Apple Plans New Fees and Restrictions for Downloads Outside App Store (wsj.com) 140
In response to a new European law intended to limit Apple's control over iPhone apps, Apple plans to allow sideloading with restrictions. Users will be able to download apps outside the App Store for the first time, but Apple will review each app, collect fees from developers, and add other limits, WSJ reported Wednesday. The policies will apply only in Europe and test enforcement of the law. Spotify, Meta, Microsoft and others are preparing new direct download options in anticipation. Apple has defended controlling downloads via the App Store as necessary for iPhone security and quality, but critics call it anticompetitive and say Apple collects unfairly high commissions. Apple's approach aims to maintain oversight despite the law, but its plans could still change.
Further reading: Apple's App Store Rule Changes Draw Sharp Rebuke From Critics.
Further reading: Apple's App Store Rule Changes Draw Sharp Rebuke From Critics.
Knee jerk (Score:2)
Maybe the EU will have a knee jerk reaction and kick Apple hard. The EU could pass a law stating that App stores can't collect more than a 5% fee. Then this whole cat and mouse game that Apple is playing is over.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest spanking Tim Cook, but I have a hunch he might like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's long history of malicious compliance
I wonder if someone within Apple is deliberately trolling the C-suites by convincing them to adopt rules they know will drive the ire of regulators, then laughing privately when they follow the "advice".
Re: Knee jerk (Score:2)
Snarky comments aside, I really hope they maintain some semblance of control. I like their control, it has made my mobile experience better than it otherwise would be.
How?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Knee jerk (Score:2)
Re: Knee jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
On the platform where sideloading is allowed, your doomsday scenario never happened. Third party app developers are willing to follow Google's rules and design guidelines because loosing the exposure the Play Store provides would be a death sentence. It would be absolutely the same on iOS. Developers would want their apps on the official App Store because that's where the eyeballs are (and a lot of iOS users are like you and don't want change), so they'll continue to follow Apple's rules.
If you have no interest in sideloading, your user experience absolutely wouldn't change. In fact, Android ships with the option to allow sideloaded apps defaulted to "off". It's a very safe bet that Apple would do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, macOS is another platform where "sideloading" is allowed (and defaults to "off"). Yet the macOS app store appears to be thriving.
Additionally, there's no evidence that Mac laptops are riddled with spyware and viruses - despite the doomsday hands-wringing prophesies from Apple execs about how sideloading iOS will lead to exactly that.
Re: Knee jerk (Score:3)
If you like it, then you can choose to stick to Appleâ(TM)s default configuration where only their App Store, and their root certificate are trusted. They could easily add the ability to trust additional root certs, at the userâ(TM)s risk.
How to carry two phones? (Score:2)
Say someone wants to use at least one iOS-exclusive app and at least one sideloaded app. As I understand it, this involves buying and carrying an iPhone on which to run the iOS-exclusive app and an Android phone on which to run the sideloaded app. What are ways to make carrying two phones less inconvenient?
They wouldn't move away (Score:2)
Re: Knee jerk (Score:4, Informative)
If anyone can side-load an app, the App Store will become barren.
That didn't happen on the Google side of the aisle. Sideloading has been available for years, as well as alternative app stores, and almost no one uses them.
I do use three specialized sideloaded apps myself. An extremely advanced e-mail client (FairEmail), a system-wide adblocker (AdGuard), and a root manager (Magisk). The first is also available on the Play Store, but with a reduced feature set because Play users are mostly idiots who downvote an app that provide 20 pages of options because "lol, it's ugly and I dunno how to use this!", so to keep a reasonable score the developer had to put a lite version there and the real one outside. The other two because.
Developers make their apps for the Play Store, and generally for it alone. Very few things are available at other stores, and even less via direct download. So what you fear won't happen, at all.
Also, none of the other scenarios you mentioned happened. In fact, it's almost impossible to get a banking app working if you try and get it from anywhere but the Play Store. They refuse to function. They check if you're rooted, with debug options enabled, and where they were installed from, and most refuse to run unless you close those security loopholes before trying to run them. Ditto for the governmental apps we use down here: they require a purely Google-managed experience, and a perfect Google-granted "it's safe" badge -- for their safety from you.
So, basically, in this mental speculation of yours, you got all of it exactly reversed compared to reality. No more, no less.
Re: Knee jerk (Score:2)
Re: Knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Malicious compliance is exactly what this is. The whole point of sideloading is that the end user gets to choose what can be installed without it requiring Apple's blessing. From TFS, it sounds like all Apple plans to do is hang a "Totally NOT the App Store" sign on a section of the App Store and continue business as usual. That's bullshit and I hope the EU sees right through it and punishes them hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does that today, so it should be possible for Apple as well https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/04/google-play-android-real-time-app-scanning-sideload-apps/
Re: Knee jerk (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:4, Insightful)
If the apps have to go through Apple approval and pay Apple for every sale how is this any different than buying apps through their store? This all seems pointless to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what I could find for the letter of the law (Digital Markets Act text):
I'm not even sure they're following the letter. You could say that they're undermining and restricting developers and not end users, but end users can be developers too.
Re: (Score:3)
Google scans apps that are side-loaded for malware, but that's it. I think it's quite likely that's what the EU has in mind. You can have security, but no trying to collect revenue. Even Google's set-up is under scrutiny, to make sure there aren't big barriers preventing other app stores getting installed.
The very idea of collecting a tax on every app on your platform is what the DMA is designed to stop - i.e. the idea that these platforms are owned by one company, that always gets paid and gives itself a h
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:1)
"Even Google's set-up is under scrutiny, to make sure there aren't big barriers preventing other app stores getting installed."
Yes, if by "set-up" you mean business practices. There is absolutely nothing technical that would fit that description, but Google has been credibly accused of placing Microsoft-style contractual limitations on vendors' activities.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:3)
AFAIK that is only for hardware vendors. Their chief complaint is that they're required to install all of Google's apps and can't omit any of them or set competing apps as the defaults.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
Fair enough, that is also very Microsoft. Remember when Google was the upstart? Those were good times.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
Google always had this policy from the start. That was basically how they monetized android. IIRC the EU said Google can't do this anymore there, so Google's answer to that is to charge OEMs $40 to install GMS there (AOSP itself is already given away free and without any major restrictions aside from trademark usage as is already very common in open source, it's the inclusion of GMS that requires device certification and various other agreements.)
Google has always given users the ability to change the app d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the days before Android existed, when Google tried really hard to be a good internet citizen.
Now they don't have to, they can swing their dick around instead.
Android IS less restrictive than iOS though, and as you say, it always has been.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
I don't think that really changed until they did the while alphabet thing. That was about the time they lost the ability to innovate, which was well after Android. They were always working to monetize everything in a very permissive way until about then. That's about the most permissive way to monetize an OS that I can think of.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
Zero radio power (Score:2)
only iCloud works properly. Every other app gets aggressively power managed while trying to upload in the background, so sync never works properly.
Uploads are not CPU bound but bandwidth bound ...
When the operating system suspends an application to save power, the application also gets zero of the cellular and WLAN radios' power.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree and that's sort of what I'm getting at. Clearly this law is not doing what it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly Apple is not acting in good faith. That's more of an issue than an ambiguous law where the intent is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should someone act in good faith to severe government overreach? Apple should absolutely do the bare minimum to comply with this ridiculous ruling and if they can find ways around it, more power to them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fantastic way to have the law revised specifically to screw you over even more than if you just minimally complied with the spirit of the law.
That kind of impudence pisses off regulators, who then make it their mission to fuck you up for not working with them and being a good-faith actor. And it also gives them public support for doing so, as the regulators and politicians are going to make no end of noise as to why it's necessary.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
limmted approval maybe ok (like does not crash) (Score:3)
limited approval maybe ok (like does not crash)
But not
Force webkit
Not allow emulators
No or very limited content censorship (at least one basic rule can be if it is in google play then apple must allow it)
Little to no limits on links to website to pay for stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the apps have to go through Apple approval and pay Apple for every sale how is this any different than buying apps through their store? This all seems pointless to me.
This is an obvious raspberry from Apple to the Europeans. I'm not sure why Apple would bother to do this. If true sideloading were allowed, it would likely have no material impact on revenue. They could just do true sideloading and just move on like nothing happened. With this direct and open insult toward the Europeans, what does Apple gain other than more regulation and a possible penalty?
Maybe the bigger question is whether Apple's courage will lead Google to follow Apple's version of "sideloading."
Re: (Score:3)
what does Apple gain other than more regulation and a possible penalty?
That's easy. They gain profits from everything still being in the app store because it's a lot of work to leave but then they also get revenue from "sideloading." If they're following the letter of the law (I'm not sure they are), then they wouldn't have any penalty. Just delaying the inevitable revised rules coming later. An EU penalty is likely to be heftier than a US penalty but it is still historically unlikely to make a big dent in their annual profits.
Re: Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:2)
They're playing with fire here. I can't help but wonder if some C level (Tim Apple maybe?) is upset about losing control and is silencing cooler heads, which would undoubtedly include their legal team who is probably thinking to themselves "this never ended well for anybody else who tried the same thing, and it won't end well for us either".
That or perhaps Apple is just so used to dealing with everybody this way (including customers, competitors, business partners, and potential business partners) that they
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to rely on the App Store! You know you can put it up on your own website! Perhaps you can just offer a free download.
Of course, what I really think it's actually setting up is piracy on a mass scale. You don't have to use the App Store, but hey, users might pass around your ipk file and share your app with other users who can
Re:Doesn't seem like meaningful change (Score:4, Interesting)
I expect the fees and approvals to go away pretty quickly, but they key point remains that there will be absolutely no copy protection for sideloaded apps so let mass piracy take hold.
You mean no Apple-provided copy protection. Nothing prevents apps from requiring users to sign in to an account that is authorized for some number of copies of the app running simultaneously, and shutting down if that number is exceeded. And nothing prevents them from doing the same sorts of tricks they do on macOS, like treating the inode number of a key file as a nonce, having the server sign something with that nonce, and verifying the signature on launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, what I really think it's actually setting up is piracy on a mass scale.
Not really, the era of the paid app where you purchase it upfront is pretty much over. Everything is IAP and server-side subscriptions these days.
This has even spread to PC software. Oh noes, someone might download Photoshop without paying! [adobe.com] Or Microsoft Office. [microsoft.com] Yeah, you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine the brass at Apple actually cares about side-loaded apps, security or privacy. What I imagine they really care about is competition. When Epic tries to release a side-loaded game store, which can add new apps outside of Apple's control or oversight, and Apple rejects that, it'll confirm my suspicions.
Cut size and app rules are the issue (Score:3)
Does BEST BUY take 30% of in app sales?
Does BEST BUY take 30% of an netflix sub fee on an tv you buy from them?
Does BEST BUY take 30% of your cable bill?
Does BEST BUY have the right to SAY NO PORN on tvs you buy from them.
CAN BEST BUY block an drone strikes app due them not liking the content?
Does STEAM take 30% of free to play games in app sales?
STEAM allows you have emulators apple does not.
Google Play allows stuff that apple does not!
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple charge developers 30% for apps side-loaded on the Macintosh?
Re: (Score:2)
They charge $99 a year just to be a developer for Mac. You don't have to sign up, but not getting a signing certificate from them makes it even harder to install your apps.
Re: (Score:2)
They charge $99 a year just to be a developer for Mac. You don't have to sign up, but not getting a signing certificate from them makes it even harder to install your apps.
Change one radio button in the Settings app and control-click the app on first launch? That's SOOOO hard. [rolls eyes]
Contrast that with iOS, where you have to download Xcode and sign the .ipa file for your specific device, and do that again once a month (IIRC) unless you pay $99 a year for a real signing cert. Even now, macOS doesn't even remotely subject users to the same level of abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
That literally is slightly more difficult. Or very difficult depending on your skill level. Plus it has the misleading effect of implying the apps are unsafe.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I just have to help beginners with their Macs all the time. What you see as the tiniest of inconveniences has huge economic benefit for Apple.
Phones are for contacting emergency services (Score:2)
Why does society tolerate iOS and Android working like game consoles, instead of like other personal computers?
Mobile phone users tend to value reliability over freedom/flexibility in part because a mobile phone is often a person's primary means of contacting emergency services. You don't want some misbehaving app removing your ability to dial 9-1-1 (or 1-1-2 or foreign counterparts).
uh this sounds dumb (Score:1)
I was hoping for something, even slightly cumbersome, that lets you circumvent their walled garden, but this is not it.
So you can sideload apps. Hosted externally. That you submit to the app store for review.
That just sounds like the regular app store with extra steps. Who would want that?
Re: (Score:2)
So you can sideload apps.
I'm going to guess the EU didn't define sideload clearly enough, but I sure wouldn't call this sideloading. This is "second front door" loading. Still gated, so the same problems still exist.
The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted.
Well - their plan certainly doesn't pass the above definition. They are both restricting AND very much undermining here.
Easier Solution (Score:2)
If everyone just pulls their pants up and stops developing apps for iOS and stops paying Apple's stupid fees, the issue will go away real fast. But in order to do that, the app developers (and any company they may work for) need to first stop being selfish cunts and realize that taking actions such as this is better than bitching and moaning about it. Does it unfairly punish Apple users? Absolutely, but fuck 'em. That's their own problem for buying an iPhone to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just too tempting. If people are willing to spend twice the money hardware is worth, what's paying 10 bucks more for some software?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. But then they need to shut the fuck up about what Apple is doing, because they're all doing the same thing - ripping everyone off. Or they can take real action that actually means something. Either way, I'm tired of hearing the bitching about Apple and their obvious nonsense. Instead of bitching about it, stop using it, stop developing for it, stop supporting it. Because this complaining isn't constructive in any way - not that Apple listens to constructive criticisms anyway, but they clearly don't
Re: (Score:2)
While iPhones are capable of lasting that long, their users rarely do. Average user upgrades between 2 and 3 years. Apple itself offers an iPhone upgrade program so that people can upgrade every year. Meaning the average ROI is still complete garbage.
Selling a used phone (Score:2)
This upgrade pattern means, for example, that there's more of a market for used previous-generation iPhones than for used previous-generation Android-powered phones.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that will happen. Apple made what, $100B/year in revenue off services? This means app developers made something like $200B/year revenue. Isn't something like well over 50% of app store revenue coming from iOS? Are these companies really willing to kill their own revenue just to make a point?
I doubt it; my take is they hit market saturation, and now the only way to get more revenue is to get regulators to force a greater share of app revenues their direction. Maybe it's an EU thing, but I don't like
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it will never happen. That's part of the whole "stop being selfish cunts" part. Any companies that depend on their apps for a majority of their income would probably go into the red if they cut off iOS suddenly, unless their userbase is already primarily Android. But these companies allowed this to happen in the first place. They played ball with whatever Apple wanted for so long and invested so much they backed themselves into this corner. So, I personally say fuck these developers and let Apple
Payment facilitator or publisher? (Score:2)
That depends on which of two accounting conventions is used.
Re: (Score:2)
Not gunna lie, you had me in the first half.
Re: (Score:2)
...the most lucrative mobile platform in the world?
That is just straight up false. Perhaps it was at one time, but hasn't been for a while, and it wasn't anything Apple did that made it lucrative to begin with.
Clearly they think the fees are worth it to continue participating in the marketplace.
Clearly not, otherwise they wouldn't continue to bitch about it, but they're "too invested" to just pull out. Which is their own problem that they created for themselves. Any developer or company that went "all in" on iOS development has absolutely fucked themselves to be at Apple's mercy and they deserve it. That's the whole point of my original post
3 strategies that made App Store lucrative (Score:2)
[iOS is] the most lucrative mobile platform in the world
That is just straight up false. Perhaps it was at one time, but hasn't been for a while
Where are reliable recent statistics for game and non-game app revenue on iOS and Android?
and it wasn't anything Apple did that made it lucrative to begin with.
I can think of three things Apple did to make its App Store lucrative:
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that made it lucrative for Apple itself. Not for developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how a store with no method of payment, such as Android Market in countries without Google Checkout, could be lucrative for developers either.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily some sort of binary property that if one isn't lucrative, then the other must be lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
And also, just because you couldn't pay through Google in those countries at the time, does not mean that was the only way to have paid for apps in those countries. In those countries, they could buy apps from alternative marketplaces. They could buy apps from the internet and sideload. Because Android allows these things. Whether devs always took advantage of that, well, that was up to them individually. But either way, Google Checkout was never needed to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
"since the operating system was launched"
"since iOS and the App Store launched"
Not a relevant comparison and lacking in significant other details.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooh, I see. You went to the same place I did and read that and came to a different conclusion. Probably the lack of critical thinking and reading skills.
First off, these numbers aren't comparable by the way they were represented. "Consumers spent $85.1 billion" and "Google Play’s apps generated $47.9 billion". The former states how much money left the end user's pocket. The latter states how much money was generated by Android apps. Those aren't the same thing. Now, maybe it's just bad writing and t
Re: (Score:2)
Also, BECAUSE Android has always allowed sideloading of app, as well as other app stores, the Play Store isn't the only way to get apps. The Play Store isn't the only way to obtain paid apps either for Android. So, for truly correct data, we need all the money end users on Android spent on apps via any method.
Re: (Score:2)
Android apps can generate money for the devs via ads, which Apple for a long time didn't allow, because it would "look bad" for Apple. And there probably are apps that do mining of some sort in the background, but, no, I wasn't thinking of that.
I never suggested Google isn't the primary beneficiary of the Play store. It's just not relevant because, unlike Apple, it's not the only way to get apps for Android. We have other app stores and can sideload.
And lastly, no, their commission systems are similar but n
The Walled Garden Gets a Side Door (Score:3)
If Apple imposes requirements on side-loaded apps that are substantially similar to apps in the app store, then this is a distinction without a difference.
Users should be warned of the risks of side loading apps. Put a big red banner saying that they should have a high level of trust in the vendor of an app, because sideloaded apps can be dangerous. Increase the permission system to make sure that sideloaded apps make a lot of noise when they try to do shady things like location tracking.
But preemptive app review? Cuts of fees?
Apple is *terrified* of apps like Spotify getting outside the app store grift and losing billions in revenue. They better come up with a better product.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the wording of the Digital Markets Act that I think applies:
They are undermining and restricting. It also defies the more simplistic term sideloading as this is not from the side at all. Although technically they are undermining and restricting developers. It's ridiculous but probably true - the Apple lawyers found a weakn
Re: The Walled Garden Gets a Side Door (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The warnings aren't necessary at all, because side-loaded apps are not really dangerous. All of the protections against malicious apps (like the app sandbox) are built into iOS, not the App Store and there has been no talk of changing that.
That's not entirely true. The OS doesn't have any provisions for deciding whether the sandboxing entitlements are reasonable. AFAIK, it accepts them as-is, trusting that Apple's signature is proof that they're legitimate. So you could sign something with an entitlement that grants global access to any file, and apart from privileges that require root permissions, the app would be able to mostly do anything it wants to do. And if you allow third parties to self-sign/self-certify, that protection goes awa
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution for Apple:
-Sandbox all apps regardless of the source.
-Have robust permissions system (their current system is severely lacking)
-Default all app permissions, regardless of source, to none.
-Have all apps expressly ask for the various permissions along with details of what that permission means the app will have access to as the app needs it. Apps don't need constant permissions when you aren't using them or all of their features.
-Automatically revoke all permissions for apps that haven't been op
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution for Apple: -Sandbox all apps regardless of the source. -Have robust permissions system (their current system is severely lacking) -Default all app permissions, regardless of source, to none. -Have all apps expressly ask for the various permissions along with details of what that permission means the app will have access to as the app needs it. Apps don't need constant permissions when you aren't using them or all of their features. -Automatically revoke all permissions for apps that haven't been opened or used in some set amount of time. If app is reopened, ask again for specific permissions. -Make the user be more responsible for what they are installing, regardless of source. With all of the above, if you still manage to install a malicious app and give it permissions, then it's your own fault and your own problem.
Oh wait, you know who already does all that? Google with Android. Weird how that works.
That's basically what Apple does, too, though I think Apple actually asks about more things independently than Android does. But AFAIK both systems have the same problem when used without a gatekeeper, which is that an app can ask for arbitrary permissions at launch, and all you can do is agree to them all or none (plus iOS doesn't give you the option to say "no" at all to the base permissions, but as I said, that should be a relatively minor install-time or first-launch bug fix).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not what Apple does though. They have some pieces and parts, but it's not cohesive and comprehensive. You need all of them to be as good or better than I described. Their sandboxing does not work like I described, Android's does. Any app can request any arbitrary permissions it wants regardless of where it came from. It's been years since Android was an all or nothing type permission system, but by default apps on Android cannot have access to sensitive permissions (phone, contacts, storage, microphone
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple isn't doing custom device imaging for a channel partner (Verizon, Best Buy, etc.) then there won't be any shovelware on iPhone. The only way that could be done is if that channel partner started opening each phone box and sideloading apps themselves, or installing an MDM profile on the device, which would mean going through the out-of-box-experience before the user can, and would definitely result in not being an Apple channel partner much longer.
Your concern isn't a viable concern on iOS because
Apple is testing its power (Score:4, Insightful)
That could get very expensive for them. Hopefully, it will.
I donâ(TM)t understand app developers views (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I donâ(TM)t understand app developers view (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple invested billions and staked their future on building this ecosystem. It is far from perfect, but it works and I donâ(TM)t have to worry about shitty, scammy apps the way I did on the playstore.
Hahah. Hahah. Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
Reddit discussion [reddit.com]
The free-to-play race to the bottom cost-wise that Apple's iOS App Store has spawned is singularly responsible for more people feeling scammed than at any time in the history of technology. Apple's sandboxing might be better, so some of the worst problems might not exist in the store (I'm not sure), but there are absolutely scammy apps in Apple's store. A lot of scammy apps. I'd go so far as to say that the bulk of free apps on the iOS App Store fall into that category to one degree or another.
They have created the worldâ(TM)s most lucrative marketplace for apps. 30% seems very reasonable. Donâ(TM)t like it? Leave. But donâ(TM)t break it for wvertone else because of Fortnite.
What about all the developers that can't get into Apple's store in the first place because Apple's rules ban entire product categories? There are lots of things wrong with having a single company as the gatekeeper for devices that are used by almost two-thirds of all American cell phone users. The 30% premium is just a tiny part of the problem.
Android in countries without Google Wallet (Score:2)
The free-to-play race to the bottom cost-wise that Apple's iOS App Store has spawned
That's not how I remember it. I remember 2009-2011 when Android-powered phones were launching in countries where Google had not yet launched payment processing. This caused the Android Market app to display only free apps to users in those countries. This in turn led to developers using ads as a substitute for app pricing in order to reach users in those countries, and the expectation of "free" spread from Android to iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
The free-to-play race to the bottom cost-wise that Apple's iOS App Store has spawned
That's not how I remember it. I remember 2009-2011 when Android-powered phones were launching in countries where Google had not yet launched payment processing. This caused the Android Market app to display only free apps to users in those countries. This in turn led to developers using ads as a substitute for app pricing in order to reach users in those countries, and the expectation of "free" spread from Android to iOS.
I highly doubt Android's pricing in countries where Apple has approximately zero market share had a meaningful effect on iOS pricing. And even if that caused more app developers to create free apps on Android, you'd expect the iOS market to not follow, because there's more disposable income in that market. Obviously I can't prove definitively that it had zero effect, but that seems like a serious stretch to me.
I talked to a lot of app developers back in that era at WWDC and stuff, and my recollection is t
What's the ad network's cut? (Score:2)
my recollection is that iOS games started using ads as a substitute for app pricing for games in response to Apple charging a 30% commission on apps and in-app purchases. Developers could keep all of their ad revenue, versus only 70% of sale revenue
As I understand it, revenue from advertisers gets split between the ad network and the app publisher using the ad network. Wikipedia's page about Apple's defunct iAd network [wikipedia.org] claims that Apple first took 40%, then cut it back to the same 30% as the App Store. What share usually goes to the ad network nowadays?
Re: (Score:3)
"Feeling scammed"??
What kind of post modernistic bullshit argument is that? Stupid gen z snowflake. Either you are scammed or you are not scammed. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Apple invested heavily. Yes, they built something good. But those facts are not an excuse for gouging customers. (The customers in this scenario, to be clear, are the app developers, not the end users.)
We see this pattern from drug makers too. Come up with an amazing new drug, charge $20K per month. Not OK, even if insurance is paying.
Re:I donâ(TM)t understand app developers view (Score:4, Insightful)
New engine, new entertainment system, I can do it all.
At the end of the day what protects Apple are government laws and thus they are beholden to that very system. (Patents, copyright, various employment contracts). Just as they enjoy corporate protection they are subjected to consumer protection.
There is no issue with the walled garden, however, it should be clear that is a rental and not a purchase. Apple should be liable for the rental for the life of the product and should be required to inform users they are just renting the phone and do not own it. They should not get to enjoy the protections form liability while that the same time treat it as a rental.
Their claims on security are meaningless with no liability. If their claim that the app store is for your protection, they should be liable for any scam on their store. When they are, they would drop that line fast enough.
Re: I donâ(TM)t understand app developers vie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30% to provide absolutely nothing after already charging developers $100/year just to be allowed to make iOS apps in the first place. By breaking it thouroughly enough, everyone benefits. Well, everyone except Apple who, again, do nothing and provide nothing deserving of even 1% commissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple invested billions and staked their future on building this ecosystem.
Apple makes more revenue in gaming that any gaming marketing on the planet and does so without having created a single game. I'm all for someone getting their dues for the effort they have put in, but the pricing structure Apple has in place now is ludicrous.
They can give up 90% of their takings and the app store along with all marketing and development efforts will still have paid ludicrous dividends to their shareholders.
Donâ(TM)t like it? Leave.
It seems you don't understand the term market power or why anti-trust laws exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t like it? Leave.
Yeah. Europe might be inclined to say something similar (albeit more democratically) about building an entire society with laws and such.
CrApple greed (Score:1)
And Apple continues to steamroll over its users (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't personally harbor any hate against Apple products, the company is renowned for making slick, easy-to-use and beginner-friendly devices. But their attitude and general overly restrictive approach to arbitrarily vetting which software is made available can be a major turn-off for those who know of alternatives. There are many among us who feel that once we've purchased a device we should be the ones to decide which software and apps can be run on that device (with caveats and appropriate warnings).
It's understandable that for a majority of clueless customers there is a value in having 'nanny-state' policies that prevents them from harming themselves, but this one-size-fits-all approach is insulting to more advanced users who - in the name of security - get denied access to apps or services they want to install themselves by sideloading. Not to say anything of small developers forced to jump through all these costly hoops to obtain approval by complying to what can feel like very arbitrary rules, only to then further have to pay a full 30% of their sales to the shopkeeper.
Re: (Score:2)
why don't you advance yourself over to Android..
Out of curiosity, what did I even write that led you to assume that I was an Apple user again?
Just because I happen to be familiar with iOS' interface, operation and features (mainly from having to often help others through their issues) doesn't automatically translate into my being a part of that closed ecosystem.
Who are these "critics"? (Score:2)
Apple being Apple (Score:2)
Who would have thought? That's the same company who wants you to use iMessage. The king of vendor lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's vendor lock-in. They want to make it as painful as possible to switch to a device from another vendor. If you could contact your same friends like you did before, it would be easier to switch.
I've never received any attempts to be exploited for money on my messaging apps (other than SMS or email). Even email spam filters are pretty good, and even when a spam gets to my inbox, exploits are obvious.
But since you are talking about it, SMS is full of scammers and your SMS will arrive at the same
Apple can put many restrictions (Score:2)
Apple can take away ability to use iCloud for non app-store apps saying that the iCloud free 200 GB is only for app-store (instead of calling it iPhone feature). This might make it hard for some developers as they have to now provision their own cloud storage and work with it or use an app-store which is ready to provide free cloud storage. They can also limit certain API only for the app-store apps under the pretense that only approved apps can use those api. So even if you want to put your app in non app-
Apple should not be allowed to be gatekeeper... (Score:2)
The EU should change these laws (or their enforcement) to FORCE apple to allow app developers to distribute apps without needing ANY approval of those apps from Apple.
Otherwise it defeats the purpose of these laws.