually.
| wrboyce wrote:
| Absolutely spot on, and it really does seem like it's always
| Android users moaning about Apple's business model.
|
| Why can't you and I just live happily in our walled garden
| without zealots of open access ruining it for us? It truly
| boggles me. Is it jealousy? That's all I can come up with.
| manojlds wrote:
| What do you mean jealousy? Most Android users that come
| here could afford an iPhone if they want to.
| matwood wrote:
| IDK. Android exists and is closer to the open model
| people here seem to want, yet the same people appear to
| knowingly still buy iPhones and complain it's not like
| Android.
| manojlds wrote:
| Mainly because Apple hardware is amazing. I used to run
| Windows on Bootcamp on my MacBook and loved it and now
| Windows is worse, Apple Silicon is just way better. If
| Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on
| my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you
| won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"
| wrboyce wrote:
| That doesn't seem like something to legislate over to me
| though. "Your hardware is too good, you're going to have
| to change the associated business model"? Madness,
| shouldn't the onus just be on Android phone manufacturers
| to up their game? It's not like Apple got where they are
| with iPhones for free, they heavily invested and are now
| enjoying the fruits.
| wrboyce wrote:
| I didn't mean "they can't afford it" jealousy, but from
| my experience the quality of apps on iOS is significantly
| higher than Android, that's what I was going for; jealous
| of the "polish", if you will.
|
| Then again that could be because I'm used to iOS and find
| the Android UX patterns poor at best.
| p_l wrote:
| You can. It's about making it your choice to do so, instead
| of Apple's.
| wrboyce wrote:
| Is it not my choice though? When I buy an iPhone knowing
| how the App Store and their walled garden work? If
| anything, I could argue Android users pushing for more
| openness are invaliding my choice!
| Macha wrote:
| > Absolutely spot on, and it really does seem like it's
| always Android users moaning about Apple's business model.
|
| They might be Android users _because_ they don't like
| Apple's control.
| wrboyce wrote:
| Indeed, so why do they care what I can/can't install on
| /my/ phone? I don't need someone to fight my battles for
| me, and I certainly don't need someone to fight their
| battles for me!
| earthling8118 wrote:
| Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. If you have to
| force other people into your closed ecosystem to maintain it,
| you're the problem.
| matwood wrote:
| Who exactly was forced into using iOS? Is there some place
| with iOS as the only solution available?
| manojlds wrote:
| Are you ok if on your MacBook you can install apps only from
| the AppStore? Do you want the option to install dmgs and heck
| even curl | bash ?
| xdennis wrote:
| I really don't understand this mentality of people who are
| happy to live in a free society but want North Korea on their
| phones. I wouldn't mind it if it was a fringe OS, but it's
| half the phone market.
| dcchambers wrote:
| > Some people (me included) would actually like to have a
| secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on
| my phone (and even my computer).
|
| And that thing already exists - it's the app store. No one
| would be stopping you from choosing to only download apps
| from the official app store, and I assume that many people
| would be similar to you. They will only use the official app
| store because that is the vetted-by-apple place to find
| software.
|
| But just because the closed and vetted ecosystem exists for
| users like you, doesn't mean that Apple should be able to
| prevent other people that don't care about that from doing
| what they want to with the devices they literally own.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Some people (me included) would actually like to have a
| secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on
| my phone (and even my computer).
|
| I don't think the problem is the idea of an app store
| offering only secure and vetted software. Apple absolutely
| doesn't offer that right now, but even if they ever do offer
| something like that would you really want that to be the only
| way to get software on your device?
|
| Letting someone, no matter how trustworthy they are, decide
| for you what you can and cannot run on your own computer is a
| giving up a lot of freedom. I'd even say that was dangerous
| when it comes to our cell phones since we're basically stuck
| with just Apple or Google controlling our devices and for
| most people a cell phone is the only computer they own.
| thethimble wrote:
| Eh I actually prefer Apple mediating all my app payments
| (despite the X% surcharge that ultimately the consumer pays
| for).
|
| I don't have to ever enter in my cc info. I can easily cancel
| subscriptions from a centralized place. Payments UX is user
| hostile in the wild.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| no reason in 5 years your bank app wouldn't be able to do
| this
|
| (no reason they can't do it yet, but they are banks after
| all)
| bloppe wrote:
| There's no reason why a different app store couldn't offer
| the exact same feature; centralized payments for all apps in
| their store. They could just charge a competitive fee,
| forcing Apple to compete fairly, lowering prices for all
| without impacting quality of experience.
| coldtea wrote:
| I'd actually would prefer I'm not forced to use some BS third
| party app store, or more, just because some big player whose
| apps I need (say Facebook or Google) only makes them available
| through their own shitty app store, and not through the iOS app
| store anymore.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| it's just the distribution. why does that make such a
| difference to your experience?
|
| to me, i see the app store for 5 seconds between clicking a
| "download" link, pressing "install", and closing it.
|
| on my computer i don't care if spotify publishes their
| desktop app through the apple store, their own website,
| command line, or some other thing. i trust it because the
| download link comes from spotify's website, that's the source
| of authority. i don't care about the thing in between
| clicking download and having it on my device.
| natch wrote:
| Protective compliance.
|
| Not malicious.
|
| Protecting their users in as much as is possible given the ill-
| conceived DMA.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| this is malicious compliance no doubt about it, I hope that the
| European Union brings down the hammer on Apple for this.
| pkilgore wrote:
| Whoever wrote this did a great job of causing me to visualize the
| sneer on their face as they did so.
|
| Toddler level pouting + just Ivy League levels of "we know what's
| good for you more than you do".
| londons_explore wrote:
| > Core Technology Fee -- iOS apps distributed from the App Store
| and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay EUR0.50 for each
| first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
|
| Can't imagine that flying with the EU...
|
| The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has
| already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came
| with a license for iOS)
| mil22 wrote:
| They may not like it, but the question is: is it actually
| illegal under the new DMA regulations as they are currently
| written?
|
| The DMA is 66 pages of legalese, otherwise I would have read it
| to find out:
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
| occz wrote:
| Very blatantly trying to circumvent the spirit of the law.
| Nothing a lawsuit for 10% of global annual revenues can't solve,
| though. I truly hope the EU puts down the law here and let Apple
| know how the find out-phase of their little gambit feels.
| mmmmmbop wrote:
| So obviously the new terms are worse for almost all business
| cases. That said, it's interesting to look at cases where they
| might be better.
|
| If you have a F2P game app averaging 50EUR revenue per user per
| year and you introduce a limitation to 1M users, you can avoid
| the Core Technology Fee and end up with 0EUR fees, as opposed to
| 15MEUR yearly fees under the current terms.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| The Kindle store might also do well under these terms.
|
| If the average user buys a couple of books per year on it,
| avoiding 30% may be worth EUR0.50
| stygiansonic wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...
|
| One of the requirements for third party App Store use by
| developers is maintaining a standby letter of credit of 1M euros
| from an A rated financial institution
|
| Edit: was mistaken, this is a requirement for the operator of a
| third party App Store.
| EasyMark wrote:
| This seems like something that the EU org pushing for opening up
| the iphone to more stores as egregious and they would commence
| with fining apple. No?
| Angostura wrote:
| I think this is an interesting by Apple. They bid to remain the
| gatekeeper, ensuring a degree of control against malware on the
| platform. Either the EU says yes, or when the EU says no, Apple
| can tell consumers who are cross because they have been infested
| with a nasty "well, we _wanted_ wanted to provide protection, but
| we weren 't allowed to - tough luck"
| mil22 wrote:
| "Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not
| be able to switch back to Apple's existing business terms for
| their EU apps."
|
| from https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-
| eu/#...
|
| I have not seen this important aspect mentioned yet. Once you
| have opted in to Apple's new business terms, you will be locked
| in to those terms forever.
|
| Because of this restriction, given the ridiculous EUR0.50 per
| year per install fees, no developer who hopes their new app will
| one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms,
| and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.
| mthoms wrote:
| You're right - this clause needs more scrutiny. This is a
| poison pill (and a smoking gun in terms of malicious non-
| compliance). There is no good reason for this rule except greed
| and spite.
|
| Notice that this draconian rule is _per developer_ not _per
| app_ like one might expect? What utter nonsense.
| mil22 wrote:
| Great point, I will revise my statement to "no developer who
| hopes _any app they ever create_ will one day have more than
| 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt
| that is exactly Apple 's intention here.".
| bhpm wrote:
| I'm confused at the all comments here that suggest Apple didn't
| vet these changes with the EU before announcing. Tim Cook met
| with the EU regulators at Apple Park last week. The changes that
| are being implemented have been in the works for literally years.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If I were in Apple's shoes, I would have taken another tack...
|
| 'Your iPhone is currently in Apple-only mode. To allow
| installation of apps not reviewed by Apple, you must disable this
| mode. Doing so requires a device reset and some apps may only
| function in Apple only mode'.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Haha, the nuclear option. I love it!
| flenserboy wrote:
| Apple needs to have two versions of iOS, & sell their phones with
| a choice for users. One phone is iOS as is, with perhaps even
| more security baked-in. The other is open, Wild West like so many
| here are demanding. The kicker is that the version on the phone
| cannot be changed to the other: the Wild West phone has to be
| regarded as compromised from the start, & Apple can easily market
| it that way. "They're both the same great phone. But you can only
| trust one of them." Let the market decide. I'm pretty sure which
| way consumers would decide, a direction which would in no way
| please the state actors looking to get a toehold on the data in
| every iPhone. [Edited typo]
| gigel82 wrote:
| Who's the "you" in "you can trust"? If it's the DRM assholes
| looking for remote attestation and other ways to take ownership
| away from device owners, then that's an amazing outcome in my
| mind.
|
| If you're implying that device owners can no longer trust their
| own devices, that's a weak argument that 50+ years of PC
| (emphasis on the "personal") industry can help invalidate.
| quenix wrote:
| Most "old-school" x86 TPM-less PCs can't _really_ be trusted
| in the same way as a patched, up-to-date iPhone though.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| Honestly seems like a good solution. Users will most likely
| prefer the walled garden experience but if some don't they can
| just buy the other iPhone.
| gigel82 wrote:
| My only hope is that some of the Apple fans start to see through
| the thick veil of PR bs and realize Apple is just as bad (if not
| worse) than the other tech assholes / technofeudal lordship
| wannabes of Microsoft, Google et al.
| acheong08 wrote:
| 1. Is the UK considered part of the EU? 2. Can I sideload my own
| apps or do I still need a developer license?
| oblio wrote:
| Brexit.
| Yaina wrote:
| So if Mozilla wanted to ship Firefox with Gecko on iOS, they
| would need to maintain that, but only for the EU, while
| maintaining a WebKit version for all other markets. Oof.
| mil22 wrote:
| Luckily, the EU included substantial anti-circumvention
| provisions in the DMA. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the
| excerpts from the regulations below, it seems likely the EU would
| have substantial grounds to open legal proceedings against
| Apple's new rules.
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
|
| "Article 13: Anti-circumvention
|
| 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that
| undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles
| 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a
| contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other
| nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or
| interface design.
|
| 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any
| of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in
| paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open
| proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act
| referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that
| the gatekeeper is to implement."
| kaba0 wrote:
| I'm fairly sure Apple did consult a bunch of lawyers, and
| actually talked through the eu about it.
| disiplus wrote:
| It could be, they are technically complying while trying in
| court to throw out the law.
| closewith wrote:
| Obviously this is a stalling move, which could be effective
| for years.
| mil22 wrote:
| They definitely consulted a bunch of lawyers. The App Store
| makes on the order of $100B profit annually. Given that, a
| reasonable budget for consulting lawyers - on a matter which
| may result in them losing a substantial amount of that profit
| - would be _massive_. Even $1B in attorney fees would be a
| tiny price to pay to protect that.
|
| Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the
| content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were
| asking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy
| the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they
| were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how
| the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme
| to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get
| away with.
|
| You can hold a negotiation and _still_ screw the other side
| over afterwards - isn 't that actually the best way to do it?
| Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent is
| holding is just a better way to play any game.
| jjcm wrote:
| It's more likely that they felt the cost of challenging this
| was worth it from a cost/benefit standpoint.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I'm sure they did but Apple also Apple is having trouble
| selling Apple Watches with O2 monitors due to legal reasons.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| So, why do you think Apple is doing this? Presumably their
| lawyers aren't stupid and Apple does not want to be fined
| (given that DMA fines are significant).
| mil22 wrote:
| For the same reason Trump has opened so many legal challenges
| in his trials. It's a stalling tactic. Every year Apple can
| continue their App Store business monopoly without adequate
| competition is another year Apple earns $100B (or whatever
| their profit is - it does not seem to be public information).
| They are trying to delay any threat to that as long as
| possible. No doubt they have done their cost/benefit
| calculations very carefully, weighing the potential fines and
| legal fees against the revenue they will be able to keep
| earning this way, and they have decided this is the best way
| forward.
| greedo wrote:
| Apple's profit is definitely public information since
| they're a publicly traded company. In 2023, they reported
| $97B in profit.
| mil22 wrote:
| If you can find specific numbers on Apple's profit _from
| the App Store_ , I would be very interested to see them.
| Of course Apple's total profit is public information, but
| they don't break it down so specifically. The best I can
| find is that App Store revenue is on the order of $100B,
| but the profit margin has not been disclosed (though
| speculated by Epic to be ~80%).
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| To protect their monopoly
| echelon wrote:
| Jesus Christ. Apple needs to be dismantled into pieces. Their
| handling of iPhone should be a liability for them.
| It's time for a Mobile Bill of Rights.
|
| Two companies cannot dictate that the entire world jump through
| their hoops wearing their straight jackets on the most
| important device and technology of the century.
|
| We need free web-first downloads with zero scare walls and zero
| restrictions. These must be mandated across the board. No
| limitations on JIT, technology choices, deploy cadence,
| functionality, etc.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I don't like the idea of having N different app stores no matter
| how bad the one App Store is. Just having one App Store and no
| silly monetization rules would be great.
|
| I download the Netflix app for $0 and my business with Netflix is
| done directly with them after that. And Netflix can pay Apple
| some reasonable fee for hosting and reviewing the apps
| themselves. Apple have already lost the AppStore they just
| haven't realized it yet. They should try to rescue the 1 good
| store before the app market is fractured with side markets.
| Eventually it'll affect the perception of their hardware and
| that's a worse place for Apple than just losing the entire app
| tax.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| I really like the user experience of the app store as it is. I
| love that I can cancel any app subscription from 1 place. I
| understand some of the problems of the app store from the
| developer side and hope those change, but I like how it is as a
| user.
|
| I do wish progressive web apps were improved a bit.
| edandersen wrote:
| Does this apply to iPad OS too?
| bloppe wrote:
| Europeans: We need you to allow some open competition on iOS.
|
| Apple: How about we re-write all the rules while maintaining
| absolute control.
| edandersen wrote:
| Does this include ipadOS?
| ChilledTonic wrote:
| This won't make a major difference for consumers, especially in
| the app stores. Even if Apple opened the flood gates with no
| restrictions for alternative stores on their platform, little if
| anyone is going to migrate away from the App Store.
|
| Look at Android, where alternative app stores have existed for
| years with little adoption. You have three kinds:
|
| 1. Open Source Markets (F-Droid), These are great for free apps
| but if you sideload this on your dads phone all you'll get are
| texts like "Where do I get YouTube"
|
| 2. Megacorporation Bazaars (Amazon App Store), this means nothing
| to developers except who you pay your exorbitant fee to, with the
| added problem of less eyes on your actual product (which users
| will go out of their way to install an alternative app store?)
|
| 3. Sketchy Side Markets / Piracy Stores (APKPure): These will be
| the main ones people choose to download under the promise of
| "free apps", and Apple is right to be nervous of the security of
| these. People will brick their phones trying to get free Robux.
|
| If you don't understand how bad these get I recommend downloading
| APKPure and using it as your primary app source for a month.
|
| Aurora store does not count, since it is simply an alternative UI
| for apps hosted on Google Play.
|
| Maybe, maybe, if people can buy apps directly in browser on a
| developers site, people will do that. But not many.
|
| I appreciate the EU moving towards more open market legislation
| but this in particular is just window dressing. It'll be just
| like Cookie Notices - ignored, and everyone moves on.
| nrabulinski wrote:
| It's so surreal to me how every time apple comes up on HN there's
| so so many people coming to defend them and applauding them for
| what they're doing when, like in this example, they're clearly
| trying to manipulate and do whatever they can to seem as if
| they're complying while essentially making the situation worse
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-25 23:00 UTC)