> The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
[...]
> In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.
All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
> If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
I just bought a new m5 macbook air. The day that I can't treat my MacOS laptop as basically a glorified NeXT workstation and install/run code of my own choice (albeit after going through a few scary warnings in the default user protecting system preferences, like allow to run unsigned code, etc), is the day I stop buying apple hardware and just use linux laptops again.
I see news about apple thinking about "merging" MacOS and iOS and making a touch screen macbook and it really makes me think they are going to try to do this in the near future.
> All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
Don’t worry. They’re working really hard to fix the bug. It’s not intended that you can install without paying a fee.
There is a big difference between fighting to keep their walled garden in IOS alive and nuking the entire developer ecosystem that they have built on macos.
Strictly speaking, you can. Enable developer mode, connect your phone to your Mac (you need a Mac), and you can build and install whatever code you want.
Asterisks being that your phone will uninstall it after a while I think, and you need to create a free account for Xcode.
The up to 3 apps per device stay but cannot be opened after 7 days until refreshed.
And "whatever code you want" here excludes JIT compilation, or as I understand it memory that is both writable and executable, as your app would require a special 'entitlement' from Apple.
Seriously? I have a custom Android app that I use. It's mostly vibe coded now, which I'm a bit embarrassed about, but demonstrates that the bar for custom software is very low at the moment and getting lower.
I considered getting an iPhone to replace my S-series Samsung, the only reason I stayed with Samsung is for the S-Pen. Had I gone with iPhone I would not be able to write and run my own software? That's absolutely ridiculous.
One thing that ticks me off about this conversation is they are always framed as anti-consumer, instead of anti-developer. It's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg, and the ad networks who have the biggest gripe with these policies, not consumers. Consumers are the ones who bear the brunt of the cost when it comes to developers who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.
>If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
Anti-developer is anti-consumer because it creates a barrier to entry as a supplier in a market where consumers create the demand, but I suppose the main thesis behind calling it anti-consumer is that competition among suppliers is generally considered good for consumers for keeping prices and product/service quality in check.
> We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
Evil developers forcing poor users to download their applications.
Guess we all to suffer with braindead supercomputers in our pockets, because granny gran installed hax to get free gems for a gacha (that she downloaded from Apple approved App Store).
>who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.
thankfully the EU has extensive privacy regulations prohibiting developers from doing just that, so we can enjoy open platforms instead of being at the mercy of a private corporations protection racket as if it's the 19th century
Are those regulations adequately enforced? Lots of smaller developers out of jurisdication, and lots of bigger ones treat it as a cost of doing business: the data is worth more than the fines.
The messages on Mac are becoming more ridiculous and cumbersome each upgrade though. Kind of sick of jumping through System Settings hoops every time I upgrade an app
Every time I’m forced to do it[0] I feel good because I’m glad these hoops are unavoidable on all the computers of the people I provide family tech support for.
[0] Which is rare. I’m installing random shit all the time using homebrew and it’s basically never an issue.
If you’re a developer you can kind of do it, or so ChatGPT tells me:
> So for, say, your iPad mini plus 2–5 other iPads, the workable setup is: Mac + Xcode → $99/year developer membership → register each iPad's UDID → create an Ad Hoc build → install that build on those devices. You don't have to publish it, make it discoverable, or have Apple review it.
That would work for me, except that I prefer to build web apps instead. There’s nothing I really want to build that couldn’t be done as a web app.
As for why one computing platform would be different than another, if you don’t think there’s any difference then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?
If what we were discussing was hacky ways of installing apps on your own device rather than distribution to end users, you can do without the Developer membership cost.
It would just be limited to 3 apps per device that require to be refreshed every 7 days to continue to be able to open them.
Web apps are a non starter for iOS since the only allowed browser on iOS happens to not support crucial standards and may drop your app's persistent data.
Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
You technically don’t need to pay if you just want to run your app on your phone. If you want to distribute your app with Testflight or the App Store you need to pay.
> I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.
Microsoft proposed locked-down PCs decades ago and got criticism from sources as mainstream as the New York Times. Everyone more technical than that, with the possible exception of corporate IT types flatly rejected it.
I'm sad there was so much less backlash to restricting user control on phones.
Microsoft sell locked down PCs today. Secure Boot cannot be disabled, nor new keys enrolled, on Windows PCs that ship with an ARM processor (yes they exist). It's as if Apple decided to lock down Macbooks when they switched to M-series. The only thing keeping PCs "free" is that ARM processors suck at the high end if you're not Apple, so it's seen as acceptable market segmentation. It's purely arbitrary though, just like it's purely arbitrary that you can put Linux on a Macbook but not an iPad despite having the same SoC.
Well here's EU regulators working with Apple directly to allow it. I honestly think that's worse, the EU government took the time to allow this directly. It's not just a case of the existing laws not being clear in this instance, it's the EU working with Apple to come up with this 'solution'.
5% tax on all digital transactions (still applies to Kindle ebooks too I'm guessing?) and all applications have to go through an Apple review process. That's ridiculous for a government to explicitly agree to.
Governments will agree to that because at the end of the day it gives them a party they can go to. In this instance if they want Apple or Google to remove an app they can. It gives them the ability to use that option whenever they don't like something it's not by accident. Its a win-win for them and Apple/Google. You are never going to get the wild wild west we have on the pc platform ever again.
> Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…
Question for those with more industry knowledge than me: If you assume a broken sandbox, is it possible for an app to record phone calls, then use that recording to create a deepfaked voice that can then be transmitted as a new call? My naïve assumption is "yes obviously", but for all I know the hardware has some way to activate a switched circuit from the phone service to the speaker and microphone that can't have other sound data pass through it.
LOL. That security bogeyman argument is a convenient post-hoc justification. The real reason is much simpler: Because "computers" started out with "Owner can run code of their choice on it" as one of the main definitional qualities agreed upon by the market.
Devices which only ran code that the vendor had specially packaged for the device always had other names, like Games Console, Word Processor, MP3 Player, Graphing Calculator, or just plain "Toy." Nobody confused those with computers and nobody accepted them as computers.
Phones entered this world already in that second category, long before Apple even considered making one. Apple kept an iron grip at first and after careful consideration, decided to only allow third-parties to even enter on terms extremely favorable and profitable to Apple, and always under their direct control.
Closing off the Mac would be very messy and also cause tremendous headaches due to it being the development platform for iOS. They don't want to bother. But the reason iOS is closed is because it's always been closed, and they'll never open it unless forced, because money.
I respect your overall point but I think the picture is more nuanced than that. "Computer" as a term is simply unpopular, in favor of something referencing the intended application, as determined by things like the form factor:
Graphing Calculators are computers in every sense, it's hard to find one you can't at least program in a high level language like Basic or Python, and many accept assembly programs - even Texas Instruments models did, before their signing keys were brute forced.
Games consoles too almost invariably run third party code, although they tend not to be end user programmable - no different than an iPhone in that regard, really.
"Feature phones" - pre-smartphone phones with cameras and internet etc - usually had the ability to run Java Midlets without manufacturer blessing, even though you couldn't touch the OS. You could SSH into servers from those!
I think a big problem is that the distinction between "general purpose computer" and "end user programmable general purpose computer" is functionally meaningless when you can't write programs, which is most people. Instead they understand it in a functional context - what is this device for? How does it compare to how such devices usually work? The general purpose CPU inside is an implementation detail, and just because you think of an iPhone as a computer doesn't mean everyone does. They think of it as a "phone".
Most people consider the iPhone as a "phone", not as a "computer". It's even in the name. So it fits your definition for devices which only run code that the vendor had specially packaged.
People obviously consider it a computer; they install and use third party software on it. The question is whether the vendor should be allowed to monopolize the market for the third party software even when both the user and the third party developer don't want them to.
> Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…
It's still a steal, I'm really sad that european union settled on this terms.
15% cut on purchases outside the app store THAT'S CRAZY !!
I'm so shocked to read this "Each of these commissions reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ apps, whether they use the App Store and/or Apple In-App Purchase." whereas it's app developpers that create value for Apple.
This is just speculation, but I suppose it's because Apple is also collaborating/contributing in the EU Chat Control 2.0 legislation, so they may have some argument that completely opening the door for uncontrolled app installs may not allow them to comply with such legislation.
As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go
While the app store was a much better deal than ISP stores for the smartphones when it was introduced, Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price.
>For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.
This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.
EU law doesn't actually require a monopoly for competition rules to apply, it's a "dominant position". Apple certainly meets that definition for smartphone platforms.
> In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[3]
All countries with a working democracy would class Apple as a monopoly as it has significant market power, enough to distort prices.
The ONLY interesting market share here isn't how many apps Apple create, or how large share of the smartphones they have. It's how much of the distribution of apps they control on iOS (which easily reaches the bar of being a market in itself).
I.e. the monopoly question is: if apple takes X% for each app in this market, and a competitor can't take less, then it's a monopoly.
I just don’t get the outrage. If you made HATS and wanted to sell them at STORE, do you think you get to just walk into STORE and tell the manager/owner:
1) find some space on the shelf and your stock room to put my stuff!
2) I don’t have a store with shelves or visiting customers, but you will sell this for me at 0% profit!
You’re paying for sales access to millions of devices with frictionless checkout.
And you want to… make it harder to check out? Because you think you’re entitled sell things to their user base?
I think the fundamental thing here is that this isn't merely a store. The Apple ecosystem is large enough to BE a market in itself.
It's not about the market for apps, or the market for smartphones. Those markets are comparable to any market.
This is about the market for apps ON the apple ecosystem. And the problem that is being solved is: Apple can't have a monopoly on that market, such that they can (for example) charge a commission for every sale.
Basically: we can't allow a company to be so successful that their STORE becomes a MARKET.
This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission. To read now that the Commission approves of these terms is unbelievable to me. I rarely put on a tinfoil hat, but either the Commission has been paid off, or there are some geopolitical discussions we are not privy to. I can see no other explanation.
I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.
Apparently they followed an "alternative" reading of the DMA concluding that unless you prove the fees or other obstacles would make alternative distribution commercially unviable or discriminatory, everything is just fine. Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress?
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
Notarization is a grey area. A competent Commission would have successfully argued against it, but there are arguments for it. On the much clearer violations I'll copy my comment to another user:
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
By the way, would you happen to know if it possible to distribute the same app in the AppStore under the 15/26% commission and in alternative stores in the EU with the 10% commission?
Or maybe this somehow constitutes a danger Apple has to protect its users from, and can only be alleviated by me paying Apple the higher rate? The earlier terms certainly did their best to prevent anyone from opting into the alternative distribution terms.
Current administration is strong arming europe in a lot of ways, and it has had impact on how EU Commission handles their own laws at the execution level for DMA, DSA, and probably even GDPR against American companies.
Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade.
The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
10 years ago I would have disagreed with you vehemently, but now I agree with you. Every new EU regulation makes my life worse, and very few of them actually address systemic issues re competition which would make my life better. This is one such example. The law is crystal clear, Apple is in clear violation, and the Commission allows them to continue. I cannot believe this. I'm honestly stunned.
> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution."
[...]
> "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee."
[...]
> "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats."
This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.
The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.
> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device.
That argument would assume no cost for upgrades.
I remember having to buy new operating systems.
That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free.
> Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other.
That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".
I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.
I wonder if they already use LLMs in development. However, and maybe I'm misremembering, but they were doing clean room development so it may not even be possible (because of copyrighted stuff leaking through LLMs).
>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.
It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.
> because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
> Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets
I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.
Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.
They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.
Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."
That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.
>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less.
That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.
That's just not how that works, how much consumers will pay is a binding constraint. Apple isn't subsiding their phone with developer fees and distributing their below marginal cost. Apple is almost certainly charging well above its marginal costs and is already charging the revenue maximising price, it's not willingly leaving money on the table.
Not entirely how you've made formed this connection but respectively it sounds like you've confused several things here.
> It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
iPhone sales pay for the entirety of Apple's R&D. 10 times over.
Wait, which apps are you referring to having been delisted by EU (which branch? what process?), as opposed to "breaching app store terms and conditions" (which the companies do of their own initiative all the time)
yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.
Do you mean “censorship by the EU” or “censorship within the EU”, or both? Because I see a lot of the latter, and I don’t find it inconsequential at all.
By the EU and in Germany, really... What is censored in other member states isn't in the news, but for all I know it's also not much and not important.
The whole EU censorship rhetoric is almost always devoid of facts and examples. I feel like it is mainly sustained because US people like the narrative that theytl are the free(TM).
Asking innocent questions often works better than confrontation, but yeah, this elevated importance of utmost free speech doesn't survive the Atlantic crossing and can be used to maliciously pooh-pooh Europe to an American audience.
We don't have a lot of "censorship within the EU", some russian propaganda tv channels might be blocked (as they should) but that's about it really. Now if you mean in a particular EU member, that's different but it's not impacting the whole EU.
is like much of the discourse around the changes, overly sensationalized and borderline false.
The only change made that's relevant to sideloading-a-downloaded-APK as far I understand, is a 24hour delay in enabling the ability to do so, which is a wildly overblown non-issue.
It’s a one time delay that occurs when you first enable the ability to install downloaded apks and you never see it again for any device attached to your Google account. That’s why I called it a wildly overblown non-issue
> In a statement, a Commission spokesperson welcomed Apple’s changes to its business terms, which it said “follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple”.
> “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added.
There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive.
I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.
This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet.
If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
The app revenue cut is because you partner with Apple to deliver a solution to something in a users life with them. Apple sees themselves as critical to an app’s ability to exist at all. Its like nintendo taking a cut of a nintendo game. You cant have one without the other. A lot of people disagree that the iphone is a one of a kind consumer product like this. To many its just a computer and software is independent. I see both sides
Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
> the technology is already fully paid for by the user
This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
> Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user.
That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial.
Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay.
I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
> That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial.
This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
> Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone
And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability.
> and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
> This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights.
> IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
It's all about distribution.
A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything.
> As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
> A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
I was referring to the distribution of the licensed technologies by Apple to the hardware purchasers. Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
> This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
The waiver scenario is meant in the context of Apple using the 5% and $99 fees as payment for the maintenance/R&D of the official dev experience. The fees would be waived because the dev isn't making any use of those tools in a hypothetical FOSS SDK.
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
I assume you mean on an open hardware platform, because underneath Apple's SDKs are just more Apple APIs until you get to Apple's IPC interfaces to talk to Apple-designed hardware register interfaces.
Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.
> Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights.
I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
I'm not going to argue with you, because I continue to suspect that you have no iOS development experience and are just making hand-wavy claims with no empirical basis.
I asked a question: "How do you not use their SDK?"
Your answer seemed nonsensical to me.
What I meant, though, is that I'm not going to argue about a specific point, the viability of "some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality." If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?"
In any case, most iOS devs don't want to opt out of using the SDK. That would not be a particularly attractive route for making iOS apps. What I want as an iOS dev is the same freedom of software distribution that we have on macOS.
> If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?"
The basis for my claims about the subject is my knowledge of computing and development in general. I dipped my toes into iOS dev a few times and there's nothing that seemed to set it apart from any other SDK situation beyond Apple's restrictions, at least nothing that would make my claim outlandish.
That is never going to happen. We will never get the same freedom we enjoy on pc's again for the simple fact it benefits both the platform owners and governments to have a simple centralize company in this case (Apple & Google) to go to get what they want. The freedom we have on pc's is too much of a wild west and not enough control that both governments and platform owners like. As much as we may want to it will never happen for those reasons.
> Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.
The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them.
Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.
> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks?
A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though.
> Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem.
No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.
The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?
Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.
> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?
I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime.
That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble.
Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices.
Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
> Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves
The idea that, for many people purchasing an iPhone, the inability to install apps from alternative stores or the web is a selling point seems rather questionable.
On top of that this could easily be provided by an optional switch that enables you to enforce this on your own device if you so desire.
It is a poor reason to request that all app distribution for everyone else also has to go through Apple and its terms, basically for your convenience.
>>hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago
And that still plagues every computing platform now. Including Apple platforms. So the lockdown clearly didn’t completely solve that problem like a lot of people seem to claim
That is exactly what Apple has decided to do. You have named the tradeoff. Stop the possibility by disabling everyone. It has always been this way. People have had nearly 20 years to leave Apple
> No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want.
They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.
Not helping you is something different, that's not preventing.
> Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
> They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.
They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale.
Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance.
> That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices.
The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.
So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...
A much more accurate nonsensical analogy would be getting take out but only being allowed to eat it with Apple branded utensils because otherwise your food would catch fire.
> Users are free to choose a different manufacturer
It’s an oligopoly, so no, consumers are not exactly free to do what they want. If the market were truly competitive you might have a point.
What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.
No customer would buy Apple's products, which they sell with large profit margins, if Apple would not invest in its operating system and maintain a way for developers to distribute apps.
Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps.
If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.
Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
I think the point is that they didn't charge developers anything specifically to be developers or sell apps. They just needed the same hardware and software as everybody else, which, yes, they probably had to buy.
And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.
Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.
I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit.
I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in.
Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted.
Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems.
Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics.
Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year.
I hate them.
The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.
Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"
> Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...]
So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously.
A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."
Wait, this is only for i(Pad)OS and not MacOS, right? The way it's written, it's a blanket 5% commission on desktop apps distributed on one's own website, which is insane!
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU
I assume this settles it, since it was always possible to web-distribute desktop apps outside the EU.
> Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU.
Now hold on a minute here. It’s Apple’s own App Store requirement that forces any developer regardless of payment option to pay a commission or be delisted. Framing it as an “we charge you because of the EU” is a plain simple lie. The EU forced their hand in allowing different payment channels at low commission rates with no repercussions.
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU ... require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.
This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.
It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps.
> Companies will now qualify if they:
> * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet.
> * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company.
> * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm.
> * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant.
> * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
Those requirements apply to direct distribution or alternate marketplaces. Developers not meeting those criteria can still participate in non-Apple distribution by submitting to an alternate marketplace.
The "alternative marketplace" should be replaced with "no marketplace." How do people accept this "alternative marketplace" idea? This is obviously a way to increase friction in order to maintain dominance - and the solution is obvious - no marketplace at all.
>What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps.
My guess: since all apps will need to be notarized, even web distributed ones, your phone will phone home to Apple servers when you first launch it (and periodically afterwards), to verify it isn’t in a revocation list. That will allow Apple to track unique installs and then bill the Apple developer account based on pricing data reported by the web distributor as part of their separate agreement with Apple.
> My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.
Has the commission confirmed that these changes "resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission" or is that just like... Apple's wishful thinking.
I definitely recall previous iterations where Apple announced changes to comply with legal requirements where the authorities ended up saying "this absolutely doesn't resolve the issue".
Yeah. Also, IANAL but even if the European Commission does think Apple's interpretation of the DMA is reasonable, Apple could still be sued by an affected company or person, and a judge might disagree, IIUC: https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-...
Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason
I don’t buy apps anyway. Want to keep me as a client? Make your website functional. Fuck your apps. With all this b2c invoice bullshit in the EU now everyone wants me to install their app. Fuck you, send me an email!
Couldn't agree more tbh. I have an app each for like 8 restaurants I want to be able to order ahead from. All those apps are 200-600MB each, their performance is dogshit and they're obviously all built with web technologies anyway. Just let me do all the same shit on a website, kill the app, and save the download and the Apple bullshit.
The alternative is the explicit legislation in the Digital Rights Act:
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, *free of charge*, communicate and promote alternative offers *and conclude contracts* with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity *only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate.* How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
“I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”
“Please stop me. I’m about to install a program by a small independent developer that does something I want. Stop me, and first charge me 15%, and them $100. Oh, and install it in my old phone??? No! Please stop me and force me to upgrade!!”
“Oh my phone is too old!! Please force me to but another one!!”
> “I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”
No. I already do what I want to do. I don’t use apps. Regardless if it comes from the App Store, or any other website on the internet. How do you arrive at your interpretation.
But the mechanics to work around it, and potentially slip something onto my phone, are already in there. No, thanks. The problem with this wholeEU bullshit is that the pro-consumer and pro-security do not always go hand in hand. And relevant dept lawyers don’t always communicate sufficiently.
If the App Store is such a customer-friendly shield, then why are there millions of scam apps in the App Store?
To combat software threats, sandboxing and fine-grained permissions (which Apple basically pioneered in the consumer space!) is the answer. App Review can't catch all malicious actors. When a vulnerability exists in the sandbox, the exploit can easily be slipped past App Review, with a feature flag holding it until the scammer is ready to attack.
App Review, Notarization, etc. isn't for us. It's for Apple. It's the control that allows them to extract the money. Simple as that. Without the control, only small indie developers would list on the App Store because it's (A) shitty in quality, (B) shitty in financial terms, and (C) shitty at keeping people safe from scams.
If you want proof of that, look at the tumbleweeds in the Mac App Store, where it's not mandatory and anyone can distribute an app in a zip file, and where notarization hasn't (yet) been weaponized to censor apps[1] for reasons having nothing to do with platform security.
No one wants to use the MAS, so they don't, and Apple doesn't get to take 30% of all revenue for every app distributed. You can see why they are fighting tooth and nail to not have the much more important iOS platform turned into that.
I’m not Tim Cook. You need to send an email to him, apparently he reads them. Anyway, I still prefer that instead of having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet. Is it so difficult to understand the difference? At least I can hold Apple liable when I buy a scam app on their App Store. What you propose is basically shareware of 1990s. Zero security.
Don’t get me even started on the hypocrisy of the people wanting what you propose. So, the reason you want to build an app for iOS is that there are many of us. There are many of us because of App Store, mainly, as an end user. Pick one. You are proposing breaking the only platform making the iPhone an interesting product for a computer illiterate.
> having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet
Don't install random shit scam apps then. It's easy. Just don't do it. Use the App Store. Just because you trust them doesn't mean the entire userbase should all be forced to trust Apple and only Apple.
It's such a bad argument, the 'but grandma will install malware' excuse. By that logic we also need to fully lock down the Mac, Windows, and Linux the same way because Granny might get scammed there, too. Apple must approve all software.
Again, Apple already allows grannies to be scammed with apps right on the App Store. Apps which are advertised by web popups that try to stop you from going Back, and throw up "You're INFECTED!" warnings and alerts. Then they route you to the App Store to get the scammy apps, with often weekly subscriptions. Apple routinely lets these listings stay up for a long time. I can see an app right now called "Storage Cleaner_ Phone Cleanup" It charges victims $9.99 a month to pretend to do several things that the OS already includes as features. And another one called "Phone Guard: Secure Cleaner" - same basic deal, $6.99 a week.
The sandboxing should be what keeps us safe from "malware" -- these apps don't have root. They can't access your phone's contacts without explicit permission, nor take control of the radios, nor replace your system apps.
Apple can't or won't keep people safe on the App Store. But they still use this line about the poor confused grannies and toddlers as an excuse of why we have to let them keep 100% control of every iPhone in the world, in a way that just happens to earn them tens of billions of dollars every year.
>Unified Business Terms for Developers That Distribute Apps in the EU
Under this new model, Apple will charge a commission on the sale of digital goods and services. The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax.
Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows.
It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.
This is a loss if the EU actually considers this acceptable. I should be able to Just™ install an app from whereever, and Apple shouldn't have a say in that. Notarization isn't needed on PCs or Macs, and yet here we are.
Macs are model of PCs of a specific brand that closes their PCs down. Continuing to treat Macs as different from other PCs is exactly what lifts scrutiny if they decide to implement notarisation on MacOS. "After all, it's not like it's a PC."
> Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution.
this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?
I think it explicitly avoids directly saying that the Commission has agreed this resolves the disagreements, again hoping public sentiment will drive the nail all the way.
I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy.
The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software.
My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise.
We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
Following this to its logical conclusion… “Sorry, you didn’t buy a Development Pro Guitar. Please bring it in to your nearest Apple repair shop to get it retuned or restringed”
See? “Development machine” just means the ability to do what you want with your own machine. No third party interference.
Let Timmy Can’t-Tune bring his guitar to someone who can. Let grandma have her new phone be setup by her grandson appropriately so she can’t install malware.
> A person downloads the program directly onto their computer
> A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer
> Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods
An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.
And I’m fine with that. Owned 6 iphones, bought another one but fuckers keep complaining instead of voting with their wallet. They want a cookie, eat a cookie, and the EU just keeps degrading my trust to the company because fuckers don’t practice what they preach: go snd vote with your wallet.
I buy s Mercedes Benz. I want a warranty. I am forced to use an authorised service provider who’s expensive af and I risk losing the warranty otherwise. How is that not anticonsumer? I crash said car, the insurer will not insure my car until it’s fixed by an authorised technician. How is that not anticonsumer.
I don't even understand how these could be acceptable terms for the european commission:
For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission.
This is just basic racketering. You owe nothing to Apple, you don't use their resources, then they could still profit of their dominant position on these devices to extort such a high fee (because 5% is not a small amount) from app developers and users.
Yes, there is a lot to unpack - and im sure very smart people has worked on these changes, so spotting what is and what is not peculiar ways to get around EU regulations is not easy.
> For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.
What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal?
Hope I'm misreading this...
Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?
* They have for years turned a blind eye to apps that sell things that aren't "digital goods" - so the Barnes & Noble app can sell you a physical book and pay $0 to Apple, but if they sell you an ebook in any way in the app, they owe 30%. But if they sell you an ebook in Safari, back to $0.
All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
If you place an upsale button in your app and then break out from the app to complete the purchase, yes. Are you living under a rock? It’s been like this for a bit. You want to avoid it? Don’t place the upsale button in your app.
Agreed. The muggings Apple's now doing in Europe under their new "gentler muggings" policies are noticeably less brutal than the "traditional muggings" they still do over here.
I don't think this is accurate at all. While we're part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it does not give an OS owner a general right to charge a commission on third-party software merely because it runs on that OS. [I challenge you to cite the section in the Treaty which gives Apple the ability to charge these fees in contravention of EU law.](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166)
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.
So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?
It depends on how old the user is. If the player is over 18, Fortnite can link out. I guess you call some Apple API to link out and they check the user's age for you before deciding if its allowed or not?
Apple just can't read the room can they? For a while I agreed with their stance to not allow web payments for things like IAP but as time has gone on the stance has become less and less defensible and tipped over in the absurd.
I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments.
- You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0%
- You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0%
They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit.
The rent-seeking has got to stop.
Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale.
I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut.
The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut.
There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0].
If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers.
I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing.
Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP.
[0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.
This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?
> The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
[...]
> In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.
All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
> If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
I just bought a new m5 macbook air. The day that I can't treat my MacOS laptop as basically a glorified NeXT workstation and install/run code of my own choice (albeit after going through a few scary warnings in the default user protecting system preferences, like allow to run unsigned code, etc), is the day I stop buying apple hardware and just use linux laptops again.
I see news about apple thinking about "merging" MacOS and iOS and making a touch screen macbook and it really makes me think they are going to try to do this in the near future.
> All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
Don’t worry. They’re working really hard to fix the bug. It’s not intended that you can install without paying a fee.
> If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac
For now. It is clear which direction Apple is going.
There is a big difference between fighting to keep their walled garden in IOS alive and nuking the entire developer ecosystem that they have built on macos.
There’s a whole layer of VPs banging their head against the wall 24/7 on how to make it possible, don’t worry.
There is a whole gang of commenters who just parrot their baseless crap given any opportunity.
I'm glad at least one user is thinking about the children.
Have been seeing this comment for a decade at least now.
> why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
Strictly speaking, you can. Enable developer mode, connect your phone to your Mac (you need a Mac), and you can build and install whatever code you want.
Asterisks being that your phone will uninstall it after a while I think, and you need to create a free account for Xcode.
The up to 3 apps per device stay but cannot be opened after 7 days until refreshed.
And "whatever code you want" here excludes JIT compilation, or as I understand it memory that is both writable and executable, as your app would require a special 'entitlement' from Apple.
You actually need a paid account, even for local installs, if you use certain tech, like NFC
Seriously? I have a custom Android app that I use. It's mostly vibe coded now, which I'm a bit embarrassed about, but demonstrates that the bar for custom software is very low at the moment and getting lower.
I considered getting an iPhone to replace my S-series Samsung, the only reason I stayed with Samsung is for the S-Pen. Had I gone with iPhone I would not be able to write and run my own software? That's absolutely ridiculous.
Strictly speaking, I can't, I don't own any Mac nor planning to do so
apple had this once, and it ended with chinese qr codes to download illegal apps everywhere
>All in all, still extremely anti-consumer.
One thing that ticks me off about this conversation is they are always framed as anti-consumer, instead of anti-developer. It's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg, and the ad networks who have the biggest gripe with these policies, not consumers. Consumers are the ones who bear the brunt of the cost when it comes to developers who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.
>If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
Anti-developer is anti-consumer because it creates a barrier to entry as a supplier in a market where consumers create the demand, but I suppose the main thesis behind calling it anti-consumer is that competition among suppliers is generally considered good for consumers for keeping prices and product/service quality in check.
> We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
Evil developers forcing poor users to download their applications. Guess we all to suffer with braindead supercomputers in our pockets, because granny gran installed hax to get free gems for a gacha (that she downloaded from Apple approved App Store).
>Evil developers forcing poor users to download their applications.
Stupid users who have neglected to attain perfect and absolute information regarding all the things that the applications they install will do.
>who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.
thankfully the EU has extensive privacy regulations prohibiting developers from doing just that, so we can enjoy open platforms instead of being at the mercy of a private corporations protection racket as if it's the 19th century
Are those regulations adequately enforced? Lots of smaller developers out of jurisdication, and lots of bigger ones treat it as a cost of doing business: the data is worth more than the fines.
Because phones are surveillance devices people happen to casually carry everywhere, so the stakes are considerably higher.
The messages on Mac are becoming more ridiculous and cumbersome each upgrade though. Kind of sick of jumping through System Settings hoops every time I upgrade an app
Every time I’m forced to do it[0] I feel good because I’m glad these hoops are unavoidable on all the computers of the people I provide family tech support for.
[0] Which is rare. I’m installing random shit all the time using homebrew and it’s basically never an issue.
Except it won't show for signed+notarized apps. It's just a minor obstacle to deliver malware. Even stuff on App Store has malware in it.
If security was a concern, these hoops would be for all apps, not just unsigned. It just shows the only function it serves is gatekeeping by Apple.
and when malware is discovered in the rare case of signed apps signing can be revoked
Signature revocations are functionally equivalent to malware definitions and correspondingly don't actually require code signing.
If you’re a developer you can kind of do it, or so ChatGPT tells me:
> So for, say, your iPad mini plus 2–5 other iPads, the workable setup is: Mac + Xcode → $99/year developer membership → register each iPad's UDID → create an Ad Hoc build → install that build on those devices. You don't have to publish it, make it discoverable, or have Apple review it.
That would work for me, except that I prefer to build web apps instead. There’s nothing I really want to build that couldn’t be done as a web app.
As for why one computing platform would be different than another, if you don’t think there’s any difference then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?
If what we were discussing was hacky ways of installing apps on your own device rather than distribution to end users, you can do without the Developer membership cost.
It would just be limited to 3 apps per device that require to be refreshed every 7 days to continue to be able to open them.
Web apps are a non starter for iOS since the only allowed browser on iOS happens to not support crucial standards and may drop your app's persistent data.
> $99/year developer membership
Yeah...
> then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?
Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
You technically don’t need to pay if you just want to run your app on your phone. If you want to distribute your app with Testflight or the App Store you need to pay.
> I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.
This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.
Cell phones weren’t always effectively the primary computing devices for most of the human population.
> N900 and the Palm Treo
Performance-wise, a modern iPhone is more closely comparable to room-sized (building-sized?) supercomputer of that era.
The $99/yr part gives me the ick.
> why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
If Microsoft had its act together PCs would have been just as locked down as phones are today and we wouldn't be questioning a difference.
Microsoft proposed locked-down PCs decades ago and got criticism from sources as mainstream as the New York Times. Everyone more technical than that, with the possible exception of corporate IT types flatly rejected it.
I'm sad there was so much less backlash to restricting user control on phones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...
Microsoft sell locked down PCs today. Secure Boot cannot be disabled, nor new keys enrolled, on Windows PCs that ship with an ARM processor (yes they exist). It's as if Apple decided to lock down Macbooks when they switched to M-series. The only thing keeping PCs "free" is that ARM processors suck at the high end if you're not Apple, so it's seen as acceptable market segmentation. It's purely arbitrary though, just like it's purely arbitrary that you can put Linux on a Macbook but not an iPad despite having the same SoC.
I think what you meant to say is if US regulators weren't asleep at the wheel phones would be just as unlocked as PCs.
Well here's EU regulators working with Apple directly to allow it. I honestly think that's worse, the EU government took the time to allow this directly. It's not just a case of the existing laws not being clear in this instance, it's the EU working with Apple to come up with this 'solution'.
5% tax on all digital transactions (still applies to Kindle ebooks too I'm guessing?) and all applications have to go through an Apple review process. That's ridiculous for a government to explicitly agree to.
Governments will agree to that because at the end of the day it gives them a party they can go to. In this instance if they want Apple or Google to remove an app they can. It gives them the ability to use that option whenever they don't like something it's not by accident. Its a win-win for them and Apple/Google. You are never going to get the wild wild west we have on the pc platform ever again.
The premise here is that there isn't a single government in the entire world which is more willing to protect its population than oppress it.
If that's the case then maybe we need to start considering what kind of alternate mechanisms can robustly mitigate the threat.
If [shitty thing] had been normalized years ago, we wouldn't be questioning [shitty thing]'s existence today. I mean, yeah dude.
What the heck does this defeatist argument have to do with it???
> Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…
Question for those with more industry knowledge than me: If you assume a broken sandbox, is it possible for an app to record phone calls, then use that recording to create a deepfaked voice that can then be transmitted as a new call? My naïve assumption is "yes obviously", but for all I know the hardware has some way to activate a switched circuit from the phone service to the speaker and microphone that can't have other sound data pass through it.
LOL. That security bogeyman argument is a convenient post-hoc justification. The real reason is much simpler: Because "computers" started out with "Owner can run code of their choice on it" as one of the main definitional qualities agreed upon by the market.
Devices which only ran code that the vendor had specially packaged for the device always had other names, like Games Console, Word Processor, MP3 Player, Graphing Calculator, or just plain "Toy." Nobody confused those with computers and nobody accepted them as computers.
Phones entered this world already in that second category, long before Apple even considered making one. Apple kept an iron grip at first and after careful consideration, decided to only allow third-parties to even enter on terms extremely favorable and profitable to Apple, and always under their direct control.
Closing off the Mac would be very messy and also cause tremendous headaches due to it being the development platform for iOS. They don't want to bother. But the reason iOS is closed is because it's always been closed, and they'll never open it unless forced, because money.
I respect your overall point but I think the picture is more nuanced than that. "Computer" as a term is simply unpopular, in favor of something referencing the intended application, as determined by things like the form factor:
Graphing Calculators are computers in every sense, it's hard to find one you can't at least program in a high level language like Basic or Python, and many accept assembly programs - even Texas Instruments models did, before their signing keys were brute forced.
Games consoles too almost invariably run third party code, although they tend not to be end user programmable - no different than an iPhone in that regard, really.
"Feature phones" - pre-smartphone phones with cameras and internet etc - usually had the ability to run Java Midlets without manufacturer blessing, even though you couldn't touch the OS. You could SSH into servers from those!
I think a big problem is that the distinction between "general purpose computer" and "end user programmable general purpose computer" is functionally meaningless when you can't write programs, which is most people. Instead they understand it in a functional context - what is this device for? How does it compare to how such devices usually work? The general purpose CPU inside is an implementation detail, and just because you think of an iPhone as a computer doesn't mean everyone does. They think of it as a "phone".
Most people consider the iPhone as a "phone", not as a "computer". It's even in the name. So it fits your definition for devices which only run code that the vendor had specially packaged.
People obviously consider it a computer; they install and use third party software on it. The question is whether the vendor should be allowed to monopolize the market for the third party software even when both the user and the third party developer don't want them to.
> Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…
Then fix your s****y sandbox, Apple.
Sure, great idea.
[Incoming call: National Security Agency] "Don't you dare stop our malware doing all that stuff you just said".
:P
All the other nations' agencies, outisde Five Eyes at least, will probably want to stop the NSA's malware, but may have their own instead.
It's still a steal, I'm really sad that european union settled on this terms. 15% cut on purchases outside the app store THAT'S CRAZY !!
I'm so shocked to read this "Each of these commissions reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ apps, whether they use the App Store and/or Apple In-App Purchase." whereas it's app developpers that create value for Apple.
Without apps, Apple platform is dead.
This is just speculation, but I suppose it's because Apple is also collaborating/contributing in the EU Chat Control 2.0 legislation, so they may have some argument that completely opening the door for uncontrolled app installs may not allow them to comply with such legislation.
As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go
While the app store was a much better deal than ISP stores for the smartphones when it was introduced, Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price.
>For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.
This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.
Which monopoly is Apple abusing?
EU law doesn't actually require a monopoly for competition rules to apply, it's a "dominant position". Apple certainly meets that definition for smartphone platforms.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/competit...
Geez even the EU's own government websites are polluted with cookie banners. Apparently they can't resist tracking their visitors either.
Distribution of software on iOS?
That isn't one by law.
Which law? Seems like it is under EU law.
Any country in the world with working democracy, there is a very precise definition of what monopoly is.
> In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[3]
All countries with a working democracy would class Apple as a monopoly as it has significant market power, enough to distort prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Not for the nerd definition of iOS as a market.
The market is mobile devices.
Apple and google essentially own 99%+ of the smartphone market, so it's not that different from a monopoly
Duopoly
iPhone apps.
If it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.
I assume you mean approved by Microsoft.
When they were found in the US to have a monopoly, they had around 95% of personal computer operating system share. Apple isn’t even close.
Just because they took too long to look at a problem, does not stop something else from being a problem.
Really? What would you estimate is Apple's market share of iPhone apps if it's so far below 95%?
We both know that the market share refers to the smartphone market share of which Apple has about 21%.
For iPhone apps Apple is way behind with about 0.005% of the total 2.17 million iPhone apps.
The ONLY interesting market share here isn't how many apps Apple create, or how large share of the smartphones they have. It's how much of the distribution of apps they control on iOS (which easily reaches the bar of being a market in itself).
I.e. the monopoly question is: if apple takes X% for each app in this market, and a competitor can't take less, then it's a monopoly.
'Monopoly' is the wrong term. It's abuse of market power.
I just don’t get the outrage. If you made HATS and wanted to sell them at STORE, do you think you get to just walk into STORE and tell the manager/owner:
1) find some space on the shelf and your stock room to put my stuff! 2) I don’t have a store with shelves or visiting customers, but you will sell this for me at 0% profit!
You’re paying for sales access to millions of devices with frictionless checkout.
And you want to… make it harder to check out? Because you think you’re entitled sell things to their user base?
No one wants to go to your website. You’re crazy.
Agree.
However, in this scenario every neighbourhood only has 2 STORES - and each CUSTOMER only shops at one of these STORES.
Then, if you made HATS, the only way to sell HATS is to get them on the shelves of both those stores.
--
This is Australia: two major supermarkets - so the only way to sell a lot of your product is to submit to the terms of Coles or Woolworths.
I think the fundamental thing here is that this isn't merely a store. The Apple ecosystem is large enough to BE a market in itself.
It's not about the market for apps, or the market for smartphones. Those markets are comparable to any market.
This is about the market for apps ON the apple ecosystem. And the problem that is being solved is: Apple can't have a monopoly on that market, such that they can (for example) charge a commission for every sale.
Basically: we can't allow a company to be so successful that their STORE becomes a MARKET.
This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission. To read now that the Commission approves of these terms is unbelievable to me. I rarely put on a tinfoil hat, but either the Commission has been paid off, or there are some geopolitical discussions we are not privy to. I can see no other explanation.
I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.
Apparently they followed an "alternative" reading of the DMA concluding that unless you prove the fees or other obstacles would make alternative distribution commercially unviable or discriminatory, everything is just fine. Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress?
> Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress
You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?
I wonder if there's any statement on this from the Commission?
Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true:
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
Not knowing anything detailed about the acts, which terms are you referring to? Notarization?
Notarization is a grey area. A competent Commission would have successfully argued against it, but there are arguments for it. On the much clearer violations I'll copy my comment to another user:
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
Thanks for the summary!
By the way, would you happen to know if it possible to distribute the same app in the AppStore under the 15/26% commission and in alternative stores in the EU with the 10% commission?
Or maybe this somehow constitutes a danger Apple has to protect its users from, and can only be alleviated by me paying Apple the higher rate? The earlier terms certainly did their best to prevent anyone from opting into the alternative distribution terms.
Current administration is strong arming europe in a lot of ways, and it has had impact on how EU Commission handles their own laws at the execution level for DMA, DSA, and probably even GDPR against American companies.
Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade.
The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
improving the legislative mechanism would require even more time, and it does not appear there is the political will for it at this time
EU is one of most corrupt places.
EU is corrupt is not the same as one of the most corrupt.
It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.
10 years ago I would have disagreed with you vehemently, but now I agree with you. Every new EU regulation makes my life worse, and very few of them actually address systemic issues re competition which would make my life better. This is one such example. The law is crystal clear, Apple is in clear violation, and the Commission allows them to continue. I cannot believe this. I'm honestly stunned.
> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution."
[...]
> "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee."
[...]
> "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats."
This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.
The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.
> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device.
That argument would assume no cost for upgrades.
I remember having to buy new operating systems.
That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free.
> Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other.
That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".
I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.
I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.
Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!
I wonder if they already use LLMs in development. However, and maybe I'm misremembering, but they were doing clean room development so it may not even be possible (because of copyrighted stuff leaking through LLMs).
Woods for the trees- Great idea!
>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.
It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.
> because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products. > Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets
I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.
Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.
They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.
Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."
That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.
>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less.
That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.
Only if consumers would pay it, which isn’t something we can really know.
That's just not how that works, how much consumers will pay is a binding constraint. Apple isn't subsiding their phone with developer fees and distributing their below marginal cost. Apple is almost certainly charging well above its marginal costs and is already charging the revenue maximising price, it's not willingly leaving money on the table.
Not entirely how you've made formed this connection but respectively it sounds like you've confused several things here.
> It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
iPhone sales pay for the entirety of Apple's R&D. 10 times over.
So why does this not apply to macOS?
The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so.
Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution
Wait, which apps are you referring to having been delisted by EU (which branch? what process?), as opposed to "breaching app store terms and conditions" (which the companies do of their own initiative all the time)
yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.
Whatever censorship exists in the EU is really inconsequential. What bothers me is the spying.
Do you mean “censorship by the EU” or “censorship within the EU”, or both? Because I see a lot of the latter, and I don’t find it inconsequential at all.
By the EU and in Germany, really... What is censored in other member states isn't in the news, but for all I know it's also not much and not important.
Which censorship do you consider problematic?
The whole EU censorship rhetoric is almost always devoid of facts and examples. I feel like it is mainly sustained because US people like the narrative that theytl are the free(TM).
Asking innocent questions often works better than confrontation, but yeah, this elevated importance of utmost free speech doesn't survive the Atlantic crossing and can be used to maliciously pooh-pooh Europe to an American audience.
We don't have a lot of "censorship within the EU", some russian propaganda tv channels might be blocked (as they should) but that's about it really. Now if you mean in a particular EU member, that's different but it's not impacting the whole EU.
The Play Store is not required for APK distribution. Not now, nor has it ever been.
yet https://keepandroidopen.org/
is like much of the discourse around the changes, overly sensationalized and borderline false.
The only change made that's relevant to sideloading-a-downloaded-APK as far I understand, is a 24hour delay in enabling the ability to do so, which is a wildly overblown non-issue.
It is less secure though, and they are doing it in the name of security. People are right to call that out as bullshit.
Availability is a key component of security, and this is a 24-hour DOS on apps not blessed by google.
It’s a one time delay that occurs when you first enable the ability to install downloaded apks and you never see it again for any device attached to your Google account. That’s why I called it a wildly overblown non-issue
I call hat freedom gone with one switch
They’ve announced they’re changing the policy to require ‘verification’ in future Android versions.
It will likely be delayed, just like Manifest v3, but eventually it will happen.
Well, they seem to have started shipping parts of that; recently I noticed https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and... was installed for me.
> In a statement, a Commission spokesperson welcomed Apple’s changes to its business terms, which it said “follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple”.
> “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added.
There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive.
I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open
> I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it.
This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.
Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true:
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
That feels like a crazy definition of Notarization there Apple.
Well I think this it at least improvement to the status quo
SO Apple just got granted that there effectively is no "outside the AppStore" when it comes to iOS.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they've attained it, they won't give it up voluntarily. You have to force them.
> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK
How do you not use their SDK?
> How do you not use their SDK?
The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.
This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet.
If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
The app revenue cut is because you partner with Apple to deliver a solution to something in a users life with them. Apple sees themselves as critical to an app’s ability to exist at all. Its like nintendo taking a cut of a nintendo game. You cant have one without the other. A lot of people disagree that the iphone is a one of a kind consumer product like this. To many its just a computer and software is independent. I see both sides
Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
> the technology is already fully paid for by the user
This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
> Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user.
That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial.
Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay.
I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
> That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial.
This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
> Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone
And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability.
> and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
> This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights.
> IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
It's all about distribution.
A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything.
> As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
> A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
I was referring to the distribution of the licensed technologies by Apple to the hardware purchasers. Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
> This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
The waiver scenario is meant in the context of Apple using the 5% and $99 fees as payment for the maintenance/R&D of the official dev experience. The fees would be waived because the dev isn't making any use of those tools in a hypothetical FOSS SDK.
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
I assume you mean on an open hardware platform, because underneath Apple's SDKs are just more Apple APIs until you get to Apple's IPC interfaces to talk to Apple-designed hardware register interfaces.
Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.
> Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights.
I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
If you don't intend it as an insult, you might try providing literally any substance to your argument rather than just lobbing ad hominems.
I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
> I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project.
That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
What would be so outlandish about that?
I'm not going to argue with you, because I continue to suspect that you have no iOS development experience and are just making hand-wavy claims with no empirical basis.
?
It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.
I asked a question: "How do you not use their SDK?"
Your answer seemed nonsensical to me.
What I meant, though, is that I'm not going to argue about a specific point, the viability of "some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality." If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?"
In any case, most iOS devs don't want to opt out of using the SDK. That would not be a particularly attractive route for making iOS apps. What I want as an iOS dev is the same freedom of software distribution that we have on macOS.
> If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?"
The basis for my claims about the subject is my knowledge of computing and development in general. I dipped my toes into iOS dev a few times and there's nothing that seemed to set it apart from any other SDK situation beyond Apple's restrictions, at least nothing that would make my claim outlandish.
That is never going to happen. We will never get the same freedom we enjoy on pc's again for the simple fact it benefits both the platform owners and governments to have a simple centralize company in this case (Apple & Google) to go to get what they want. The freedom we have on pc's is too much of a wild west and not enough control that both governments and platform owners like. As much as we may want to it will never happen for those reasons.
I think if you adjusted his statement to be - not use apple’s “everything” software ecosystem - it would be possible.
Core device apis yes, everything else, maybe not?
I think we could roll our own UI - I think we can roll our own payment systems - I think we could roll our own media display.
For the primary iOS app I work on I need vulkan, gps, touches camera, sound, and phone rotation. (And standard os services)
I don’t need anything else.
Personnally I use Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK.
Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.
And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.
> Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK.
> Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.
I suspect it uses much more so that it can support
- audio
- file I/O
- accessibility
- …
I agree but you expect those from a consumer OS since at least Windows 95.
> Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.
The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them.
Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.
> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks?
A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though.
> Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem.
No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.
The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?
Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.
> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?
I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime.
That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble.
Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices.
Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
> Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves
The idea that, for many people purchasing an iPhone, the inability to install apps from alternative stores or the web is a selling point seems rather questionable.
On top of that this could easily be provided by an optional switch that enables you to enforce this on your own device if you so desire.
It is a poor reason to request that all app distribution for everyone else also has to go through Apple and its terms, basically for your convenience.
>>hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago
And that still plagues every computing platform now. Including Apple platforms. So the lockdown clearly didn’t completely solve that problem like a lot of people seem to claim
iOS is noticeably better for this though because it's more locked down, there is a real tradeoff there
That is exactly what Apple has decided to do. You have named the tradeoff. Stop the possibility by disabling everyone. It has always been this way. People have had nearly 20 years to leave Apple
> No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want.
They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.
Not helping you is something different, that's not preventing.
> Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
> They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.
They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale.
Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance.
> That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices.
The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?
You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society.
Since the market for phone operating systems is not even remotely competitive regulation is necessary just like in all others uncompetitive markets.
So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...
My house has locks on all exterior doors? I can have them re keyed any time?
A much more accurate nonsensical analogy would be getting take out but only being allowed to eat it with Apple branded utensils because otherwise your food would catch fire.
> Users are free to choose a different manufacturer
It’s an oligopoly, so no, consumers are not exactly free to do what they want. If the market were truly competitive you might have a point.
What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.
No customer would buy Apple's products, which they sell with large profit margins, if Apple would not invest in its operating system and maintain a way for developers to distribute apps.
Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps.
If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.
I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?
It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.
It's not, it just means when they say they "need to", they lie.
It should be against the law to create they kind of business they have, though
Why? Android has 72% of the market in 2025. As an individual company Apple has 20% of the market. Samsung has 19%.
Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.
I still wish to sell to users of iOS.
Apple has conveniently, for them, set themselves up as an unwanted middleman.
This is only possible for them to do because they make billions per quarter and I’m a struggling solo developer.
I can’t believe people are defending apple.
Companies can't simply do that.
In fact, you will have a guarantee of failure if e.g. your messaging app doesn't support iOS
go ahead and make the law then. until then it isn't
Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
They charged for the operating system. The first MacOS X was $130.
I think the point is that they didn't charge developers anything specifically to be developers or sell apps. They just needed the same hardware and software as everybody else, which, yes, they probably had to buy.
> The developer program fee.
And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money?
The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
> It's to keep spammers out.
Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.
Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.
I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit.
I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
there would be 100x that many spam apps if it wasn't gated by a fee, esp nowadays
Of course it's to make profit
My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in.
Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted.
Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems.
Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics.
Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year.
I hate them.
The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
And you could, should, argue they make it up by charging such a high commission.
When they cannot argue "but think about the children", then they start with "but think about the clueless people"!
They always have someone to protect, some holy cause.
Who are we to complain about the tiny detail of computers not being personal anymore?
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.
Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"
More details in the developer portal: https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/
It seams that for "reader apps" (like Netflix / Spotify), things got slightly better (https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16....):
> Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...]
So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously.
A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."
Wait, this is only for i(Pad)OS and not MacOS, right? The way it's written, it's a blanket 5% commission on desktop apps distributed on one's own website, which is insane!
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU
I assume this settles it, since it was always possible to web-distribute desktop apps outside the EU.
> Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU.
Now hold on a minute here. It’s Apple’s own App Store requirement that forces any developer regardless of payment option to pay a commission or be delisted. Framing it as an “we charge you because of the EU” is a plain simple lie. The EU forced their hand in allowing different payment channels at low commission rates with no repercussions.
Pretty shocking to watch Europe bow down and kowtow to a single american megacorp. Cyberpunk really is now...
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU ... require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.
This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.
It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps.
> Companies will now qualify if they:
> * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet. > * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company. > * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm. > * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant. > * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
Those requirements apply to direct distribution or alternate marketplaces. Developers not meeting those criteria can still participate in non-Apple distribution by submitting to an alternate marketplace.
The "alternative marketplace" should be replaced with "no marketplace." How do people accept this "alternative marketplace" idea? This is obviously a way to increase friction in order to maintain dominance - and the solution is obvious - no marketplace at all.
No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace.
Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.
>What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps.
My guess: since all apps will need to be notarized, even web distributed ones, your phone will phone home to Apple servers when you first launch it (and periodically afterwards), to verify it isn’t in a revocation list. That will allow Apple to track unique installs and then bill the Apple developer account based on pricing data reported by the web distributor as part of their separate agreement with Apple.
> What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps.
My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
> My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.
European Commission caved in, developers lost.
Has the commission confirmed that these changes "resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission" or is that just like... Apple's wishful thinking.
I definitely recall previous iterations where Apple announced changes to comply with legal requirements where the authorities ended up saying "this absolutely doesn't resolve the issue".
Yeah. Also, IANAL but even if the European Commission does think Apple's interpretation of the DMA is reasonable, Apple could still be sued by an affected company or person, and a judge might disagree, IIUC: https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-...
Well at least 10x better than in the US now
I’m not sure that’s how I’d characterise it. I think this is a positive step for consumers in the EU.
I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.
Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason
As opposed to what? What’s the alternative you propose?
not the OP, but I assume: Apps don't need to go through Apple and Apple doesn't get to take a cut?
I don’t buy apps anyway. Want to keep me as a client? Make your website functional. Fuck your apps. With all this b2c invoice bullshit in the EU now everyone wants me to install their app. Fuck you, send me an email!
Couldn't agree more tbh. I have an app each for like 8 restaurants I want to be able to order ahead from. All those apps are 200-600MB each, their performance is dogshit and they're obviously all built with web technologies anyway. Just let me do all the same shit on a website, kill the app, and save the download and the Apple bullshit.
Uninstall them.
The alternative is the explicit legislation in the Digital Rights Act:
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, *free of charge*, communicate and promote alternative offers *and conclude contracts* with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity *only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate.* How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
Just download the app from the website and install it
Hahahaha, are you fucking serious. As an Apple customer, that’s exactly what I don’t want.
This is the weirdest comment to me.
“I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”
“Please stop me. I’m about to install a program by a small independent developer that does something I want. Stop me, and first charge me 15%, and them $100. Oh, and install it in my old phone??? No! Please stop me and force me to upgrade!!”
“Oh my phone is too old!! Please force me to but another one!!”
> “I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”
No. I already do what I want to do. I don’t use apps. Regardless if it comes from the App Store, or any other website on the internet. How do you arrive at your interpretation.
You would still be free to use the appstore, I'm sure if it's as great as Apple says, it will have no problem
But the mechanics to work around it, and potentially slip something onto my phone, are already in there. No, thanks. The problem with this wholeEU bullshit is that the pro-consumer and pro-security do not always go hand in hand. And relevant dept lawyers don’t always communicate sufficiently.
Okay Tim Cook.
If the App Store is such a customer-friendly shield, then why are there millions of scam apps in the App Store?
To combat software threats, sandboxing and fine-grained permissions (which Apple basically pioneered in the consumer space!) is the answer. App Review can't catch all malicious actors. When a vulnerability exists in the sandbox, the exploit can easily be slipped past App Review, with a feature flag holding it until the scammer is ready to attack.
App Review, Notarization, etc. isn't for us. It's for Apple. It's the control that allows them to extract the money. Simple as that. Without the control, only small indie developers would list on the App Store because it's (A) shitty in quality, (B) shitty in financial terms, and (C) shitty at keeping people safe from scams.
If you want proof of that, look at the tumbleweeds in the Mac App Store, where it's not mandatory and anyone can distribute an app in a zip file, and where notarization hasn't (yet) been weaponized to censor apps[1] for reasons having nothing to do with platform security.
No one wants to use the MAS, so they don't, and Apple doesn't get to take 30% of all revenue for every app distributed. You can see why they are fighting tooth and nail to not have the much more important iOS platform turned into that.
[1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/06/14/utm-blocked-outside-app-s...
I’m not Tim Cook. You need to send an email to him, apparently he reads them. Anyway, I still prefer that instead of having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet. Is it so difficult to understand the difference? At least I can hold Apple liable when I buy a scam app on their App Store. What you propose is basically shareware of 1990s. Zero security.
Don’t get me even started on the hypocrisy of the people wanting what you propose. So, the reason you want to build an app for iOS is that there are many of us. There are many of us because of App Store, mainly, as an end user. Pick one. You are proposing breaking the only platform making the iPhone an interesting product for a computer illiterate.
> having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet
Don't install random shit scam apps then. It's easy. Just don't do it. Use the App Store. Just because you trust them doesn't mean the entire userbase should all be forced to trust Apple and only Apple.
I just told you in this thread that I don’t. Explain that to your mother! Or your paps, or your little kid.
I have my popcorn ready for the new wave of installing malware apps through some click jacking scams.
It's such a bad argument, the 'but grandma will install malware' excuse. By that logic we also need to fully lock down the Mac, Windows, and Linux the same way because Granny might get scammed there, too. Apple must approve all software.
Again, Apple already allows grannies to be scammed with apps right on the App Store. Apps which are advertised by web popups that try to stop you from going Back, and throw up "You're INFECTED!" warnings and alerts. Then they route you to the App Store to get the scammy apps, with often weekly subscriptions. Apple routinely lets these listings stay up for a long time. I can see an app right now called "Storage Cleaner_ Phone Cleanup" It charges victims $9.99 a month to pretend to do several things that the OS already includes as features. And another one called "Phone Guard: Secure Cleaner" - same basic deal, $6.99 a week.
The sandboxing should be what keeps us safe from "malware" -- these apps don't have root. They can't access your phone's contacts without explicit permission, nor take control of the radios, nor replace your system apps.
Apple can't or won't keep people safe on the App Store. But they still use this line about the poor confused grannies and toddlers as an excuse of why we have to let them keep 100% control of every iPhone in the world, in a way that just happens to earn them tens of billions of dollars every year.
The easy way to deal with this is to stop using Apple products. Ultimately consumers hold more power than legislators if they act in concert.
>Unified Business Terms for Developers That Distribute Apps in the EU Under this new model, Apple will charge a commission on the sale of digital goods and services. The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax.
Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows.
It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.
This is a loss if the EU actually considers this acceptable. I should be able to Just™ install an app from whereever, and Apple shouldn't have a say in that. Notarization isn't needed on PCs or Macs, and yet here we are.
Macs are model of PCs of a specific brand that closes their PCs down. Continuing to treat Macs as different from other PCs is exactly what lifts scrutiny if they decide to implement notarisation on MacOS. "After all, it's not like it's a PC."
> Apple today announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, following close collaboration with the European Commission. These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution.
this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?
I think it explicitly avoids directly saying that the Commission has agreed this resolves the disagreements, again hoping public sentiment will drive the nail all the way.
I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy.
The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software.
My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise.
We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
Following this to its logical conclusion… “Sorry, you didn’t buy a Development Pro Guitar. Please bring it in to your nearest Apple repair shop to get it retuned or restringed”
See? “Development machine” just means the ability to do what you want with your own machine. No third party interference.
Let Timmy Can’t-Tune bring his guitar to someone who can. Let grandma have her new phone be setup by her grandson appropriately so she can’t install malware.
Freedom. Digital rights.
Where is the corresponding EU announcement?
A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.
Not necessary, corporations can speak for governments these days, its all cool!
As I understand it:
> A person buys a handheld computer
> I make a program for the computer
> A person downloads the program directly onto their computer
> A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer
> Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods
An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.
They do it because they can. You're signaling that you're OK with it by continuing to buy Apple products.
And I’m fine with that. Owned 6 iphones, bought another one but fuckers keep complaining instead of voting with their wallet. They want a cookie, eat a cookie, and the EU just keeps degrading my trust to the company because fuckers don’t practice what they preach: go snd vote with your wallet.
But mercedes benz makes sure all the taxi desinations are safe!
I buy s Mercedes Benz. I want a warranty. I am forced to use an authorised service provider who’s expensive af and I risk losing the warranty otherwise. How is that not anticonsumer? I crash said car, the insurer will not insure my car until it’s fixed by an authorised technician. How is that not anticonsumer.
The first part is clearly illegal in the USA. Is it not in the EU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
Yet you all cry for the right to repair. I’m confused. Is this a selective law, or what. And if yes, how is that legal?
Voiding a warranty due to unauthorized repair is only one of many things a company can do to make third-party repair, or any repair more difficult.
So, is this an announcement of the changes, or a press release announcing an announcement?
God damn it all to hell when even the comms department issues stupid crap like this.
I don't even understand how these could be acceptable terms for the european commission:
This is just basic racketering. You owe nothing to Apple, you don't use their resources, then they could still profit of their dominant position on these devices to extort such a high fee (because 5% is not a small amount) from app developers and users.Too low blood pressure? Not anymore, thanks Apple.
So how are they trying to circumvent the EU regulations this time?
Have you tried reading the submitted URL?
Yes, there is a lot to unpack - and im sure very smart people has worked on these changes, so spotting what is and what is not peculiar ways to get around EU regulations is not easy.
Are you saying that this is not the case at all?
It would be better to read the page the URL links to.
I predict 2027 will be the year of the PWA ... and desktop Linux.
Why can't we just use our computers the way we want to use our computers? It is so dumb that vendor lock-in even exists, and I'm sick of it.
> For App Store apps that link out of the app to complete purchases, the commission will be 15 percent. Developers in the programs mentioned above will pay a reduced rate of 10 percent.
What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal?
Hope I'm misreading this...
Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?
* They have for years turned a blind eye to apps that sell things that aren't "digital goods" - so the Barnes & Noble app can sell you a physical book and pay $0 to Apple, but if they sell you an ebook in any way in the app, they owe 30%. But if they sell you an ebook in Safari, back to $0.
All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
If you place an upsale button in your app and then break out from the app to complete the purchase, yes. Are you living under a rock? It’s been like this for a bit. You want to avoid it? Don’t place the upsale button in your app.
So Brussels caved as usual.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348661
I wish Apple would extend these options to me as a US user and developer. I’m jealous to be honest.
Agreed. The muggings Apple's now doing in Europe under their new "gentler muggings" policies are noticeably less brutal than the "traditional muggings" they still do over here.
The EU has signed and ratified the WIPO treaty. There’s nothing they can put into the DMA that can cancel out the treaty.
Installing software in iOS uses Apple intellectual property and WIPO guarantees their right to charge a commission.
If you don’t like this, get rid of WIPO!
I don't think this is accurate at all. While we're part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it does not give an OS owner a general right to charge a commission on third-party software merely because it runs on that OS. [I challenge you to cite the section in the Treaty which gives Apple the ability to charge these fees in contravention of EU law.](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295166)
> For users under 13 years old, apps from the App Store cannot link out to websites for transactions to protect against the risk of scams that target younger kids.
So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?
It depends on how old the user is. If the player is over 18, Fortnite can link out. I guess you call some Apple API to link out and they check the user's age for you before deciding if its allowed or not?
Apple just can't read the room can they? For a while I agreed with their stance to not allow web payments for things like IAP but as time has gone on the stance has become less and less defensible and tipped over in the absurd.
I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments.
- You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0%
- You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0%
They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit.
The rent-seeking has got to stop.
Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale.
I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut.
The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut.
There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0].
If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers.
I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing.
Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP.
[0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.
> do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?)
Yeah, because developers have historically been super reasonable when it comes to pricing.
Just the other day someone posted a truly simple camera app with a freaking subscription in place. For crying out loud.
With the way developers like to price their apps, I’m sort of glad Apple is taking a chunk of the money. Fuck subscription based apps.
They’re starting to cave.
Turnis taking the reins perhaps?
This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?
Exited my Apple position.
Ternus is going to be the last CEO. They're going to be next Nokia, lack of AI native is going to bite them hard.
Is this a bot comment or something? What does AI have to do with any of this? And regardless Apple is in many ways best in class for local AI support.
Luckily, none of that is even remotely close to happening.
Nobody cares about AI. Nobody wants that shit running on their device eating away at precious battery life.
Exited my Apple position.
Good. It will allow you to learn how little your "position" matters.
Apple cares about the hundreds of billions of dollars held by large investors, not some rando Reddit-grade Wall Street wannabe.