If I understand this correctly, Apple is reducing their payment fees due to their new need to compete with alternate payment processors? Sounds like this is universally good stuff though, I don’t...
If I understand this correctly, Apple is reducing their payment fees due to their new need to compete with alternate payment processors?
Sounds like this is universally good stuff though, I don’t see a single negative despite Apple’s attempt to frame this as a big scary security and privacy threat.
I lack your optimism. There are a couple negatives that jump out to me, and make this feel like a Monkey Paw's version of what people were asking for: EU only Mandatory notarization of iOS apps by...
I lack your optimism. There are a couple negatives that jump out to me, and make this feel like a Monkey Paw's version of what people were asking for:
EU only
Mandatory notarization of iOS apps by Apple largely defeats the benefits of alternate app stores. There's a ton of useful software that Apple disallows on the App Store, which would probably fail to make it past the notarization review. I'm equally skeptical of their justification that notarization is primarily meant to "protect our users".
"Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold." Unless I'm misunderstanding, this smells a lot like the changes Unity proposed where developers would have to pay for each installation of their software. While there is a threshold before it applies, it's not clear to me how this doesn't have many of the same problems (popular free software becomes prohibitively expensive, lack of clarity for what an "install" means, etc...).
There's probably more hidden in the math behind the fees that I wasn't able to grok.
I don’t think the notarization of apps will be particularly limiting. MacOS has a very soft requirement for notarized apps outside of the Mac App Store. You can install non notarized apps by...
I don’t think the notarization of apps will be particularly limiting. MacOS has a very soft requirement for notarized apps outside of the Mac App Store. You can install non notarized apps by verifying a few scary popups and going to the settings app. Despite this, basically every app I have used was notarized. The handful of exceptions were software that was basically someone’s hobby project, where they couldn’t afford the $100/year Apple developer fee.
As far as I understand, as implemented on the Mac, notarization basically comes down to “developer so and so made and signed this app, and it hasn’t been modified before install”. There are a ton of notarized Mac apps that would never be allowed on the Mac App Store. So the $100/year is definitely a limit, I don’t think there will be any apps that can’t be sideloaded simply because of that requirement.
Do notarized mac apps have a "core technology fee"? I get that the signed Mac apps as you mentioned require the $100/year Apple developer fee, but the "core technology fee" is quite substantially...
Do notarized mac apps have a "core technology fee"? I get that the signed Mac apps as you mentioned require the $100/year Apple developer fee, but the "core technology fee" is quite substantially different because it means Apple is forcing a commission of sorts on all popular app installs. Spotify for example, they could not just distribute their app outside of Apple's app store without having to pay €0.50 for every single installation.
Like the other person mentioned, it's similar to what Unity proposed, and if we go for a less direct comparison, it's seemingly also kinda similar to what Canadian legislation went with on news linking with Google and Facebook where both of them backed out because it opened them up to theoretically unlimited charges. Google did end up compromising on that, but notably their compromise put them in a position where they weren't facing potentially unlimited fees for linking, which is the main reason they backed out to begin with.
What's to stop a malicious actor from automating an uninstall and reinstall process to drive Spotify out of business? I see it does say annual install so presumably that limits the easiest methods of doing this as Apple is seemingly tracking installations, but I still wonder if it wouldn't be possible for someone to get around that tracking. So then Spotify either has to charge to install the app if that's even possible, or just not distribute outside the Apple app store. If they think it has no real potential for abuse, then they could also possibly gamble that they'll make their money back from users who install the app and use it and have free installs outside the App store.
I don't think there is anything similar to a core technology fee for the mac. Apple's version seems more well thought out than Unity's. Here is some more info:...
I don't think there is anything similar to a core technology fee for the mac.
It is only charged for the first annual install. It will effectively be .5 euro per year per actively installed app. Technically only some types of installs count, so a user could keep an app installed for years with only one charge to the developer. But a reinstall and an update both can count towards this first annual install.
For your malicious actor example, they would have to automate the creation of new apple IDs to have this attack work at scale. I don't know how good apple's bot protections on apple ids are. Since these results are reported to apple by the company, if that actually happened, the company in question might be able to simply not report those as malicious installs. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how that works out legally.
If they offered a waiver for apps that are not monetized, I would be pretty satisfied with this overall. It isn't ideal in many ways, but its much better than the previous status quo.
If you're annoyed that it's EU only, maybe write to your local politician and push for it? Of course Apple is going to restrict it as much as possible, their goal as a company is to keep/make as...
If you're annoyed that it's EU only, maybe write to your local politician and push for it? Of course Apple is going to restrict it as much as possible, their goal as a company is to keep/make as much money as possible, it seems unrealistic to expect different?
What would the alternative be, the EU to be able to make worldwide laws? I don't think there's any other way to extend this law unless people tell their representatives.
I agree that notarisation is bad though. Part of owning something is the ability to use it how you want (immoral usage notwithstanding). Disclosure/information is good, but restrictions are not.
The install fee is likely a compromise to make up for the lower transaction fee, but the lack of transparency is definitely a problem. I'll withhold judgement until some developers share their thoughts and calculations.
The most telling thing is that it's only coming to the EU. There's no reason they couldn't deploy everything to the US as well, and would probably simplify their code base to do so...other than...
The most telling thing is that it's only coming to the EU. There's no reason they couldn't deploy everything to the US as well, and would probably simplify their code base to do so...other than losing that price premium.
Ya... to me this is proof of some sort of antitrust violation. I would be a little surprised if we don't see some reaction from our governments in North America over the next 2 years.
Ya... to me this is proof of some sort of antitrust violation. I would be a little surprised if we don't see some reaction from our governments in North America over the next 2 years.
everyone just keeps saying that “it’s only coming to the EU” and obviously using these features outside of the EU is not something Apple will support. But how will they actually be capable of...
everyone just keeps saying that “it’s only coming to the EU” and obviously using these features outside of the EU is not something Apple will support. But how will they actually be capable of stopping people from accessing these features regardless? A lot of the things I can think of I feel like would be pretty legally sketchy in the context of the legislation they’re trying to comply with.
Since they retain control over the OS and hardware, the function would look something like this: if phone_registration_country in [list of countries]: enable_api else: disable_api
Since they retain control over the OS and hardware, the function would look something like this:
if phone_registration_country in [list of countries]:
enable_api
else:
disable_api
In the EU it's not much of a privacy threat, because they actually have strong privacy laws. In the US it would be a privacy problem though. If Apple allowed alternative app stores, then someone...
In the EU it's not much of a privacy threat, because they actually have strong privacy laws.
In the US it would be a privacy problem though. If Apple allowed alternative app stores, then someone like Facebook could easily leave the iOS App Store for an alternative that lacks Apple's privacy rules, such as those making cross-app tracking opt-in.
It's a case of users being at the mercy of a giant corporation that happens to view privacy as a product differentiator. Ideally, government regulation would do this for us, then we wouldn't need to rely on Apple's "benevolence" to provide us this basic human right.
So, what's the point of "alternative app store environments" if all the apps have to be approved by Apple, Apple still gets the same cut give or take 3%, and its only honored in Europe?
So, what's the point of "alternative app store environments" if all the apps have to be approved by Apple, Apple still gets the same cut give or take 3%, and its only honored in Europe?
Basically a play to "allow" 3rd party app stores, but garner zero interest in it, so they can later go "see, nobody wants 3rd party app stores and sideloading, people love and trust the App...
Basically a play to "allow" 3rd party app stores, but garner zero interest in it, so they can later go "see, nobody wants 3rd party app stores and sideloading, people love and trust the App Store!".
Honestly I'm disappointed in Apple. I hoped they would do better but it was obvious from the start they will fight to the death for their walled garden.
But it's not the "same cut give or take 3%". If you put your app on an alternative app store, it's a 0% cut plus a 0.50 euro "Core Technology Fee" for > 1 million first annual installs. Free,...
But it's not the "same cut give or take 3%". If you put your app on an alternative app store, it's a 0% cut plus a 0.50 euro "Core Technology Fee" for > 1 million first annual installs.
Free, popular apps: Stick to the old contract and be in the App Store and pay nothing.
Free, unpopular apps: Doesn't matter, pay nothing.
Paid, popular apps: Stick to the App Store if you are a low-priced app. Alternative app store if you are an expensive app.
Paid, unpopular app: Alternative app store and pay nothing to Apple.
They still need to pay commissions on in-app purchases don't they? Even if they opt out of Apple's payment service, that just saves them the 3% that Apple charges, but not the % commission, if...
Free, popular apps: Stick to the old contract and be in the App Store and pay nothing.
They still need to pay commissions on in-app purchases don't they? Even if they opt out of Apple's payment service, that just saves them the 3% that Apple charges, but not the % commission, if they stay in Apple's app store.
So I think it would be more like
Free, popular apps with IAPs: Stick to the old contract and be in the Apple app store and pay 10-17% commission on all IAPs
Free, popular apps with IAPs: Ditch Apple app store and pay €0.50 per install, possibly annually or maybe less frequent than annually.
https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ Apple has a fee calculator to do this exact math. The only thing it doesn't take into account is how much some third-party...
Apple has a fee calculator to do this exact math. The only thing it doesn't take into account is how much some third-party app store will charge you to be in it (or how much it will cost to run your own if you are, say, Epic).
Call me an corporate shill, but I honestly think this is bad for users. Developers may get something, but developers are the only ones I ever see complain about this stuff. Apple users are far better off and better protected in the iOS App Store. If you want to install funky stuff get an Android. The better protected my parents are from bloatware and gambling the better (and they're already at risk from existing and approved apps in the store).
Sorry, I must have gotten the 27% stuck in my head with the other court based Apple thing over in app payments that came up. Reading is hard and all that....
Sorry, I must have gotten the 27% stuck in my head with the other court based Apple thing over in app payments that came up. Reading is hard and all that.
Even as an iOS user, Apple's (completely expected) malicious compliance disgusts me. I have thought multiple times about switching away from Apple because of how petty and arrogant they are about...
Even as an iOS user, Apple's (completely expected) malicious compliance disgusts me.
I have thought multiple times about switching away from Apple because of how petty and arrogant they are about so many things
Not that I want to give Google a customer either... sigh
If I understand this correctly, Apple is reducing their payment fees due to their new need to compete with alternate payment processors?
Sounds like this is universally good stuff though, I don’t see a single negative despite Apple’s attempt to frame this as a big scary security and privacy threat.
I lack your optimism. There are a couple negatives that jump out to me, and make this feel like a Monkey Paw's version of what people were asking for:
There's probably more hidden in the math behind the fees that I wasn't able to grok.
I don’t think the notarization of apps will be particularly limiting. MacOS has a very soft requirement for notarized apps outside of the Mac App Store. You can install non notarized apps by verifying a few scary popups and going to the settings app. Despite this, basically every app I have used was notarized. The handful of exceptions were software that was basically someone’s hobby project, where they couldn’t afford the $100/year Apple developer fee.
As far as I understand, as implemented on the Mac, notarization basically comes down to “developer so and so made and signed this app, and it hasn’t been modified before install”. There are a ton of notarized Mac apps that would never be allowed on the Mac App Store. So the $100/year is definitely a limit, I don’t think there will be any apps that can’t be sideloaded simply because of that requirement.
Do notarized mac apps have a "core technology fee"? I get that the signed Mac apps as you mentioned require the $100/year Apple developer fee, but the "core technology fee" is quite substantially different because it means Apple is forcing a commission of sorts on all popular app installs. Spotify for example, they could not just distribute their app outside of Apple's app store without having to pay €0.50 for every single installation.
Like the other person mentioned, it's similar to what Unity proposed, and if we go for a less direct comparison, it's seemingly also kinda similar to what Canadian legislation went with on news linking with Google and Facebook where both of them backed out because it opened them up to theoretically unlimited charges. Google did end up compromising on that, but notably their compromise put them in a position where they weren't facing potentially unlimited fees for linking, which is the main reason they backed out to begin with.
What's to stop a malicious actor from automating an uninstall and reinstall process to drive Spotify out of business? I see it does say annual install so presumably that limits the easiest methods of doing this as Apple is seemingly tracking installations, but I still wonder if it wouldn't be possible for someone to get around that tracking. So then Spotify either has to charge to install the app if that's even possible, or just not distribute outside the Apple app store. If they think it has no real potential for abuse, then they could also possibly gamble that they'll make their money back from users who install the app and use it and have free installs outside the App store.
I don't think there is anything similar to a core technology fee for the mac.
Apple's version seems more well thought out than Unity's. Here is some more info:
https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/
https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/distributing-apps-in-the-european-union/first-annual-install-types
It is only charged for the first annual install. It will effectively be .5 euro per year per actively installed app. Technically only some types of installs count, so a user could keep an app installed for years with only one charge to the developer. But a reinstall and an update both can count towards this first annual install.
For your malicious actor example, they would have to automate the creation of new apple IDs to have this attack work at scale. I don't know how good apple's bot protections on apple ids are. Since these results are reported to apple by the company, if that actually happened, the company in question might be able to simply not report those as malicious installs. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how that works out legally.
If they offered a waiver for apps that are not monetized, I would be pretty satisfied with this overall. It isn't ideal in many ways, but its much better than the previous status quo.
If you're annoyed that it's EU only, maybe write to your local politician and push for it? Of course Apple is going to restrict it as much as possible, their goal as a company is to keep/make as much money as possible, it seems unrealistic to expect different?
What would the alternative be, the EU to be able to make worldwide laws? I don't think there's any other way to extend this law unless people tell their representatives.
I agree that notarisation is bad though. Part of owning something is the ability to use it how you want (immoral usage notwithstanding). Disclosure/information is good, but restrictions are not.
The install fee is likely a compromise to make up for the lower transaction fee, but the lack of transparency is definitely a problem. I'll withhold judgement until some developers share their thoughts and calculations.
The most telling thing is that it's only coming to the EU. There's no reason they couldn't deploy everything to the US as well, and would probably simplify their code base to do so...other than losing that price premium.
Ya... to me this is proof of some sort of antitrust violation. I would be a little surprised if we don't see some reaction from our governments in North America over the next 2 years.
everyone just keeps saying that “it’s only coming to the EU” and obviously using these features outside of the EU is not something Apple will support. But how will they actually be capable of stopping people from accessing these features regardless? A lot of the things I can think of I feel like would be pretty legally sketchy in the context of the legislation they’re trying to comply with.
Since they retain control over the OS and hardware, the function would look something like this:
In the EU it's not much of a privacy threat, because they actually have strong privacy laws.
In the US it would be a privacy problem though. If Apple allowed alternative app stores, then someone like Facebook could easily leave the iOS App Store for an alternative that lacks Apple's privacy rules, such as those making cross-app tracking opt-in.
It's a case of users being at the mercy of a giant corporation that happens to view privacy as a product differentiator. Ideally, government regulation would do this for us, then we wouldn't need to rely on Apple's "benevolence" to provide us this basic human right.
So, what's the point of "alternative app store environments" if all the apps have to be approved by Apple, Apple still gets the same cut give or take 3%, and its only honored in Europe?
Basically a play to "allow" 3rd party app stores, but garner zero interest in it, so they can later go "see, nobody wants 3rd party app stores and sideloading, people love and trust the App Store!".
Honestly I'm disappointed in Apple. I hoped they would do better but it was obvious from the start they will fight to the death for their walled garden.
But it's not the "same cut give or take 3%". If you put your app on an alternative app store, it's a 0% cut plus a 0.50 euro "Core Technology Fee" for > 1 million first annual installs.
Free, popular apps: Stick to the old contract and be in the App Store and pay nothing.
Free, unpopular apps: Doesn't matter, pay nothing.
Paid, popular apps: Stick to the App Store if you are a low-priced app. Alternative app store if you are an expensive app.
Paid, unpopular app: Alternative app store and pay nothing to Apple.
They still need to pay commissions on in-app purchases don't they? Even if they opt out of Apple's payment service, that just saves them the 3% that Apple charges, but not the % commission, if they stay in Apple's app store.
So I think it would be more like
Free, popular apps with IAPs: Stick to the old contract and be in the Apple app store and pay 10-17% commission on all IAPs
Free, popular apps with IAPs: Ditch Apple app store and pay €0.50 per install, possibly annually or maybe less frequent than annually.
https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/
Apple has a fee calculator to do this exact math. The only thing it doesn't take into account is how much some third-party app store will charge you to be in it (or how much it will cost to run your own if you are, say, Epic).
Call me an corporate shill, but I honestly think this is bad for users. Developers may get something, but developers are the only ones I ever see complain about this stuff. Apple users are far better off and better protected in the iOS App Store. If you want to install funky stuff get an Android. The better protected my parents are from bloatware and gambling the better (and they're already at risk from existing and approved apps in the store).
By free or paid, I mean in any case where Apple can take a cut typically, so including IAPs.
Sorry, I must have gotten the 27% stuck in my head with the other court based Apple thing over in app payments that came up. Reading is hard and all that.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/18/24042892/apple-critics-27-percent-app-store-tax
Even as an iOS user, Apple's (completely expected) malicious compliance disgusts me.
I have thought multiple times about switching away from Apple because of how petty and arrogant they are about so many things
Not that I want to give Google a customer either... sigh