[AOsborn]

I don't think it is egregious at all.

Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.

So, now there is the option for alternative marketplaces, the costs have been shifted to those marketplaces.

Makes complete sense.

It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.

[johnnyanmac]

>Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.

The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc.

But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking.

The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack.

>It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.

except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.

[dariosalvi78]

in what way would an alternative store, managed by a third party, be a cost for Apple?

[FateOfNations]

All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.

[johnnyanmac]

Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden.

>Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.

Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.

[int_19h]

Developers pay for those when they pay for their dev license.

(if they don't, then what is it for?)

[FateOfNations]

Previously the "developer licence" was $100/yr + an opaque revenue share that was bundled with distribution and payment processing services.

Based on their new alternative business terms, we can better describe what that bundled deal includes (which is still available):

• 15% tier (first $1mil/yr revenue and subscriptions after the first year):

- 10% distribution

- 2% developer platform

- 3% payment processing

• 30% tier (all other revenue):

- 17% distribution

- 10% developer platform

- 3% payment processing

[kaba0]

The reviewing process done by apple still applies to them.

[elevatedastalt]

The reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do. What a racket this whole thing this is.

[AOsborn]

I absolutely am.

Part of the appeal about iOS for me is that apps are reviewed for quality and don't have obvious scams or spywear inside.

I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it. Compare this to the constant education and guidance I need to provide about websites, phone calls, text messages etc. The amount of targeted scams and spam we receive nowadays is excessive.

I think this is the problem: people want access to the 'app store' while forgetting/ignoring that the tight security and rigid processes are a feature, not a liability.

[pantalaimon]

Then stick to the official app store and don't install a third party store?

[veilrap]

That doesn't work if core apps start moving to third party app stores.

[holoduke]

The problem is that big publishers have different rules than the smaller ones. As a small company you an risk losing everything. Big publishers have private accountmanagers working at Apple. There are literally 1000 stories of this.

[depressedpanda]

> I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it.

You shouldn't be. There have been plenty of scams in the App Store.

[kolinko]

Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.

[hu3]

Their review process is historically flawed.

And where did you heard iOS is free from viruses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

From the top of my head there's also AdThief and AceDeceiver.

Not only that but App store is full of Anti-virus offerings.

[tidenly]

The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger. The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.

[KomoD]

> Google does the same thing

They don't block, and you can disable scanning fully.

[KomoD]

> choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware

It's not.

[elevatedastalt]

I think you are missing the point that they want to impose this reviewing process on the off-brand App Store too

[timeon]

Just let me install my own app ok? No need for review.

[bee_rider]

Would you be OK with that if it voided your warranty?

[dns_snek]

Quality and good engineering is one of the main reason you people cite for buying Apple in this very thread.

Now you're suggesting that there ought to be a "warranty void if app is installed" sticker on Apple's supposedly premium hardware which is running Apple's supposedly hyper-secure operating system, otherwise some unwashed piece of software is going to damage it?

No such requirement exist on macOS, for obvious reasons. The double-think in these threads is astounding, repent.

[bee_rider]

I don’t have any skin in the game as far as Apple’s security reputation goes. No technically competent person would believe that malicious code running on a machine can be contained.

[boolemancer]

As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to be covering, sure.

[bee_rider]

Plenty of viruses cover their tracks, and it is impossible realistically to protect a computer from malicious code that is run locally.

[int_19h]

No, for the same reason why I wouldn't be okay with a car manufacturer voiding the warranty due to use of third-party gasoline.

[elevatedastalt]

I get the thrust of your argument but I don't think that's a good analogy. Bad fuel can cause physical (including catastrophic) damage to the engine. Bad software cannot do something similar to the phone. At worst you will have to reinstall the OS.

Now I do agree that bad software can wipe all your data or hold it hostage, but Apple currently provides no such guarantees that software downloaded from the App Store won't do that.

[bee_rider]

Gasoline quality standards are regulated (in the US at least). Also, nobody designs malicious gasoline to intentionally attack your car.

[callalex]

How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.

[johnnyanmac]

They used to, or perhaps there used to be a case. Thankfully right to repair laws prevailed over those silly notions.

[layer8]

A review process which the DMA does not require.

[baobun]

The spirit (someone else may fill in with the letter) of the DMA is that this can not be enforced by Apple.

[dariosalvi78]

what review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and per install? come on...

[sunnybeetroot]

I agree, Apple’s servers aren’t free, sending push notifications isn’t free, sending down Apple Map tiles isn’t free. An alternative is you get a side loaded App Store with no costs but you don’t get access to Apple frameworks that cost them money.