Apple Adds More Carve-outs To Its EU Core Tech Fee After Criticism From Devs

Apple is tweaking how it applies a new fee that can apply to iOS developers in the European Union as it continues to configure its approach to the bloc's Digital Markets Act (DMA): Developers of free apps will be able to avoid the fee entirely under changes it announced Thursday, which apply from today, while other developers earning under a certain revenue threshold will get longer before they have to pay Apple the fee. From a report: The so-called "core technology fee" remains opt in for iOS developers in the region, as Apple continues to offer its standard business terms, but those wanting to take up new entitlements the DMA has required Apple to offer -- such as allowing sideloading of apps, third party app stores, and support for alternative payment tech than Apple's own -- must agree to the set of business terms that include the CTF (as Apple calls it).

The fee remains under scrutiny in the region where the Commission, which enforces the DMA on Apple and other gatekeepers -- and opened its first investigations including on Apple in March -- is actively exploring whether the mechanism is enabling the iPhone maker to avoid its obligations to open up the App Store to competition, such as from third party app stores. But so far the EU hasn't prevented Apple from charging a fee.

Does the Law Suck or Does Apple Suck?

[organgtool]

I thought the whole point of the DMA is that people should be able to install apps completely outside of the control of the company that wrote the phone's OS. If that's the case, Apple shouldn't even necessarily know who authored an app, let alone have any ability to charge them for installs. So did the EU write the law to be so open-ended that it has almost no real-world benefits or is Apple just doing whatever the fuck it wants and daring the EU to hold them accountable?

Re:

[Xenx]

So did the EU write the law to be so open-ended that it has almost no real-world benefits or is Apple just doing whatever the fuck it wants and daring the EU to hold them accountable?

Well, right now, the answer is neither. Even the summary mentions that the commission is exploring it, but Apple hasn't explicitly been told to stop. As to the current situation, it's tough to gauge. Apple does have a right to have some control, and charges. We'll eventually see just where that line will be drawn.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

So did the EU write the law to be so open-ended that it has almost no real-world benefits or is Apple just doing whatever the fuck it wants and daring the EU to hold them accountable?

Well, right now, the answer is neither. Even the summary mentions that the commission is exploring it, but Apple hasn't explicitly been told to stop. As to the current situation, it's tough to gauge. Apple does have a right to have some control, and charges. We'll eventually see just where that line will be drawn.

I'm curious as to why, if the ruling was about allowing the users to install what they want, Apple has any right to control and charges. I think this is probably Apple's stance on the issue because the walled garden exists and they can't imagine not getting some form of payment for every app installed, but? What gives them the right to control over a device I bought and paid for if I'm willing to tick the little box that says, "I don't care if this is insecure, install it anyway."? To me, it shouldn't be an

Allowing the developers to distribute however?

[drnb]

if the ruling was about allowing the users to install what they want

Alternatively, the ruling may be about allowing the developers to distribute however they want?

Re:

[Xenx]

Who cares if Apple WANTS control of the device after the customer has paid for it? Once a person pays for a device, it should be theirs.

Apple cares. Laws can vary a lot, so YMMV and all that, but they do side with Apple to at least a degree. There is at least some backing that Apple has the legal right to control the software to a degree. I think even in Europe this is true to at least some degree. The DMA is more of an exception due to their size. My understanding is that, ignoring the DMA or other legal exceptions like right to repair, they have the right to lock it down. That isn't to say I like the situation as it is, only that the law

Re:

[nightflameauto]

Because it's their device to sell, and they're generally allowed to set the terms of the sale.

To me, selling a computer, any computer, with the caveat that the company that makes said computer has complete control of what you do with it after you purchased it just doesn't make any logical sense. Would you buy a desktop or laptop if the company you bought it from told you you were not allowed to install any software they didn't approve on it? I have a feeling most here would say no. What makes a phone different? It's still a computer. Even if it's got a cell connection.

So, is the modern stance that w

Re:

[Xenx]

What you feel is correct, and what is currently legally acceptable, are not necessarily the same thing. This was a conversation about how things are, not how we wish them to be.

So, is the modern stance that when you purchase something, you are *NOT* purchasing the right to use it?

That has in some ways been the case for a number of things, like software and tractors, for at least three decades. I don't know what your definition of modern is.

Re:

[Njovich]

I thought the whole point of the DMA is that people should be able to install apps completely outside of the control of the company that wrote the phone's OS.

You thought but it isn't. The 'whole point' is to reduce the ability of large 'gatekeeper' platforms from abusing their market power and provide smaller players better chances in the market. It's not limited to apps or phones. This 'completely outside of the control of the company' is not a specific requirement.

Re:

[ACForever]

Easy, apple sucks.

Interpreting "people" as the developers?

[drnb]

I thought the whole point of the DMA is that people should be able to install apps completely outside of the control of the company that wrote the phone's OS.

Apple is interpreting "people" as the developers? Perhaps some developers only want their app distributed via the Apple app store. They don't want to have to deal with malware infected versions of their software posted on 3rd party sites. They want the ability to stop distribution of a particular old version, a seriously bugged or exploitable version.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Well, the DMA basically says Apple can't prevent people from installing apps outside the App Store. That's about it. You can choose to use the App Store or not, but Apple cannot control the content or distribution of apps to their devices.

Which is why Apple did comply - all apps still need to be signed by Apple, but those in the DMA area can use an alternate signing mechanism where you submit your binary to Apple, and Apple signs it. They do basic automated checks but otherwise do not review it for content.

Re:

[mjwx]

You're asking the question as if you need it explained to you.

Of course it's Apple that sucks. The law does not state that Apple must comply, it's that all operating systems must comply and all of them except Apple already do.

I thought the whole point of the DMA is that people should be able to install apps completely outside of the control of the company that wrote the phone's OS. If that's the case, Apple shouldn't even necessarily know who authored an app, let alone have any ability to charge them for installs. So did the EU write the law to be so open-ended that it has almost no real-world benefits or is Apple just doing whatever the fuck it wants and daring the EU to hold them accountable?

Except to get access to development tools, you need to pay Apple. Sure you can argue that you might be able to hack some other IDEs to do it and at some point in the future be able to test it on live devices without Apple's say so but in reality if you want to develop for Apple prod

In other news

[Plumpaquatsch]

Desktop computers are much too fast.