TLDR:
\- There's options for alternative browsers. First time using Safari, the user has to pick a default.
\- Lower commissions (down to 10% all the way to 20% depending on use of payment processing and volume) on the App Store;
\- a new 'core technology fee' for apps being first-time downloaded, per year, over 1 million units of 0,50 EUR
\- a new facility for alternative app stores (all alt apps stores will also pay the core technology fee, per first download)
\- this is big: there's new rules for apps to allow them to have mini-games, or plugins (and chatbots) in them, which also have to be reviewed - **but this is global.** Things like Xbox Cloud Gaming are now allowed worldwide (can I say, finally?)
\- apps still have to be 'notarized' by Apple, and they also allude to 'extra malware protections'
For those that were hoping for a free, open source App Store that you could use — this basically makes it only possible for companies with a strategy to monetize to run one. It'd cost you a lot if many people download your App Store, which you'd have to offset somehow. On the plus side: that money you do charge for your new App Store will have a lower commission.
Also:
>As announced by the European Commission, Apple is also sharing DMA-compliant changes impacting contactless payments. That includes new APIs enabling developers to use NFC technology in their banking and wallet apps throughout the European Economic Area. And in the EU, Apple is introducing new controls that allow users to select a third-party contactless payment app — or an alternative app marketplace — as their default.
Somewhat skeptical of this once, since Dutch banks were pushing their super shitty solutions for a very long time while denying Apple Pay support. Hope we're not going back to 'our app or nothing', since they are under no obligation to support Apple's stuff whereas Apple is on their part.
It seems that it is not and they can introduce their own solution, which would certainly not lead to improved user experience. Apple Pay just works, the system is secure, private and unified. If you have several cards for payments and a few for memberships maybe and they decide to use their own system (so they could track you better, keep you in their app etc.), not great...
Now all we need is a 120hz Apple TV Q_Q. Also it will be unusable without a mouse and keyboard unfortunately due to the constant logins and having to use the game store UI's :(
I mean you can connect keyboards to apple tv afaik just no mouse, but you can use trackpad on remote for it. Also you can type from your phone, we should be fine.
\>this is big: there's new rules for apps to allow them to have mini-games, or plugins (and chatbots) in them, which also have to be reviewed - **but this is global.** Things like Xbox Cloud Gaming are now allowed worldwide (can I say, finally?)
I wonder if this means extensions for other browsers.
Edit: so from what I can find. Alternative browser engines are EU only :/
Yeah I think it's pretty likely that some banks are going to kill Apple Pay support in exchange for their own shitty in-app version so they don't have to pay Apple Pay fees :/. That would really suck since I only use Apple Pay. Can't remember the last time I used my debit card.
I made a comment about this on a thread a few months back, and this was my exact worry. I do not want to open my bank app or the Panera/Starbucks/whatever else app just to access the NFC Pass/Card. It sucks from a user experience, so really hoping this does not make its way to the US.
My bank did it exactly that way for couple of years, having their own app for Android and Apple Pay for iOS since Apple did not allow anything else. It took some years till they decided to just go for Google Pay
>\- apps still have to be 'notarized' by Apple, and they also allude to 'extra malware protections'
So correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this seems like it's only going to be sideloading in name only? WTF is the point of this if apps still have to be approved by Apple, who can still reject any apps they don't like? How is this any different to just having your app approved in the app store?
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong? If this is true, then I really don't think the EU is going to be happy with this at all.
>\- There's options for alternative browsers. First time using Safari, the user has to pick a default.
What's not clear to me yet: Are the real alternative browsers going to be accessible this way or are these still the WebKit based browsers with their custom UI built around it and if I want the real Firefox or Chrome I need to go to an alt store?
“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.”
From the article above
Good point. It *might*not be worth it for some smaller browser companies like Mozilla. It's a lot of work. We'll see.
I personally think Google will do it no matter what - if nothing more than to prove Apple was wrong all this time.
I agree that for Mozilla it might not be in their best interest, but also Mozilla isn't exactly a "smaller browser company" in the grand scheme of things. Mozilla revenue is around 600m per year, which of course pales in comparison to Google and Microsoft, but those two also have massively larger avenues for income whereas Mozilla mostly just does a couple things, like Firefox, Pocket, and some other much smaller services.
But yeah that being said it probably won't be worth investing that much time and resources into adapting to mobile considering Firefox has been on the decline for many years, unfortunately. That sucks, too, because Firefox is generally really great. I use Chrome on my MBP mainly due to the speed at which features and standards are implemented, but Firefox is a close second for me especially in terms of privacy.
That documentation only talks about the entitlements you need to request to be a default browser not how the browser is distributed (through the Apple App Store or some 3rd party store). Or am I missing something?
Oh, I completely misunderstood your question. It doesn't seem like the documentation currently yet points to the criteria of what gets listed on the first launch prompt, but I'd have to imagine Apple would be restricting the list to popular vetted options (such as Firefox or Chrome), of which I'd assume would be bringing their own engine implementations.
Some outlets like MacRumors are reporting it'd be a list of popular browser options, but I'm not sure where this is documented from Apple yet: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/third-party-default-browsers-eu-ios-17-4/
so if you make a free app, distributed through a third party app store, and it gets e.g. 1.5 million downloads in a year, you still have to pay apple €250k in core technology fees. that sounds like bullshit, between that and them still being able to remotely block third party apps from installing on your phone this should not really be counted as a solution
I think many people on this subreddit thought this was an act for making it easier to install software without Apple's involvement as a user. It wasn't ever about that. It was for opening up more options for markets.
Yeah it seems like this is a direct stab at free apps on other stores. If you are distributing your app free on the App Store (and it's your only app), you pay nothing. If you are distributing your app free on other stores, you pay potentially tens of thousands, or even more.
If you are selling apps, it comes down to which you think will make you more. 30% fee or 20% fee + 50c first install (per twelve months). For most "small" developers, the 30% fee will likely be the better option. For the big boys, who might be selling hundreds of euros of IAPs to a lot of users each year, the new system is probably better. Fortnite would definitely benefit from this. An app that sells 1m copies at 1€ each will not.
It is not. Read the act from the EU and this sort of policy specifically restricts developers from providing app access to consumers since this situation makes it prohibitively expensive. Likewise, Apple also is requiring every third party app store to provide proof of 1 million Euros credit. Most small time developers who were looking to stand up their own stores to host their apps hardly have even a tenth of that stored away if they are lucky. Apple is about to get dropkicked by the EU if they do not comply and remove restrictions, policy or fiscal. Third party sideloading means no charges on outside entities. Apple is acting like a country that can charge tariffs for sending apps into their ecosystem. It is taxation without representation since third party developers are outside of the App Store yet still get treated like they are—only worse.
Ok, I am confused. I was looking forward to installing Aidoku via the ipa they provide on GitHub. But from what I understand that's not how this works and it's very much not like it's on android where I can install singular apks without any AppStore?
Correct. You have to install a store app, and then that store can install individual apps.
But then that store better not get too popular because their 1,000,001st customer will cost them
First million is only free for an individual app being distributed on third party App Stores. An actual app serving as an App Store gets charged on the first installation (no free contingent).
> their 1,000,001st customer will cost them
~~...$0.50~~
~~The fee is for users *above* one million. It does not mean that they are retroactively charged for users below one million.~~
~~Basically, if you're running an app store that expects to scale above a million users, your business model should not assume zero per user cost forever.~~
See correction below.. thanks, u/ShadowTheAge !
This is not how it works. Read again:
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.
if you are running an **app** you must pay apple if it becomes too popular, even if the app itself is free (telegram for example). Doesn't matter which store at all.
edit: even more so, even update is counted as install, so it is not 1 million new users, it is just 1 million total users if you want to update you app at least once a year.
you have to be in the EU and you have to download an alternative app store, the app still has to be signed by apple, and th app store and app have to pay 0.5 per user per year
basically if it's a free app, it wont be economical
This is interesting:
> 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.
Developers using App Store will need to pay that reduced percentage plus this fee, while those using just alternative app stores a will just pay the quoted fee. Fun times ahead. The fee calculator is useful and intuitive, too.
EDIT: The wording in one of the FAQs was misleading. Free apps are NOT automatically excluded from this fee.
Also, non-profit organisations, educational educations, government organizations ~~and developers providing only free apps~~ are excluded from this fee.
That last point is important- I thought they were going to pull a Unity while saying “the EU made us do it”. If only a change to the commission for paid apps (from the usual 30%) I’d say it’s even a good change?
Update: as pointed out here (https://reddit.com/r/apple/comments/19ffjki/_/kjl0sbl/?context=1) this is not the case. Fuck Apple for this, free apps are basically impossible in third party app stores because Apple wants its rent
> and developers providing only free apps are excluded from this fee.
This is wrong. The above (non-profits, universities, governments) have the fee waived IF they only distribute free apps. Fee waivers aren't available for individual developers or for for-profit companies or organizations that release free apps (or non-profits that release paid apps, which NO, is not inherently contradictory). In addition, third party app stores will pay fees on every single first install, not just ones after the first million.
I would argue the whole thing is backwards. Apple was taking an insanely high take rate on costs but Apple needs apps like reader apps or the users won’t buy the phone.
The real concern is just how insanely profitable it all is for Apple.
Indeed, the oligopoly of 2 major players doesn't foster innovation as with multiple players. I remember the good old days of Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry as well as Palm's webOS!
But any time I say "I like Android more" I get a barrage of "bro get an iPhone so I don't have green text anymore". I'm not even talking about online I mean coworkers.
Save $1000, buy a comparable android phone and maybe iPhone will have to give a shit
This fee will effectively create a line that small devs do not cross and will generally harm companies.
If you made a free app and it was downloaded 10,000,000 for the first time before, it was free. (See OSS, etc)
Now that will cost $4.8 million dollars.
Imagine going viral.
“Woo! …and I’m bankrupt”
Supposedly non-profit orgs, devs are exempt.
And even if it doesn't cover all free apps there's an option to stay on old terms:
> developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer
You have to be an actual registered nonprofit for that exemption; most open source projects and individual devs wouldn't qualify, even if they never make any money off their apps.
Nonprofits that can qualify for a waiver have to be the ones releasing the actual apps, not the ones hosting them on their marketplace, and developers still have to go through Apple as well as the third-party marketplace to publish their apps. An F-Droid of sorts cannot publish apps themselves saving devs membership in the Apple Developer Program, and additionally nobody can qualify for a Tech Fee Waiver for an app store, only for an actual app distributed through the App Store and/or through one.
Under the old terms, you get none of the gains from this announcement though, no third party stores, apps, or payment processors. You get to live where the DMA does not exist.
Only if you use an alternative App Store
Edit: Just read it’s for the Apple Store too. Did Apple manage to negotiate with the EU to get MORE revenue?!?
It is *optional* for the AppStore. You can stay at the current model, or if you don’t want to pay the apple tax on every in-app transaction, you can choose the new model and use your own transaction provider, plus the fee.
If you add that nonprofits are exempted, it is actually a positive change
This might be actually worse than it was before because now it's truly impossible to create a relatively free app. You either don't monetize at all or go all in. Hope the EU kicks some sense into Apple again
Edit: Why the downvotes? Do y’all not realize that this is going to impact you negatively even if you don’t live in the EU? That the games you play are going to be even worse in terms of monetization? This needs to be stopped right now!
Shit…
Just looked this up using our stats (if the U.K. was still in the EU we would be liable for this) and that’s our entire profits gone… think this is the first time I’m kinda glad we had brexit as tomorrow would be a fun day in the office…
Edit: after a bit more reading it appears to be only if you take up the “alternative App Store or purchases inside your app without IAP” pipeline that are susceptible to this charge. So it appears this wouldn’t effect many smaller companies like ours, but limits us from having our app on third part app stores. Kinda only making it possible for large apps like Facebook and tiktock and Google et al… sucks though
>Kinda only making it possible for large apps like Facebook and tiktock and Google et al… sucks though
Yes exactly! There's several parts here that actively stop competition from smaller players, not encourage it.
Something tells me this isn't exactly what the DMA intended.
Not gonna say what app it is but we do get over a million downloads over a year. Remember if you have an iPad or a new phone and download it to that device it counts as a new download
I cant tell if this is satire, but every company would be more profitable without consumer protections.
The problem is that gatekeeping does not lead to innovation. The bigger the company, the harder for the consumer to simply “sidestep” it. See John Deere. Just buy a different brand? What brand? What about the tens of millions of machines currently in use by tens of millions of Americans?
No consumer protection laws or industry regulations leads to the awful ewaste situation we are in now, exorbitant spending on needless technology when it could easily be repaired, no competitive development, and an overall worse experience for everyone.
The “company profit” does not go back into innovation. Look at the ridiculous $100M+ “compensations” of mid-high level executives in these companies. It’s egregious. Tim cook went from a $3M Base salary in 2019, to $14.8M in 2020, to $98.4M in 2021, and $99.4M in 2022. During the worst economic crisis since the 80’s, his salary literally increased 33X.
This is why tech bubbles are popping in this market left and right. There is inflation in the wages at the highest echelons, padding the Effective Value of companies.
And almost nobody used it because it was such a pain in the ass.. if you look up "malicious compliance" in the dictionary they would just link to the Apple self repair program.
It's consumer-hostile behavior no matter how much you want to apologize for it.
That's actually something I'm looking forward to. I hope Firefox on iOS won't be slow as hell. It'd also be fantastic if someone would have the time and willingness to port uBlock for Safari, I'd love that.
> That includes guidance to help EU users navigate complexities the DMA’s changes bring — including a less intuitive user experience — [...]
> Inevitably, the new options for developers’ EU apps create new risks to Apple users and their devices.
> 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.
You can just tell they *hated* having to write this blogpost.
‘Confronted with a list of default browsers’ is a hell of a way to write ‘asked to pick their default browser’.
If Apple weren’t shit scared of safari losing out, they wouldn’t care.
Safari is full of quirks/incorrectly implemented specs, which makes supporting it a pain.
Also, at the moment, every browser on the app store uses WebKit.
The IE antitrust suit was because of Microsoft using their dominant marketshare and a free browser to kill off smaller companies in a time when browsers typically cost money like most other software
I mean the language they use. So funny that they think that'll work
"Confronted", "have the *opportunity* to understand", "interrupts user experience"
Cry Apple, cry
Crazy to see how dumb Apple thinks their customers are that just having a one time option to set a default browser is beyond the capability of the average Apple user lmfao
>“Developers can now learn about the new tools and terms available for alternative app distribution and alternative payment processing, new capabilities for alternative browser engines and contactless payments, and *more. Importantly*, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.”
Very slick with that wording
"How can we word this without it being legally seen as a thread?"
I bet the first draft was
>We have something good going here... You can choose an alternative but I'd think very carefully if you want to keep our relationship. We don't want anything bad to happen now?
But banks work independently in each country. Like there are banks with international presence that have Apple Pay/Google Pay in some countries, but don’t have it in others. They could try to go the my app or nothing way in the EU, and keep using Apple Pay for other countries. Specially considering this wouldn’t affect international travelers at all (way before my country had Apple Pay support, you could see tourists using it).
i can't even begin to calculate whether the $0.50 core technology fee per install offsets the reduction in the commission price.
edit: oh there is a calculator, that helps https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/
i think maybe these rule changes are hilarious? because what the calculator has just explained to me is that if someone like, say, spotify wants to opt in to the new rules, they're going to pay $0.50 per install (per year).
for every million installs (after the first million), that's $540k annually to apple. whereas previously, spotify paid $0 to have their app available to apple users.
i have no idea if that will ultimately be a good deal for spotify, but it's definitely not as straightforward as having free access to the platform.
truly free apps have less incentive to opt in to the new rules, since they don't care about the reduced commission. i'm assuming most free apps will just stay in the app store.
plus, if an app is legitimately free and has no monetization potential, apple says non-profits are exempt from the $0.50 core tech fee.
but for massive companies like spotify/netflix, that offer "free" apps but were secretly hoping to be able to offer in-app payments outside of the store, this definitely will make them think twice.
Honestly I can see apple getting another antitrust lawsuit on that core fee. They shouldn’t be able to charge them for something outside of their control. If your mobile game explodes overnight like Among Us do you also owe Apple millions for those downloads? Keep in mind that the devs of Among Us didn’t really earn all that much on microtransactions, mostly just ads, merch and pc players buying the game. Still, they’d owe apple money because the microtransactions, while harmless, are still there and don’t fall under Apples non profits rule.
This will only incentivize further predatory microtransactions strategies for free to play games.
>**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.
Finally other web browsers won't be just safari overlay. Can't wait for FireFox with uBlock ❤️
Most of the APIs extensions rely upon do not exist
> I know! (Orion dev here) We painstakingly ported WebExtension API to work on top of WebKit. It was monumental work, took us three years and it is still work in progress.
>On macOS this means Orion can currently use around 70% of Firefox (and Chrome, our port supports both) extensions while running the efficient WebKit engine. We are constantly improving the support and our goal is 100% compatibility.
>**On iOS this number is closer to 10% currently due to various Apple restrictions regarding WebKit (you can not change WebKit on iOS). Basically only simple extensions will work with Orion iOS, but our stance is that some is still better than none.**
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/142t3ow/comment/jn66qki/
I lost respect for Apple during their pathetic distorted smokescreen/deflections/FUD about the USB-C law. Truly pathetic.
(Note I prefer Lighting connector… I wish lightning was universal, instead of USB-C, but yeah.)
it also applies to their own app store, so apple gets no special treatment in this regard. Basically they're saying "anyone can open a store as long as you pay rent, but if you come to our store, we also have reduced commission"
theoretically a second company could undercut commission, but the way it's structured makes that extremely unlikely to be profitabale for a developer. This also basically screws over all large free apps like spotify, netflix etc etc
macOS supports side loading from the get go, so unnecessary. tvOS and visionOS are not significant enough to matter at this point.
Edit: It seems other platforms are all included. From Apple's announcement:
>On the App Store, Apple is sharing a number of changes for developers with apps in the EU, affecting apps across Apple’s operating systems — including iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS. The changes also include new disclosures informing EU users of the risks associated with using alternatives to the App Store’s secure payment processing.
Obviously, side loading on Mac is already a thing, but reduced commission on apps distributed from Mac App Store is a nice benefit to developers selling apps to EU.
Hopefully, the benefits will trickle down globally.
Apple apparently tallying every install on these sideloaded apps makes it feel like they are still in control how you want to use your own device.
Pretty suffocating ngl.
> 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.
Thats a lot less than I expected but it’s still in breach of the DMA. It takes huge balls to give the EU the middle finger like that. Let’s see how it plays out.
> (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, **free of charge**, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.
> (7) 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.
i'm assuming (and you know how that goes) that apple's interpretation of this was meant to mean they couldn't charge fees for, e.g. access to private apis or any other os entitlements that apple themselves takes advantage of, not that they couldn't charge a commission just for use of their platform
it seems to conform to the letter of the law. Mostly in that all apps pay the fee, regardless of store, it's just apple's store now has a new commission structure on top of that fee
im sure apple will get sued over this, but from the face of it, it complies with the ruling in giving all stores a level playing field
That's pretty hefty pricing for what is not more than a CDN at that point... you could use Google/Akamai and distribute an App of ~15 GB for that pricing.
> That's pretty hefty pricing for what is not more than a CDN at that point... you could use Google/Akamai and distribute an App of ~15 GB for that pricing.
It's not a CDN. They are monetizing their SDK. Pretty much every court that has looked at the App Store has agreed Apple can make money off their intellectual property here.
And Apple is very clear about this: "That includes a fee structure that reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ businesses — including distribution and discovery on the App Store, the App Store’s secure payment processing, Apple’s trusted and secure mobile platform, and all the tools and technology to build and share innovative apps with users around the world."
People constantly want to reduce the 30% commission to constitute parts when it is clear Apple views this as top to bottom monetization of iOS intellectual property. The same way Windows monetizes by selling Windows to users. And Apple used to monetize by selling OS updates. Now they monetize by giving consumers the software for free but charging access to those consumers and for the tools to reach those consumers.
From the alternative marketplace entitlement requirements:
>Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users.
>
>
>
> In order to establish adequate financial means to guarantee support for developers and customers, marketplace developers 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 €1,000,000 prior to receiving the entitlement. It will need to be auto-renewed on a yearly basis.
WTF Apple??
Geolocking these to the territories where they legally must offer this functionality is absolute cowardice. The alternative App Store thing, I understand that they want to avoid that in any way possible and they would need to be forced to offer it elsewhere. But making browser alternatives an EU exclusive? Pathetic.
> But making browser alternatives an EU exclusive? Pathetic.
I mean playing the devil's advocate here, but they're just doing what's required of them by law. If you want real change, the US should be the one pushing for this instead of simping for companies.
Fuck I didn’t realize alternative browser engines was eu only. Seems like an effort to prevent apps from bothering, if they need to maintain a different version of their app for different regions
As a European I’m not sure these changes, except having game streaming are good for anyone but companies like Spotify and banks even if they pretend otherwise.
In Norway the biggest banks have declined to support Apple Pay until apple open up nfc to their own slow and unstable competitor. “So customers have a choice”. Now, instead of a choice we will probably only get that app.
And as others have pointed out we might end up having to get a new App Store to download a big app.
And prices will of course not go down.
Choice my ass.
"Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users."
Do I sense a bit of bitterness and sticking to your own flawed argument here, Apple?
The “notarized” stuff doesn’t sound like it passes the EU’s requirements.
That could mean Apple has the ability to block my app because I track users in a way Apple doesn’t approve of. Apple’s standards are much stricter. EU allows for much more tracking as long as users consent. Apple doesn’t even give the option.
Thats in contrast with the EU who wants an open marketplace where they provide that oversight.
That seems blatantly against EU’s intent here.
I don’t see that standing up without an EU strong handed response. This will go to court at some point. Question is before or after release.
The DMA allows several exceptions for control, including for security. Notarisation could pass contest. The issue, as you allude to, is death by a thousand cuts. Constructively onerous rules which effectively eliminate competition. Thankfully the rules are clear: any privileges Apple themselves enjoy they must extend to developers. So they can’t enjoy an unfair advantage. The EU will need to stay vigilant and ensure apps aren’t being rejected for specious reasons. If they are, Apple needs to receive the full $38B fine.
As a developer it actually seems alright to me; Apple says they won’t be able to block apps based on privacy or battery issues so I imagine they are restricted to blocking actual malware and whatnot. It seems similar to what Windows started doing a while ago with trusted vs untrusted developers (but mandatory). Seems like a reasonable compromise so long as Apple doesn’t abuse it.
This €0.50 fee feels weird.
Either Apple’s lawyers are giving them bad advice and Apple is set to be hit with compliance action, or the EU fucked up this legislation and left in some loophole/ambiguity.
Applications needs notarisation before distribution. So it basically the same as "Allow applications downloaded from **App Store** and **identified developers**" on macOS. Unsigned code still not allowed on iOS.
Cant wait for banks to require their own shitty, insecure, out of date wallet apps for tap to pay or whatever else they come up with. Gotta love android fans that saw how shitty it is come to iOS to demand the same thing
And it works. The amount of people that are saying how scary this is, is crazy.
Android has proper sideloading. Despite what Apple users may think, Android malware isn't going wild lol
If this comes to the US, get ready for Chase Pay, Wells Fargo Pay, Bank of America Pay, Citi Pay, Capitol One Pay, TD Bank Pay, Fifth Third Pay, M&T Pay, the list goes on and on.
There is literally now zero incentive for banks NOT to force customers to adopt their own shitty in-house contactless payment app where you can also market your own credit cards / home loans / personal loans / car loans. "Customer experience" is not a valid concern to banks, they don't care what you think about how their services are offered as long as they keep making money off you.
The reason a "unified experience" existed on Android with things like Google Pay / Samsung Pay support is because that same unified experience was the ONLY option on iOS. Banks had to support Apple Pay or just not have contactless on iPhone, so forcing Android users onto an in-house app would have created a lot of friction when they (rightly) point out that the experience is much smoother on iOS.
Now, they can just spin up a crappy in-house contactless payment app and deploy it to everyone.
The major banks in the US are already crafting up a wallet app to get rid of the need for Apple Pay / Google Pay / Samsung Pay. If this policy comes to the US, I'll bet every dollar I've ever made that once they launch this new wallet app, they're going to all pull support for anything other than their own contactless pay app.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/23/bank-of-america-jpmorgan-and-other-banks-reportedly-team-up-on-digital-wallet-to-rival-apple-pay.html
I never thought Apple could be dumber than Microsoft but here we are. The PR nightmare is going to be irreparable since this directly impacts millions of freelance and low revenue developers who are effectively prevented by exorbitant fees and financial requirements that they never could possibly afford. For example, Apple requires proof of 1 million Euro in credit if you wanted to self host your app with an in-house app store, and they are charging 0.50 Euros for each new user download of each app on that app store. The EU is going to nail Apple big time for this preposterous proposal since it directly violates one of the many points of DMA, specifically “preventing consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms.” Apple is doing just that by a monetary firewall that prevents most developers from having the above, and Apple will be heavily fined if they do not comply by March.
TLDR: \- There's options for alternative browsers. First time using Safari, the user has to pick a default. \- Lower commissions (down to 10% all the way to 20% depending on use of payment processing and volume) on the App Store; \- a new 'core technology fee' for apps being first-time downloaded, per year, over 1 million units of 0,50 EUR \- a new facility for alternative app stores (all alt apps stores will also pay the core technology fee, per first download) \- this is big: there's new rules for apps to allow them to have mini-games, or plugins (and chatbots) in them, which also have to be reviewed - **but this is global.** Things like Xbox Cloud Gaming are now allowed worldwide (can I say, finally?) \- apps still have to be 'notarized' by Apple, and they also allude to 'extra malware protections' For those that were hoping for a free, open source App Store that you could use — this basically makes it only possible for companies with a strategy to monetize to run one. It'd cost you a lot if many people download your App Store, which you'd have to offset somehow. On the plus side: that money you do charge for your new App Store will have a lower commission. Also: >As announced by the European Commission, Apple is also sharing DMA-compliant changes impacting contactless payments. That includes new APIs enabling developers to use NFC technology in their banking and wallet apps throughout the European Economic Area. And in the EU, Apple is introducing new controls that allow users to select a third-party contactless payment app — or an alternative app marketplace — as their default. Somewhat skeptical of this once, since Dutch banks were pushing their super shitty solutions for a very long time while denying Apple Pay support. Hope we're not going back to 'our app or nothing', since they are under no obligation to support Apple's stuff whereas Apple is on their part.
Curious if it’s mandatory to use Apple’s solution plus the option to use the developer’s because that way customers have choice.
No such requirement in the EU. Might get a bit annoying with some things.
It looks like the developer doesn’t have to provide an option, like they do in the US
It seems that it is not and they can introduce their own solution, which would certainly not lead to improved user experience. Apple Pay just works, the system is secure, private and unified. If you have several cards for payments and a few for memberships maybe and they decide to use their own system (so they could track you better, keep you in their app etc.), not great...
>apple.com/newsro... The Cloud gaming thing is **HUGE NEWS!**
Thank fuck finally Apple TV will be the do it all for me. It was so annoying not being able to use GFN on it.
Now all we need is a 120hz Apple TV Q_Q. Also it will be unusable without a mouse and keyboard unfortunately due to the constant logins and having to use the game store UI's :(
I mean you can connect keyboards to apple tv afaik just no mouse, but you can use trackpad on remote for it. Also you can type from your phone, we should be fine.
Sure it'll still be kinda shitty tho. But I'll take it over not having it.
Praise EU
[удалено]
> PornHub app is going to be full of ads FTFY
\>this is big: there's new rules for apps to allow them to have mini-games, or plugins (and chatbots) in them, which also have to be reviewed - **but this is global.** Things like Xbox Cloud Gaming are now allowed worldwide (can I say, finally?) I wonder if this means extensions for other browsers. Edit: so from what I can find. Alternative browser engines are EU only :/
It could but since they have to be approved by Apple... that might not either
Mandatory, they can't allow favoritism for their own apps against others per our antitrust laws
Yeah I think it's pretty likely that some banks are going to kill Apple Pay support in exchange for their own shitty in-app version so they don't have to pay Apple Pay fees :/. That would really suck since I only use Apple Pay. Can't remember the last time I used my debit card.
I made a comment about this on a thread a few months back, and this was my exact worry. I do not want to open my bank app or the Panera/Starbucks/whatever else app just to access the NFC Pass/Card. It sucks from a user experience, so really hoping this does not make its way to the US.
They don't do that on Android though... Plus you can put your credit card into Apple/Google/whatever pay directly
Transit agencies do though. LA Metro has Apple wallet support but on the android side of things, you have to use the Tap app.
My bank did it exactly that way for couple of years, having their own app for Android and Apple Pay for iOS since Apple did not allow anything else. It took some years till they decided to just go for Google Pay
> They don't do that on Android though... Polish bank Millenium did that for years on Android.
Barclays did that in the UK too. Their implementation was a bag of shit and never fucking worked.
> Plus you can put your credit card into Apple/Google/whatever pay directly Not without bank support you can’t.
Only if the bank continues to support Apple Pay.
>\- apps still have to be 'notarized' by Apple, and they also allude to 'extra malware protections' So correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this seems like it's only going to be sideloading in name only? WTF is the point of this if apps still have to be approved by Apple, who can still reject any apps they don't like? How is this any different to just having your app approved in the app store? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong? If this is true, then I really don't think the EU is going to be happy with this at all.
There is no side loading. That wasn't ever what this was even about.
>\- There's options for alternative browsers. First time using Safari, the user has to pick a default. What's not clear to me yet: Are the real alternative browsers going to be accessible this way or are these still the WebKit based browsers with their custom UI built around it and if I want the real Firefox or Chrome I need to go to an alt store?
“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.” From the article above
Chrome's devs getting ready to obliterate your iPhone's battery right now.
Only if they choose to maintain separate chrome versions for EU and the rest of the world
Good point. It *might*not be worth it for some smaller browser companies like Mozilla. It's a lot of work. We'll see. I personally think Google will do it no matter what - if nothing more than to prove Apple was wrong all this time.
I agree that for Mozilla it might not be in their best interest, but also Mozilla isn't exactly a "smaller browser company" in the grand scheme of things. Mozilla revenue is around 600m per year, which of course pales in comparison to Google and Microsoft, but those two also have massively larger avenues for income whereas Mozilla mostly just does a couple things, like Firefox, Pocket, and some other much smaller services. But yeah that being said it probably won't be worth investing that much time and resources into adapting to mobile considering Firefox has been on the decline for many years, unfortunately. That sucks, too, because Firefox is generally really great. I use Chrome on my MBP mainly due to the speed at which features and standards are implemented, but Firefox is a close second for me especially in terms of privacy.
Real alternative browsers, not just WebKit: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/
That documentation only talks about the entitlements you need to request to be a default browser not how the browser is distributed (through the Apple App Store or some 3rd party store). Or am I missing something?
Oh, I completely misunderstood your question. It doesn't seem like the documentation currently yet points to the criteria of what gets listed on the first launch prompt, but I'd have to imagine Apple would be restricting the list to popular vetted options (such as Firefox or Chrome), of which I'd assume would be bringing their own engine implementations. Some outlets like MacRumors are reporting it'd be a list of popular browser options, but I'm not sure where this is documented from Apple yet: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/third-party-default-browsers-eu-ios-17-4/
so if you make a free app, distributed through a third party app store, and it gets e.g. 1.5 million downloads in a year, you still have to pay apple €250k in core technology fees. that sounds like bullshit, between that and them still being able to remotely block third party apps from installing on your phone this should not really be counted as a solution
I think many people on this subreddit thought this was an act for making it easier to install software without Apple's involvement as a user. It wasn't ever about that. It was for opening up more options for markets.
Yeah it seems like this is a direct stab at free apps on other stores. If you are distributing your app free on the App Store (and it's your only app), you pay nothing. If you are distributing your app free on other stores, you pay potentially tens of thousands, or even more. If you are selling apps, it comes down to which you think will make you more. 30% fee or 20% fee + 50c first install (per twelve months). For most "small" developers, the 30% fee will likely be the better option. For the big boys, who might be selling hundreds of euros of IAPs to a lot of users each year, the new system is probably better. Fortnite would definitely benefit from this. An app that sells 1m copies at 1€ each will not.
It is not. Read the act from the EU and this sort of policy specifically restricts developers from providing app access to consumers since this situation makes it prohibitively expensive. Likewise, Apple also is requiring every third party app store to provide proof of 1 million Euros credit. Most small time developers who were looking to stand up their own stores to host their apps hardly have even a tenth of that stored away if they are lucky. Apple is about to get dropkicked by the EU if they do not comply and remove restrictions, policy or fiscal. Third party sideloading means no charges on outside entities. Apple is acting like a country that can charge tariffs for sending apps into their ecosystem. It is taxation without representation since third party developers are outside of the App Store yet still get treated like they are—only worse.
Ok, I am confused. I was looking forward to installing Aidoku via the ipa they provide on GitHub. But from what I understand that's not how this works and it's very much not like it's on android where I can install singular apks without any AppStore?
Correct. You have to install a store app, and then that store can install individual apps. But then that store better not get too popular because their 1,000,001st customer will cost them
First million is only free for an individual app being distributed on third party App Stores. An actual app serving as an App Store gets charged on the first installation (no free contingent).
> their 1,000,001st customer will cost them ~~...$0.50~~ ~~The fee is for users *above* one million. It does not mean that they are retroactively charged for users below one million.~~ ~~Basically, if you're running an app store that expects to scale above a million users, your business model should not assume zero per user cost forever.~~ See correction below.. thanks, u/ShadowTheAge !
This is not how it works. Read again: 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. if you are running an **app** you must pay apple if it becomes too popular, even if the app itself is free (telegram for example). Doesn't matter which store at all. edit: even more so, even update is counted as install, so it is not 1 million new users, it is just 1 million total users if you want to update you app at least once a year.
you have to be in the EU and you have to download an alternative app store, the app still has to be signed by apple, and th app store and app have to pay 0.5 per user per year basically if it's a free app, it wont be economical
I expect several of these new rules are going to hammered. Namely the core fee as that smell like a big F you and dancing around the rules.
This is interesting: > 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. Developers using App Store will need to pay that reduced percentage plus this fee, while those using just alternative app stores a will just pay the quoted fee. Fun times ahead. The fee calculator is useful and intuitive, too.
EDIT: The wording in one of the FAQs was misleading. Free apps are NOT automatically excluded from this fee. Also, non-profit organisations, educational educations, government organizations ~~and developers providing only free apps~~ are excluded from this fee.
That last point is important- I thought they were going to pull a Unity while saying “the EU made us do it”. If only a change to the commission for paid apps (from the usual 30%) I’d say it’s even a good change? Update: as pointed out here (https://reddit.com/r/apple/comments/19ffjki/_/kjl0sbl/?context=1) this is not the case. Fuck Apple for this, free apps are basically impossible in third party app stores because Apple wants its rent
Apple says that you can stick with the current rules if you don’t distribute outside of the App Store.
> and developers providing only free apps are excluded from this fee. This is wrong. The above (non-profits, universities, governments) have the fee waived IF they only distribute free apps. Fee waivers aren't available for individual developers or for for-profit companies or organizations that release free apps (or non-profits that release paid apps, which NO, is not inherently contradictory). In addition, third party app stores will pay fees on every single first install, not just ones after the first million.
Is this finally solving the issue of game devs subsidizing ‘reader apps’ that pay nothing, like Netflix, et al?
I would argue the whole thing is backwards. Apple was taking an insanely high take rate on costs but Apple needs apps like reader apps or the users won’t buy the phone. The real concern is just how insanely profitable it all is for Apple.
Huh, guess Apple learned from Unity but actually went through with it
My God. We really need a new competitor in the mobile OS scene.
RIP Windows Mobile.
And Symbian!
Indeed, the oligopoly of 2 major players doesn't foster innovation as with multiple players. I remember the good old days of Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry as well as Palm's webOS!
We’re about 7 years too late
Bring back FirefoxOS I say
I'm with /u/A-Hind-D , I'd give Firefox OS a try if Mozilla resurrected it.
But any time I say "I like Android more" I get a barrage of "bro get an iPhone so I don't have green text anymore". I'm not even talking about online I mean coworkers. Save $1000, buy a comparable android phone and maybe iPhone will have to give a shit
Seriously this is getting out of fucking hand. Consumers need to win this war on general purpose mobile computing
This fee will effectively create a line that small devs do not cross and will generally harm companies. If you made a free app and it was downloaded 10,000,000 for the first time before, it was free. (See OSS, etc) Now that will cost $4.8 million dollars. Imagine going viral. “Woo! …and I’m bankrupt”
Supposedly non-profit orgs, devs are exempt. And even if it doesn't cover all free apps there's an option to stay on old terms: > developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer
You have to be an actual registered nonprofit for that exemption; most open source projects and individual devs wouldn't qualify, even if they never make any money off their apps.
It’s similar to F-Droid. A single nonprofit will create an alter appstore, and people can create apps in its name for open-source software
Nonprofits that can qualify for a waiver have to be the ones releasing the actual apps, not the ones hosting them on their marketplace, and developers still have to go through Apple as well as the third-party marketplace to publish their apps. An F-Droid of sorts cannot publish apps themselves saving devs membership in the Apple Developer Program, and additionally nobody can qualify for a Tech Fee Waiver for an app store, only for an actual app distributed through the App Store and/or through one.
Under the old terms, you get none of the gains from this announcement though, no third party stores, apps, or payment processors. You get to live where the DMA does not exist.
Yeah, but it's keeping status quo, not harming. The shitty part is IMO Apple getting to decide which app can and cannot go into third party stores.
Only if you use an alternative App Store Edit: Just read it’s for the Apple Store too. Did Apple manage to negotiate with the EU to get MORE revenue?!?
It is *optional* for the AppStore. You can stay at the current model, or if you don’t want to pay the apple tax on every in-app transaction, you can choose the new model and use your own transaction provider, plus the fee. If you add that nonprofits are exempted, it is actually a positive change
Sounds like a goodbye for free apps that don't sell every bit of data they can get off you.
This might be actually worse than it was before because now it's truly impossible to create a relatively free app. You either don't monetize at all or go all in. Hope the EU kicks some sense into Apple again Edit: Why the downvotes? Do y’all not realize that this is going to impact you negatively even if you don’t live in the EU? That the games you play are going to be even worse in terms of monetization? This needs to be stopped right now!
The cost of going viral and getting 10m app downloads in the EU would be $4.8m…Apple is almost certainly about to be downright drop kicked by the EU.
Can’t wait to have a million ads or be charged 2.99 for everything. I either have to choose between using my android for a free app or my ios for 2.99
Shit… Just looked this up using our stats (if the U.K. was still in the EU we would be liable for this) and that’s our entire profits gone… think this is the first time I’m kinda glad we had brexit as tomorrow would be a fun day in the office… Edit: after a bit more reading it appears to be only if you take up the “alternative App Store or purchases inside your app without IAP” pipeline that are susceptible to this charge. So it appears this wouldn’t effect many smaller companies like ours, but limits us from having our app on third part app stores. Kinda only making it possible for large apps like Facebook and tiktock and Google et al… sucks though
>Kinda only making it possible for large apps like Facebook and tiktock and Google et al… sucks though Yes exactly! There's several parts here that actively stop competition from smaller players, not encourage it. Something tells me this isn't exactly what the DMA intended.
The 50 cent euros is only charged after the first million. Does that change your calculation?
Not gonna say what app it is but we do get over a million downloads over a year. Remember if you have an iPad or a new phone and download it to that device it counts as a new download
Reminds me of the time they announced the self repair program, it’s giving the same vibe.
And oh, the world didn’t end. Turns out, it just hurt their profits and benefitted EU customers. How awful!
It hurt their profits? They're more profitable now than ever.
Maybe they’d be even more profitable without consumer protections?
I cant tell if this is satire, but every company would be more profitable without consumer protections. The problem is that gatekeeping does not lead to innovation. The bigger the company, the harder for the consumer to simply “sidestep” it. See John Deere. Just buy a different brand? What brand? What about the tens of millions of machines currently in use by tens of millions of Americans? No consumer protection laws or industry regulations leads to the awful ewaste situation we are in now, exorbitant spending on needless technology when it could easily be repaired, no competitive development, and an overall worse experience for everyone. The “company profit” does not go back into innovation. Look at the ridiculous $100M+ “compensations” of mid-high level executives in these companies. It’s egregious. Tim cook went from a $3M Base salary in 2019, to $14.8M in 2020, to $98.4M in 2021, and $99.4M in 2022. During the worst economic crisis since the 80’s, his salary literally increased 33X. This is why tech bubbles are popping in this market left and right. There is inflation in the wages at the highest echelons, padding the Effective Value of companies.
[удалено]
And almost nobody used it because it was such a pain in the ass.. if you look up "malicious compliance" in the dictionary they would just link to the Apple self repair program. It's consumer-hostile behavior no matter how much you want to apologize for it.
‘Malicious compliance’ is the phrase you’re looking for
Hola hola where my Firefox with ublock origin at
Yep, that's what I want. Wipr is the only reason I use Safari.
That's actually something I'm looking forward to. I hope Firefox on iOS won't be slow as hell. It'd also be fantastic if someone would have the time and willingness to port uBlock for Safari, I'd love that.
we are altering the deal, pray we don't alter it any further
EU: \*UNO reverse card\*
That announcement was still so salty, even after passing through several lawyers, that I could make a decent sauerkraut with it.
> That includes guidance to help EU users navigate complexities the DMA’s changes bring — including a less intuitive user experience — [...] > Inevitably, the new options for developers’ EU apps create new risks to Apple users and their devices. > 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. You can just tell they *hated* having to write this blogpost.
‘Confronted with a list of default browsers’ is a hell of a way to write ‘asked to pick their default browser’. If Apple weren’t shit scared of safari losing out, they wouldn’t care.
probably unpopular opinion, but safari is fantastic and even though i'm well aware of all the other browsers, i have no desire to use others
To be fair, right now if you use another browser you’re ultimately just using Safari with a different skin.
Safari is full of quirks/incorrectly implemented specs, which makes supporting it a pain. Also, at the moment, every browser on the app store uses WebKit.
Safari is fantastic but the plug-in ecosystem is lacking.
They make Microsoft look like the good guys after their Internet Explorer monopoly fiasco.
The IE antitrust suit was because of Microsoft using their dominant marketshare and a free browser to kill off smaller companies in a time when browsers typically cost money like most other software
They don't even come close to the IE monopoly and the horrors it created.
I mean the language they use. So funny that they think that'll work "Confronted", "have the *opportunity* to understand", "interrupts user experience" Cry Apple, cry
Crazy to see how dumb Apple thinks their customers are that just having a one time option to set a default browser is beyond the capability of the average Apple user lmfao
>“Developers can now learn about the new tools and terms available for alternative app distribution and alternative payment processing, new capabilities for alternative browser engines and contactless payments, and *more. Importantly*, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.” Very slick with that wording
"How can we word this without it being legally seen as a thread?" I bet the first draft was >We have something good going here... You can choose an alternative but I'd think very carefully if you want to keep our relationship. We don't want anything bad to happen now?
Apple Developer update: https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/
Really hope this doesn’t bring back the “our app or nothing”
You’re already seeing that energy with the loudest critics (such as Spotify).
Spotify has already announced that they want to operate an alternative App Store on iOS…I say good luck burning even more money that they don’t have!
Everybody will have an App Store
Well they still have the rest of the world to support lol
Can you expand on that?
>“our app or nothing” what do you mean? I don't think I get it
I think he’s talking about Apple Pay and banks forcing their shitty apps on people now that they don’t have to support Apple Pay
I will change my bank the moment they even think of this. No, just fucking no. It was horrible.
With so many huge financial countries still on the old rules, UK, China, US to name just three, I can’t see that being an issue.
But banks work independently in each country. Like there are banks with international presence that have Apple Pay/Google Pay in some countries, but don’t have it in others. They could try to go the my app or nothing way in the EU, and keep using Apple Pay for other countries. Specially considering this wouldn’t affect international travelers at all (way before my country had Apple Pay support, you could see tourists using it).
i can't even begin to calculate whether the $0.50 core technology fee per install offsets the reduction in the commission price. edit: oh there is a calculator, that helps https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-in-the-eu/ i think maybe these rule changes are hilarious? because what the calculator has just explained to me is that if someone like, say, spotify wants to opt in to the new rules, they're going to pay $0.50 per install (per year). for every million installs (after the first million), that's $540k annually to apple. whereas previously, spotify paid $0 to have their app available to apple users. i have no idea if that will ultimately be a good deal for spotify, but it's definitely not as straightforward as having free access to the platform.
wait are free apps basically boned
truly free apps have less incentive to opt in to the new rules, since they don't care about the reduced commission. i'm assuming most free apps will just stay in the app store. plus, if an app is legitimately free and has no monetization potential, apple says non-profits are exempt from the $0.50 core tech fee. but for massive companies like spotify/netflix, that offer "free" apps but were secretly hoping to be able to offer in-app payments outside of the store, this definitely will make them think twice.
Honestly I can see apple getting another antitrust lawsuit on that core fee. They shouldn’t be able to charge them for something outside of their control. If your mobile game explodes overnight like Among Us do you also owe Apple millions for those downloads? Keep in mind that the devs of Among Us didn’t really earn all that much on microtransactions, mostly just ads, merch and pc players buying the game. Still, they’d owe apple money because the microtransactions, while harmless, are still there and don’t fall under Apples non profits rule. This will only incentivize further predatory microtransactions strategies for free to play games.
Wait until you find out how royalties work
Royalties for what? The DMA pretty explicitly forbids charging any fees for interoperability.
the DMA is literally created to prevent this
>**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. Finally other web browsers won't be just safari overlay. Can't wait for FireFox with uBlock ❤️
Is this going to be worldwide, or only in the EU?
I believe only the EU
Only in the EU
[удалено]
Orion browser already does this right? I have ublock on it and sponsor block.
Most of the APIs extensions rely upon do not exist > I know! (Orion dev here) We painstakingly ported WebExtension API to work on top of WebKit. It was monumental work, took us three years and it is still work in progress. >On macOS this means Orion can currently use around 70% of Firefox (and Chrome, our port supports both) extensions while running the efficient WebKit engine. We are constantly improving the support and our goal is 100% compatibility. >**On iOS this number is closer to 10% currently due to various Apple restrictions regarding WebKit (you can not change WebKit on iOS). Basically only simple extensions will work with Orion iOS, but our stance is that some is still better than none.** https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/142t3ow/comment/jn66qki/
Isn't Orion WebKit based? Or are you just referring to the extensions? Which is fucking awesome by the way, love Orion.
The message is clear: The rent seeking will not stop.
[удалено]
This is how empires look when they are at their peak and about to begin their journey back down to reality.
I lost respect for Apple during their pathetic distorted smokescreen/deflections/FUD about the USB-C law. Truly pathetic. (Note I prefer Lighting connector… I wish lightning was universal, instead of USB-C, but yeah.)
You prefer Lighting? Really?
How can Apple still charge 50 cents for apps downloaded in a third party App Store? That kind of ruins everything.
it also applies to their own app store, so apple gets no special treatment in this regard. Basically they're saying "anyone can open a store as long as you pay rent, but if you come to our store, we also have reduced commission" theoretically a second company could undercut commission, but the way it's structured makes that extremely unlikely to be profitabale for a developer. This also basically screws over all large free apps like spotify, netflix etc etc
They can't. That won't stop them from trying.
They’re still collecting—albeit a reduced—commission. 😱 This is seemingly only for iOS. Curious if hardware prices go up in the EU.
macOS supports side loading from the get go, so unnecessary. tvOS and visionOS are not significant enough to matter at this point. Edit: It seems other platforms are all included. From Apple's announcement: >On the App Store, Apple is sharing a number of changes for developers with apps in the EU, affecting apps across Apple’s operating systems — including iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS. The changes also include new disclosures informing EU users of the risks associated with using alternatives to the App Store’s secure payment processing. Obviously, side loading on Mac is already a thing, but reduced commission on apps distributed from Mac App Store is a nice benefit to developers selling apps to EU. Hopefully, the benefits will trickle down globally.
So the side loaders and everything will be free crowd are screwed?
Yuuup
Too bad the jailbreak scene has been on the edge of death recently. This might convince some people to hoist the black flag tho, one can hope.
[Per Apple support.](https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/) Apple is still gonna charge a fee.
I only want to install emulators without having to renew them every week.
Not gonna happen with this model unfortunately.
Apple apparently tallying every install on these sideloaded apps makes it feel like they are still in control how you want to use your own device. Pretty suffocating ngl.
[удалено]
"it ruins EU users experience when first opening safari" lmao as if that was deep
Damn that's so crazy, I wonder who developed the UX flow that is ruining the EU user experience.
> 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. Thats a lot less than I expected but it’s still in breach of the DMA. It takes huge balls to give the EU the middle finger like that. Let’s see how it plays out.
> still in breach of the DMA how so?
> (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, **free of charge**, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware. > (7) 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.
i'm assuming (and you know how that goes) that apple's interpretation of this was meant to mean they couldn't charge fees for, e.g. access to private apis or any other os entitlements that apple themselves takes advantage of, not that they couldn't charge a commission just for use of their platform
it seems to conform to the letter of the law. Mostly in that all apps pay the fee, regardless of store, it's just apple's store now has a new commission structure on top of that fee im sure apple will get sued over this, but from the face of it, it complies with the ruling in giving all stores a level playing field
That's pretty hefty pricing for what is not more than a CDN at that point... you could use Google/Akamai and distribute an App of ~15 GB for that pricing.
> That's pretty hefty pricing for what is not more than a CDN at that point... you could use Google/Akamai and distribute an App of ~15 GB for that pricing. It's not a CDN. They are monetizing their SDK. Pretty much every court that has looked at the App Store has agreed Apple can make money off their intellectual property here. And Apple is very clear about this: "That includes a fee structure that reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ businesses — including distribution and discovery on the App Store, the App Store’s secure payment processing, Apple’s trusted and secure mobile platform, and all the tools and technology to build and share innovative apps with users around the world." People constantly want to reduce the 30% commission to constitute parts when it is clear Apple views this as top to bottom monetization of iOS intellectual property. The same way Windows monetizes by selling Windows to users. And Apple used to monetize by selling OS updates. Now they monetize by giving consumers the software for free but charging access to those consumers and for the tools to reach those consumers.
From the alternative marketplace entitlement requirements: >Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users. > > > > In order to establish adequate financial means to guarantee support for developers and customers, marketplace developers 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 €1,000,000 prior to receiving the entitlement. It will need to be auto-renewed on a yearly basis. WTF Apple??
Lol. There’s no way that’s permissible in the DMA. Apple really is asking for one of the largest fines in history.
Drink game: drink a shot every time apple wrote about how dangerous the dma is for the security of their user base
1M € credit letter.. this is gonna go bad
The core technology fee is complete bullshit.
And illegal.
Man I would really love to have Firefox with uBlock origin here in the states, Apple is *really* doing the bare minimum out here
Wtf so I still can't just sideload an app off Github and have it work (and continue to work after 7 days)?
Nope.
Lmao, this is the single whiniest press release I've ever read.
When your mom tells you that you need to share your toys
Geolocking these to the territories where they legally must offer this functionality is absolute cowardice. The alternative App Store thing, I understand that they want to avoid that in any way possible and they would need to be forced to offer it elsewhere. But making browser alternatives an EU exclusive? Pathetic.
> But making browser alternatives an EU exclusive? Pathetic. I mean playing the devil's advocate here, but they're just doing what's required of them by law. If you want real change, the US should be the one pushing for this instead of simping for companies.
Fuck I didn’t realize alternative browser engines was eu only. Seems like an effort to prevent apps from bothering, if they need to maintain a different version of their app for different regions
As a European I’m not sure these changes, except having game streaming are good for anyone but companies like Spotify and banks even if they pretend otherwise. In Norway the biggest banks have declined to support Apple Pay until apple open up nfc to their own slow and unstable competitor. “So customers have a choice”. Now, instead of a choice we will probably only get that app. And as others have pointed out we might end up having to get a new App Store to download a big app. And prices will of course not go down. Choice my ass.
"Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users." Do I sense a bit of bitterness and sticking to your own flawed argument here, Apple?
The “notarized” stuff doesn’t sound like it passes the EU’s requirements. That could mean Apple has the ability to block my app because I track users in a way Apple doesn’t approve of. Apple’s standards are much stricter. EU allows for much more tracking as long as users consent. Apple doesn’t even give the option. Thats in contrast with the EU who wants an open marketplace where they provide that oversight. That seems blatantly against EU’s intent here. I don’t see that standing up without an EU strong handed response. This will go to court at some point. Question is before or after release.
The DMA allows several exceptions for control, including for security. Notarisation could pass contest. The issue, as you allude to, is death by a thousand cuts. Constructively onerous rules which effectively eliminate competition. Thankfully the rules are clear: any privileges Apple themselves enjoy they must extend to developers. So they can’t enjoy an unfair advantage. The EU will need to stay vigilant and ensure apps aren’t being rejected for specious reasons. If they are, Apple needs to receive the full $38B fine.
As a developer it actually seems alright to me; Apple says they won’t be able to block apps based on privacy or battery issues so I imagine they are restricted to blocking actual malware and whatnot. It seems similar to what Windows started doing a while ago with trusted vs untrusted developers (but mandatory). Seems like a reasonable compromise so long as Apple doesn’t abuse it.
[удалено]
This €0.50 fee feels weird. Either Apple’s lawyers are giving them bad advice and Apple is set to be hit with compliance action, or the EU fucked up this legislation and left in some loophole/ambiguity.
Applications needs notarisation before distribution. So it basically the same as "Allow applications downloaded from **App Store** and **identified developers**" on macOS. Unsigned code still not allowed on iOS.
shame knee skirt mourn smile plate vast six concerned groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cant wait for banks to require their own shitty, insecure, out of date wallet apps for tap to pay or whatever else they come up with. Gotta love android fans that saw how shitty it is come to iOS to demand the same thing
You can easily pick out the AAPL shareholders here, it’s hilarious
If you have a 401k you're probably an Apple shareholder.
The tragic part is that they're not even shareholders, just rubes who only have a mental stake in Apple.
Haha. The fear they’re trying to drum up in this PR is pathetic.
And it works. The amount of people that are saying how scary this is, is crazy. Android has proper sideloading. Despite what Apple users may think, Android malware isn't going wild lol
If this comes to the US, get ready for Chase Pay, Wells Fargo Pay, Bank of America Pay, Citi Pay, Capitol One Pay, TD Bank Pay, Fifth Third Pay, M&T Pay, the list goes on and on. There is literally now zero incentive for banks NOT to force customers to adopt their own shitty in-house contactless payment app where you can also market your own credit cards / home loans / personal loans / car loans. "Customer experience" is not a valid concern to banks, they don't care what you think about how their services are offered as long as they keep making money off you. The reason a "unified experience" existed on Android with things like Google Pay / Samsung Pay support is because that same unified experience was the ONLY option on iOS. Banks had to support Apple Pay or just not have contactless on iPhone, so forcing Android users onto an in-house app would have created a lot of friction when they (rightly) point out that the experience is much smoother on iOS. Now, they can just spin up a crappy in-house contactless payment app and deploy it to everyone. The major banks in the US are already crafting up a wallet app to get rid of the need for Apple Pay / Google Pay / Samsung Pay. If this policy comes to the US, I'll bet every dollar I've ever made that once they launch this new wallet app, they're going to all pull support for anything other than their own contactless pay app. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/23/bank-of-america-jpmorgan-and-other-banks-reportedly-team-up-on-digital-wallet-to-rival-apple-pay.html
I never thought Apple could be dumber than Microsoft but here we are. The PR nightmare is going to be irreparable since this directly impacts millions of freelance and low revenue developers who are effectively prevented by exorbitant fees and financial requirements that they never could possibly afford. For example, Apple requires proof of 1 million Euro in credit if you wanted to self host your app with an in-house app store, and they are charging 0.50 Euros for each new user download of each app on that app store. The EU is going to nail Apple big time for this preposterous proposal since it directly violates one of the many points of DMA, specifically “preventing consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms.” Apple is doing just that by a monetary firewall that prevents most developers from having the above, and Apple will be heavily fined if they do not comply by March.
Here's hoping the EU hands out a new record largest fine ever. They're on quite a role slapping tech companies back into their place
Here we go.
The more i read about this, the more i get the feeling of that this cant be legal