EU Probes Apple's New App Store Fees (yahoo.com) 35
European Union regulators are investigating Apple's revised app store fees amid concerns they may increase costs for developers, according to Bloomberg News.
The European Commission sent questionnaires to developers in December focusing on Apple's new "core technology fee" of $0.51 per app installation, part of its compliance with EU's Digital Markets Act. Under Apple's revised structure, developers can maintain existing terms with commissions up to 30% on app sales, or choose a new model with lower commission rates but additional charges.
The European Commission sent questionnaires to developers in December focusing on Apple's new "core technology fee" of $0.51 per app installation, part of its compliance with EU's Digital Markets Act. Under Apple's revised structure, developers can maintain existing terms with commissions up to 30% on app sales, or choose a new model with lower commission rates but additional charges.
Free access for all (Score:1)
It seems the EU will not be happy until Apple lets everyone be on the App Store for free; while maintaining all the infrastructure. Apple, if forced to lower fees, will find other ways to replace the lost revenue via other charges for access. The reality, IMHO, is no store will be able to offer what Apple does, under the current rules, of a 15% fee for small developers, while the big money makers get charged 30%.
At some point, they may have to go to other upfront usage fees, which would really hurt smal
Re:Free access for all (Score:4, Insightful)
> It seems the EU will not be happy until Apple lets everyone be on the App Store for free
This fee also applies to alternative app stores (App marketplace I think it's called). That's IMO the main issue.
If setting up an alternative appstore freed you from the apple tax, the EU would be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
> It seems the EU will not be happy until Apple lets everyone be on the App Store for free
This fee also applies to alternative app stores (App marketplace I think it's called). That's IMO the main issue. If setting up an alternative appstore freed you from the apple tax, the EU would be happy.
Apple should simply allow side loading and then 3rd party stores are free to use that rather than be on the App Store; once they have that ability then if they want to be on the App Store they need to pay Apple, just like on the Mac. You eithe rbuild your own user base or pay Apple for access to the App Store's user base.
Re: (Score:2)
> once they have that ability then if they want to be on the App Store they need to pay Apple, just like on the Mac. You eithe rbuild your own user base or pay Apple for access to the App Store's user base.
That's not exactly how it works... You still need to be part of the apple developer program and get your builds notarized. So interaction with apple infrastructure still happens. I have never checked into what we (as an organization) pay to be part of that program, I just do the software.
Re: (Score:3)
Side loading is the nightmare scenario for Apple. People would have control of their own devices, and not be forced to pay Apple. Even worse, they would probably be required to open up their private APIs too, so people could replace Apple services like iCloud.
I'd love to know how much engineering they are putting into finding a way to comply with consumer replaceable batteries while still being dicks about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing though, they have 20 years of Google's experience to show otherwise. The Play Store has been the primary app-getting tool since Android came out, it's charged the same absurdly high percentages as the App Store, and all of this time Android has been completely open and there's been no significant move either to side loading or to alternative stores. The biggest non-Google app store is arguably Amazon's, and the only reason it has anything other than a trivial marketshare is because of Amazo
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't want competing app stores taking revenue from them. Which honestly... is unlikely.
Re:Free access for all (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the EU will not be happy until Apple lets everyone be on the App Store for free; while maintaining all the infrastructure.
What infrastructure? EU specifically wants others to be allowed to deliver the infrastructure that's what the whole thing is about. However Apple decided that they don't want that so they put up a price point for that that's intended to be a slap and spit in the face of the EU legislators. Usually doesn't end well for the spitting party.
Apple is free to leave the EU if they don't like it.
Somehow Android can manage to have 3rd party apps without being forced through Google's store, so does pretty much any other OS in the world. Perhaps Apple should ask Google for some help if they can't figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the EU will not be happy until Apple lets everyone be on the App Store for free; while maintaining all the infrastructure.
What infrastructure? EU specifically wants others to be allowed to deliver the infrastructure that's what the whole thing is about. However Apple decided that they don't want that so they put up a price point for that that's intended to be a slap and spit in the face of the EU legislators.
The issue, IIRC, is alternate app stores need to use Apple's to be loaded on a device, which is why I think Apple should simply allow side loading like on the Mac, with sandboxing and allowing users to chose the level of access and security, and the whole issue goes away, then developers can chose which give them the best ROI, which IMHO will probably be Apple's. Apple would also then be free to change the terms for EPIC/Spotify et.al. since they now have a choice of platforms or can roll tehir own with si
Re:Free access for all (Score:4, Interesting)
There's more to the App Store than just the store.
There's infrastructure in the OS to provide apps with functionality, commonly called APIs.
EU laws block Apple from developing APIs only for apps using its app store, so technically those developers are subsidizing developers who use alternative stores. The "Core Technology Fee" basically was to cover those costs.
Microsoft makes money like that as well, though it's often in the form of a "Windows license fee". Though for several versions they've waived that, until Windows 11 where they imposed a new requirement to get older PC users to pay the fee again.
As for Android, well, your phone maker often has a say on whether you get an update or not...
Re: (Score:2)
There's infrastructure in the OS to provide apps with functionality, commonly called APIs.
It's ok, just offer basic root access and 3rd parties will happily create the API's for them if it's too complicated for dumb Apple engineers to enable the API's for third parties.
Re: (Score:3)
And for good reason. Apple devices would be virtually useless without third-party software, so third-party software adds value to the iPhone whether it's hosted on the App Store or not. If third-party developers want to use the App Store, then they need to pay the fees but Apple shouldn't be able to block developers from releasing apps independently or via other stores.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to the App Store than just the store.
There's infrastructure in the OS to provide apps with functionality, commonly called APIs.
APIs are part of the operating system. They usually have nothing to do with the store, and would exist for Apple's own first-party apps even if the store didn't exist.
EU laws block Apple from developing APIs only for apps using its app store, so technically those developers are subsidizing developers who use alternative stores. The "Core Technology Fee" basically was to cover those costs.
Apple can create store-specific APIs all it wants to, but they'd better truly be specific to interacting with Apple's store. It's really not right to develop APIs that have nothing to do with in-app purchases or other store-related functionality and then limit them to apps that get sold through Apple's site. That's likely to be seen as an i
Greed knows no bounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Coz it makes them too much money
Greedy bastards
Re: (Score:2)
That's not greed, that's just common business sense. Why would anyone abandon their cash cow product? If you as the CEO suggested this just due to a bit of a fight with the regulator you'd be shown the door by the board of directors, and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:1)
If that is not called Greed, then what is it
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because god forbid a business should expect to be the one making the money from a service it built. How greedy of them. /s
Or is it just Apple and only Apple that you and the EU expect to incur the expenses of creating devicse or services or platforms or marketplaces or whatever... and then just hand it off to their competitors so that they can be the ones to profit instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you mean like... Android? And Windows? And MacOS?
why does not WebKit browsers need to pay the core (Score:2)
why does not WebKit browsers need to pay the core fee when apples build in browser does not?
Goodbye Slashdot. (Score:1, Offtopic)
I had a feeling this was coming because of site changes recently. I'm not going to allow your crap load of third party JavaScripts just to read stories copied from other sites. If this is the only way to keep Slashdot going, just let it die already. I'm done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. And these changes have all but broken the ability to use the classic desktop Slashdot without Javascript - a site that's previously worked just fine for 27 years without it.
I'm not sure quite what's going on behind the scenes. But this is untenable.
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot = Crypto Pushers (Score:2)
Slashdot has basically become a crypto pushing outlet [slashdot.org] disguising itself as a 'news site'.
Not surprising given they're owned by a crypto platform. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And the uBlock Origin team has already deployed a fix to keep the site usable. Absolute rockstars, they are!
Bad faith compliance (Score:2)
Apple purposely devised a fee structure that would be so onerous that nobody would choose it.
If they wanted to comply in good faith, they could either reduce their fees across the board, unbundle them, or change a flat *reasonable* fee to all developers (whether their app is free or not).
Re: (Score:3)
If they wanted to comply in good faith, they could either reduce their fees across the board, unbundle them, or change a flat *reasonable* fee to all developers (whether their app is free or not).
But then they wouldn't look like the greedy bastard that they are, which would gravely upset their shareholders.
What I want to see... (Score:2)
What I want to see is a jurisdiction that Apple can't afford to ignore or pull out of mandate that Apple must allow the distribution and installation of apps without having to get the apps signed or approved by apple in any way or paying Apple any money.
W/O Apple Store, developers won't be getting $$$ (Score:2)