[dann0]

Have they? You need to substantiate that claim.

1. Developers can continue to use the existing terms.

2. If a smaller developer elects to use the new terms, they pay less commission (10%) and a 3% transaction fee. That’s 2% less.

3. If they have more than 1 million users download their app, then there is an additional €0.50 Core Technology fee. If the developer is a commercial entity, then yes, they have to pay but in reality, it’s the end user that will have to pay.

3. If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.

4. If the app is offered by a not for profit, then they don’t pay the CTF.

So, the new terms seem better for developers and users in the EU.

[SCdF]

If I make OpenFlappyBird, and it's my little personal project, and I distribute it on OpenMarketPlace *for free*, and it's a surprise massive runaway hit in the EU, with 10,000,000 people downloading it, I now owe Apple, after making zero money myself, ~$400k, *per month* (thanks pzo for the clarification).

https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...

Enter "No" to digital goods selling (you are making OpenFlappyBird as a personal project, and are not charging for it!)

Enter 10,000,000 Annual installs.

Check "New Capabilities and Terms" (you are putting it on OpenMarketPlace).

----

Where did I go wrong? This is a genuine question: I am not an iOS developer, maybe I am not applying this calculator correctly to my hypothetical?

[pzo]

Your calculation is wrong its $400k per month, per year it would be $5millions. Even worse if after one year you make some bug fix update and all those 10m people update your app you will own another $5 million - and by default app store install updates automatically

[SCdF]

Holy banana on a tricycle, I didn't notice that. Updated.

[dann0]

Only if you choose the new terms. The current ones are still available to you.

I definitely don’t love all of the detail of either option.

However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

[SCdF]

> However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

Yes that's the point. In my scenario I was wanting to distribute this on a different app store than Apple's, which forces me to choose the new terms.

Your question there is the exact question apple expects people to ask themselves, to dissuade them from supporting other stores.

[ripdog]

The old terms lock you into the App Store, no?

[depressedpanda]

Aren't there restrictions against using GPL stuff in the App Store?

[simondotau]

> Where did I go wrong?

When you compile OpenFlappyBird for iOS, your binary includes statically linked Apple intellectual property. Just as open source developers are entitled to use copyright law to enforce GPL rules[0], Apple is entitled to set license terms for use of this intellectual property.

While many operating system developers have historically chosen to license this intellectual property at no cost, many others have not. And regardless, norms aren't laws. Apple isn't required to give away their stuff for free.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

[SCdF]

Yes, Apple can do what it wants, unless it can't because the EU tells it that it can't, lawyers courts litigation etc. I get that.

What does that have to do with being asked to pay $400k/month for a free app that you made $0 from being considered by the person I replied to as "better for developers and users in the EU."?

[simondotau]

It has everything to do with it. We don't necessarily disagree about what we think Apple should do. My argument here is that I care about the GPL being respected, which forces me to respect the fundamental principle of distributing code with coercive license terms, whether or not the coercion involves money. If Apple doesn't want to give their intellectual property away for free, they shouldn't be required to, even if it doing so is often the norm. Even if Apple had followed that norm in some other contexts in the past.

If we were discussing desktop operating systems, this is the moment where I would advocate switching to a properly Free Software (or near-Free) software ecosystem. Unfortunately there's nothing for me to advocate when it comes to smartphones; there aren't any serious recommendations to make which aren't catastrophically impractical for all but the most obsessive Richard Stallman acolyte.

[wasmitnetzen]

There is a fundamental difference you're ignoring: the GPL is not a monopoly of any sort, Apple is part of a duopoly.

[simondotau]

I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying one is great and one sucks, but they both scaffold upon the same legal principle so decry the latter at your peril.

[dns_snek]

Apple is not giving away intellectual property for free.

1. They're already charging for access to SDKs and services via their $100 annual developer fee. Quote from Apple:

> Membership includes all the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps, including access to beta software, app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more.

2. In any case, reverse engineering, modifications, and distribution of IP for the purposes of interoperability is protected under the Computer Programs Directive in the EU

[simondotau]

1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.

2. The directive gives end users the right to reverse engineer, modify, and make PRIVATE copies of intellectual property for the purposes of interoperability. It doesn’t create a new avenue for the redistribution of intellectual property.

[waffleiron]

When you put a sticker on your car, it interfaces with intellectual property of the car manufacturer. It would be absurd if you had to pay BMW each time you modify your car, or say play a song over the integrated radio because that’s only possible due to their IP.

[simondotau]

Yes, that would be absurd. It’s also not even remotely analogous to redistributing intellectual property.

[Doxin]

They are however required by law to allow other app stores to function. This new licensing cost is a bald faced attempt to make other app stores nonviable. I'd be highly surprised if the EU is okay with that.

[GlumWoodpecker]

In my view, they are making alternative app stores way more attractive to FLOSS apps, because they will incur no fees from Apple, and the creators won't have to set up an NPO.

Edit: Seems I misunderstood, I just re-read the relevant section:

>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.

The fact that they are charging money for apps installed from non-App Store sources is ludicrous to me, if they aren't running the store, then they don't get to collect fees on it, imo.

[sebstefan]

It's still a rug pull under people who wouldn't have developed for Apple software had they known there would have been installation fees later years down the line

[dann0]

I’d agree, but the developer in this example could still use the iOS App Store for free using the current terms

[sunnybeetroot]

That’s why it’s opt in, you’re being informed upfront there will be installation fees.

[saagarjha]

Apple does not statically link their code into your app.

[762236]

You don't get 1 million free installs if your app is an alternative app store. For the alternative app stores, they pay 0.50EUR for every first annual install.

[GlumWoodpecker]

> 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.

[762236]

That says 'from' the alternative app store. The alternative app store itself needs to be installed via Apple's app store, and the wording for that made it sound like you have to pay .50EUR for each first-annual install of it.

[762236]

I am correct: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/01/29/two-additional-...

[Kwpolska]

> they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k

The first million is free. If they reach 1,000,001 installs, they owe Apple €0.50.

[pzo]

it seems reinstall and app updates also counts - it's not just 1 million new app install a year but probably also:

1. You made a one time paid app. If in the first year you got 2M installs and sold app for 5$ you are profitable, but next year if those users who already paid will make an app update then you will own ~$1M to apple for those app updates even if you didn't make any new money from those users. You would be forced to change your business model to subscriptions.

2. If user has iPhone, iPad, apple watch and your app support all those platforms then probably this will be counted as 3 installs.

3. By default app store updates app automatically - if user has still some old iphone/ipad that uses from time to time this is getting even worse.

[dann0]

No, reinstalls and updates don’t get counted. This is in the linked page: “each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold”.

This applies only to iOS Apps. iPad OS and Watch OS isn’t (yet) covered by this Core Technology Fee.

I strongly suggest actually reading the linked page. Most of what you’re saying is clearly and obviously wrong, had you read the page.

[pzo]

"A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store," [0]

So update do counts it just in a year (12 months) install, reinstall and update is counted as one. But once user bought a paid app and installed it then next year if that user update app developer will have to pay for this update

[0] https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

[fendy3002]

I saw some games already got late update for iOS and I'll expect it'll only getting worse

[firejake308]

> If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.

I think that "growth first, revenue later" is actually a fairly popular business model, and I can imagine a lot of my own app ideas reaching 1M downloads with <$500k revenue (in an ideal world, but still)

[dann0]

Again, that’s a choice you’ve made.

I’d argue that a number way less than 1 million installs would signify enough success to start charging for