> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution."<p>[...]<p>> "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee."<p>[...]<p>> "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats."<p>This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.<p>The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.<p>Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.
> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device.<p>That argument would assume no cost for upgrades.<p>I remember having to buy new operating systems.<p>That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, <i>decade or so</i>, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free.<p>> Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.<p>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.<p>That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other.<p>That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".
>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.<p>It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.<p>It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.<p>Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.
> because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
> Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets<p>I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.<p>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.<p>They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.<p>Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."<p>That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.
>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less.<p>That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.
I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.
I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.
Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!
The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so.<p>Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution
The Play Store is not required for APK distribution. Not now, nor has it ever been.
<i>yet</i> <a href="https://keepandroidopen.org/" rel="nofollow">https://keepandroidopen.org/</a>
They’ve announced they’re changing the policy to require ‘verification’ in future Android versions.<p>It will likely be delayed, just like Manifest v3, but eventually it will happen.
yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.
> In a statement, a Commission spokesperson welcomed Apple’s changes to its business terms, which it said “follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple”.<p>> “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added.<p>There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive.<p>I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open
> I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it.<p>This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.
That feels like a crazy definition of Notarization there Apple.
Well I think this it at least improvement to the status quo
> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK<p>How do you not use their SDK?
> How do you not use their SDK?<p>The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.
This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet.<p>If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
> Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights.<p>I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
If you don't intend it as an insult, you might try providing literally any substance to your argument rather than just lobbing ad hominems.
I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
Personnally I use Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK.<p>Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.<p>And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.
Maybe one of the commissioners tried Android?
> Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.<p>The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them.<p>Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.
> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks?<p>A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though.<p>> Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.<p>Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...
> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem.<p>No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.<p>The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.<p>> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?<p>Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.<p>> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?<p>Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?
> No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want.<p>They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.<p>Not helping you is something different, that's not preventing.<p>> Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)<p>That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
> They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.<p>They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale.<p>Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance.<p>> That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.<p>Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices.<p>The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.
> The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.<p>[...]<p>> In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.<p>All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
><i>All in all, still extremely anti-consumer.</i><p>One thing that ticks me off about this conversation is they are always framed as <i>anti-consumer</i>, instead of <i>anti-developer</i>. It's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg, and the ad networks who have the biggest gripe with these policies, <i>not consumers</i>. Consumers are the ones who bear the brunt of the cost when it comes to developers who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.<p>><i>If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?</i><p>We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
>who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.<p>thankfully the EU has extensive privacy regulations prohibiting developers from doing just that, so we can enjoy open platforms instead of being at the mercy of a private corporations protection racket as if it's the 19th century
The messages on Mac are becoming more ridiculous and cumbersome each upgrade though. Kind of sick of jumping through System Settings hoops every time I upgrade an app
If you’re a developer you can kind of do it, or so ChatGPT tells me:<p>> So for, say, your iPad mini plus 2–5 other iPads, the workable setup is: Mac + Xcode → $99/year developer membership → register each iPad's UDID → create an Ad Hoc build → install that build on those devices. You don't have to publish it, make it discoverable, or have Apple review it.<p>That would work for me, except that I prefer to build web apps instead. There’s nothing I really want to build that couldn’t be done as a web app.<p>As for why one computing platform would be different than another, if you don’t think there’s any difference then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?
> $99/year developer membership<p>Yeah...<p>> then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?<p>Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
> I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.<p>This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.
The $99/yr part gives me the ick.
> why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?<p>If Microsoft had its act together PCs would have been just as locked down as phones are today and we wouldn't be questioning a difference.
Microsoft proposed locked-down PCs decades ago and got criticism from sources as mainstream as the New York Times. Everyone more technical than that, with the possible exception of corporate IT types flatly rejected it.<p>I'm sad there was so much less backlash to restricting user control on phones.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-safer-system-for-home-pc-s-feels-like-jail-to-some-critics.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...</a>
I think what you meant to say is if US regulators weren't asleep at the wheel phones would be just as unlocked as PCs.
Well here's EU regulators working with Apple directly to allow it. I honestly think that's worse, the EU government took the time to allow this directly. It's not just a case of the existing laws not being clear in this instance, it's the EU working with Apple to come up with this 'solution'.<p>5% tax on all digital transactions (still applies to Kindle ebooks too I'm guessing?) and all applications have to go through an Apple review process. That's ridiculous for a government to explicitly agree to.
What the heck does this defeatist argument have to do with it???
If [shitty thing] had been normalized years ago, we wouldn't be questioning [shitty thing]'s existence today. I mean, yeah dude.
> Why would one computing platform be different from the other?<p>Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…<p>Question for those with more industry knowledge than me: If you assume a broken sandbox, is it possible for an app to record phone calls, then use that recording to create a deepfaked voice that can then be transmitted as a new call? My naïve assumption is "yes obviously", but for all I know the hardware has some way to activate a switched circuit from the phone service to the speaker and microphone that can't have other sound data pass through it.
LOL. That security bogeyman argument is a convenient post-hoc justification. The real reason is much simpler: Because "computers" started out with "Owner can run code of their choice on it" as one of the main definitional qualities agreed upon by the market.<p>Devices which only ran code that the vendor had specially packaged for the device always had other names, like Games Console, Word Processor, MP3 Player, Graphing Calculator, or just plain "Toy." Nobody confused those with computers and nobody accepted them as computers.<p>Phones entered this world already in that second category, long before Apple even considered making one. Apple kept an iron grip at first and after careful consideration, decided to only allow third-parties to even enter on terms extremely favorable and profitable to Apple, and always under their direct control.<p>Closing off the Mac would be very messy and also cause tremendous headaches due to it being the development platform for iOS. They don't want to bother. But the reason iOS is closed is because it's always been closed, and they'll never open it unless forced, because money.
> Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…<p>Then fix your s****y sandbox, Apple.
Sure, great idea.<p>[Incoming call: National Security Agency] "Don't you dare stop our malware doing all that stuff you just said".<p>:P<p>All the other nations' agencies, outisde Five Eyes at least, will probably want to stop the NSA's malware, but may have their own instead.
What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.
I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money?<p>The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
> It's to keep spammers out.<p>Doesn't seem to be working. Have you <i>seen</i> the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.<p>Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.<p>I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.
And you could, should, argue they make it up by charging such a high commission.
> The developer program fee.<p>And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in.<p>Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted.<p>Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems.<p>Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics.<p>Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year.<p>I hate them.<p>The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
More details in the developer portal: <a href="https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/</a><p>It seams that for "reader apps" (like Netflix / Spotify), things got slightly better (<a href="https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16.4%20or%20later.-,Beginning,-October%201%2C%202026" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16....</a>):<p>> Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...]<p>So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously.<p>A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."
>For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.<p>This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.<p>Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU ... require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.<p>This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.
It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps.<p>> Companies will now qualify if they:<p>> * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet.
> * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company.
> * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm.
> * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant.
> * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
Those requirements apply to direct distribution or alternate marketplaces. Developers not meeting those criteria can still participate in non-Apple distribution by submitting to an alternate marketplace.
No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace.<p>Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.
> What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps.<p>My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
European Commission caved in, developers lost.
Has the commission confirmed that these changes "resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission" or is that just like... Apple's wishful thinking.<p>I definitely recall previous iterations where Apple announced changes to comply with legal requirements where the authorities ended up saying "this absolutely doesn't resolve the issue".
Yeah. Also, IANAL but even if the European Commission does think Apple's interpretation of the DMA is reasonable, Apple could still be sued by an affected company or person, and a judge might disagree, IIUC: <a href="https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-lawyers-paradise-or-not/" rel="nofollow">https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-...</a>
I’m not sure that’s how I’d characterise it. I think this is a positive step for consumers in the EU.<p>I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.
Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason
Consumers never had an issue with Apple's app store. They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.
> They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.<p>No it absolutely doesn't. Search is so broken that you can't even tell people "Search for Hacker News on the App Store" and have them find your app called "Hacker News" -- search ads get top billing now, so it may be a competitor called "Hacker News Today" infested with unskippable ads and a weekly $14.99 in-app purchase. Not that their organic search results themselves are good either.<p>So, smart companies send customers to a web URL, and then link to their App Store product page directly. The App Store provides zero value to anyone but Apple (by design).<p>Customers also don't open the App Store today to browse for new and interesting apps, the way Apple seems to pretend. Customers find out about apps from social media ads and install them directly.
Every time you try to inform consumers how much Apple charges, Apple bans the app though.<p>So even Apple thinks informing consumers on how the appstore works is a threat
Well at least 10x better than in the US now
So, is this an announcement of the changes, or a press release announcing an announcement?<p>God damn it all to hell when even the comms department issues stupid crap like this.
The EU has signed and ratified the WIPO treaty. There’s nothing they can put into the DMA that can cancel out the treaty.<p>Installing software in iOS uses Apple intellectual property and WIPO guarantees their right to charge a commission.<p>If you don’t like this, get rid of WIPO!
> Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution.<p>this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?
I think it explicitly avoids directly saying that the Commission has agreed this resolves the disagreements, again hoping public sentiment will drive the nail all the way.<p>I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy.<p>The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software.<p>My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise.<p>We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
I predict 2027 will be the year of the PWA ... and desktop Linux.
Where is the corresponding EU announcement?<p>A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.
This is a loss if the EU actually considers this acceptable. I should be able to Just™ install an app from whereever, and Apple shouldn't have a say in that. Notarization isn't needed on PCs or Macs, and yet here we are.
As I understand it:<p>> A person buys a handheld computer<p>> I make a program for the computer<p>> A person downloads the program directly onto their computer<p>> A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer<p>> Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods<p>An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.
I buy s Mercedes Benz. I want a warranty. I am forced to use an authorised service provider who’s expensive af and I risk losing the warranty otherwise. How is that not anticonsumer? I crash said car, the insurer will not insure my car until it’s fixed by an authorised technician. How is that not anticonsumer.
They do it because they can. You're signaling that you're OK with it by continuing to buy Apple products.
And I’m fine with that. Owned 6 iphones, bought another one but fuckers keep complaining instead of voting with their wallet. They want a cookie, eat a cookie, and the EU just keeps degrading my trust to the company because fuckers don’t practice what they preach: go snd vote with your wallet.
But mercedes benz makes sure all the taxi desinations are safe!
>Unified Business Terms for Developers That Distribute Apps in the EU
Under this new model, Apple will charge a commission on the sale of digital goods and services. The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.<p>Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax.<p>Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows.<p>It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.
I don't even understand how these could be acceptable terms for the european commission:<p><pre><code> For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission.
</code></pre>
This is just basic racketering. You owe nothing to Apple, you don't use their resources, then they could still profit of their dominant position on these devices to extort such a high fee (because 5% is not a small amount) from app developers and users.
I wish Apple would extend these options to me as a US user and developer. I’m jealous to be honest.
So how are they trying to circumvent the EU regulations this time?
Too low blood pressure? Not anymore, thanks Apple.
> For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.<p>What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal?<p>Hope I'm misreading this...<p>Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?
* They have for years turned a blind eye to apps that sell things that aren't "digital goods" - so the Barnes & Noble app can sell you a physical book and pay $0 to Apple, but if they sell you an ebook in any way in the app, they owe 30%. But if they sell you an ebook in Safari, back to $0.<p>All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
If you place an upsale button in your app and then break out from the app to complete the purchase, yes. Are you living under a rock? It’s been like this for a bit. You want to avoid it? Don’t place the upsale button in your app.
They’re starting to cave.<p>Turnis taking the reins perhaps?<p>This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.<p>So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?
Why can't we just use our computers the way we want to use our computers?
It is so dumb that vendor lock-in even exists, and I'm sick of it.
Apple just can't read the room can they? For a while I agreed with their stance to not allow web payments for things like IAP but as time has gone on the stance has become less and less defensible and tipped over in the absurd.<p>I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments.<p>- You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0%<p>- You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0%<p>They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit.<p>The rent-seeking has got to stop.<p>Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale.<p>I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut.<p>The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut.<p>There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0].<p>If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers.<p>I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing.<p>Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP.<p>[0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.
> do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?)<p>Yeah, because developers have historically been super reasonable when it comes to pricing.<p>Just the other day someone posted a truly simple camera app with a freaking subscription in place. For crying out loud.<p>With the way developers like to price their apps, I’m sort of glad Apple is taking a chunk of the money. Fuck subscription based apps.
[flagged]