Apple Revises EU App Store Rules Amid Ongoing Investigation

Apple on Thursday announced changes to its Digital Markets Act (DMA) compliance plan for the European Union, as the tech giant faces an ongoing investigation by the European Commission for suspected non-compliance. The revised rules, set to roll out this fall, ease restrictions on developers' ability to promote external offers within iOS apps. Developers can now inform users about offers available beyond their own websites, including on other apps and marketplaces, without adhering to Apple-mandated templates.

Apple has also introduced a new fee structure for purchases made through external links. An "Initial Acquisition Fee" of 5% will apply to new users' first-year purchases, while a "Store Services Fee" of 10% (or 5% for smaller developers) will be charged on subsequent transactions. These changes replace the controversial Core Technology Fee, which is currently under EU scrutiny.

Spotify and Epic aren't satisfied with the changes. Spotify has called the new plan "unacceptable," arguing it disregards DMA requirements. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney labeled it "malicious compliance" involving "junk fees."

Security doesn't cost that much

[SmaryJerry]

5% charge to simply link to another payment method? Horrible abuse by Apple. Apple previously banned any mention of the ability to buy a service outside of their app before. I suppose allowing a link with a 5% or 10% charge is better, but I still doubt any app would want to list an external link for purchase when they could just say "you can buy a subscription on our website for X less," assuming Apple allows apps to state this now.

Re:

[Xenx]

These charges are for apps acquired, and maintained, through the App Store. The EU has said Apple is allowed to charge for the services of the App Store, with regards to external payment. This new fee looks to be about 5-15%. In comparison, Epic Games Store takes 12%. However, I believe that would only be on the initial sale. The monetization of PC games is different, so it's tough to have a direct comparison. This at least appears more or less reasonable, but I acknowledge there might be more beyond the st

Apple logic

[Teun]

I mean, someone has to pay for the wall around the orchard!

Apple is your lord and master

[Malay2bowman]

Expect this to come to Mac OS as they are now rolling out app notorization and a weekly security nag/must renew to apps like Zoom to that platform. The dial is slowly being turned up because "sEcUrItY". The Lord wants no free range subjects.

the EU will not allow them to add this to mac os!

[Joe_Dragon]

the EU will not allow them to add this to mac os!

Re:

[Malay2bowman]

The EU won't but the American government will.

Re:

[bn-7bc]

which wil not av an impact on EU citizens at al, People in yj\he us can band together and lobby their representatives to get similar laws. Personally I recommend they wait a year or two sow we have stats from the EU on how little alt app stores (probably) reduce the security of the platform (not much relevant for OSX , but very relevant for the mobile oses)

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

So they will change the DMA again to include macOS? All just to force Apple to put a backdoor into encryption? Thanks for confirming that.

Or are just being dumb as usual?

The correct number is zero.

[dgatwood]

If anybody thinks people "discover" apps in Apple's App Store, I have a bridge to sell them. The top couple of dozen apps in each category do get huge visibility boosts, and Apple absolutely drives customers to those apps, but the vast majority of apps are never going to show up on anybody's screen unless you follow an external link into the app or you search for them specifically, and at that point, Apple's contribution is zero.

If Apple features an app, they should be able to demand a cut of external sales for that app (by prior agreement). If an app is one of the top few apps and the user finds it by browsing, it *might* be reasonable for them to demand a cut of external sales for that, but that's pushing it.

For everybody else, Apple didn't provide anything but a giant snarled mess of hacked-up WebObjects server backends, and the only reason they had to provide those was because Apple chose to not allow apps to just be downloaded from a developer's website. Apple doesn't deserve compensation for costs that were entirely their choice to incur. Therefore, developers owe them exactly zero compensation unless developers are using Apple's servers to process the transaction.

And don't say that those fees are paying for the operating system R&D or the developer tools. Users pay for the operating system R&D when they buy the phones. The same is true for the SDK and developer tools, and even if that were't true, the only reason you have to use Apple's SDK and developer tools is because Apple forbids you from uploading software to their store that was built with any other toolchain, and once again, Apple doesn't deserve compensation for costs that were entirely their choice to incur.

See the pattern? In a world of common sense, anything Apple does to demand money from transactions that they clearly had no meaningful, non-rent-seeking role in causing to occur would be soundly rejected as a clear violation of antitrust law. It really is that simple.

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

Are you saying most apps makers will never have to pay these fees to Apple? Then why are you complaining?

Re:The correct number is zero.

[dgatwood]

Are you saying most apps makers will never have to pay these fees to Apple? Then why are you complaining?

No, I'm saying that most app makers should never have to pay thees fees to Apple in a fair and just world. That doesn't mean Apple isn't demanding them, just that they haven't done anything to deserve them.

And no, "They built a platform" is not deserving of those fees, any more than designing and building a minivan should grant Ford the right to take a fee from every 12-volt vacuum that you buy and install in the back.

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

Then don't make apps for Apple platforms. Sure, you can't make as much money on Android while having to do more work, but hey, FREEDOM.

Re:

[dgatwood]

Then don't make apps for Apple platforms.

Why? Apple doesn't and from a moral perspective, SHOULDN'T have any right to prevent users from running the software of their choice on phone hardware that they OWN. If Apple wants to control their platform with an iron fist, they should rent devices to users instead of selling them. Then, they will have the right to dictate what apps people install on their phones. As long as they are SELLING the devices, at the moment of transfer, Apple loses all rights to dictate what the customers do with the device

Re:The correct number is -i

[Plumpaquatsch]

So what are your thoughts on "game consoles". Or toaster ovens for that matter.

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

Also, WTF does "Apple SHOULDN'T have any right to prevent users from running the software of their choice on phone hardware that they OWN" even have to do with the fees? The fees don't prevent you from running ANY software.