hackernews client

Apple announces changes for apps in the European Union

79 pointsposted 5 hours ago

by newusertoday

(apple.com)

146 Comments

EMIRELADERO

5 hours ago

> "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.

ben_w

4 hours ago

> 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".

Despegar

4 hours ago

>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.

xp84

4 hours ago

> 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.

Despegar

4 hours ago

>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.

rekoil

2 hours ago

Only if consumers would pay it, which isn’t something we can really know.

noja

4 hours ago

I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.

ben_w

4 hours ago

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.

idichejcjd

3 hours ago

[flagged]

xp84

4 hours ago

Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!

noja

3 hours ago

Woods for the trees- Great idea!

dannyw

4 hours ago

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

xp84

4 hours ago

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.

SiempreViernes

4 hours ago

> 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

chrisjj

4 hours ago

> I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it.

This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.

gumby271

4 hours ago

That feels like a crazy definition of Notarization there Apple.

mnewme

4 hours ago

Well I think this it at least improvement to the status quo

carlosjobim

2 hours ago

> 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.

EMIRELADERO

2 hours ago

> 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.

carlosjobim

an hour ago

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?

lapcat

4 hours ago

> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK

How do you not use their SDK?

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

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.

lapcat

4 hours ago

> 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.

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

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.

lapcat

4 hours ago

> 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".

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

What would be so outlandish about that?

lapcat

4 hours ago

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.

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.

lapcat

4 hours ago

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.

toukale

an hour ago

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.

chichichi

an hour ago

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.

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

> 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.

realusername

4 hours ago

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.

Someone

3 hours ago

> 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

- …

realusername

23 minutes ago

I agree but you expect those from a consumer OS since at least Windows 95.

tiahura

4 hours ago

Maybe one of the commissioners tried Android?

EMIRELADERO

4 hours ago

The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.

mjorgers

4 hours ago

> 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?

ben_w

4 hours ago

> 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.

xp84

3 hours ago

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.

chrisjj

4 hours ago

> 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.

ben_w

2 hours ago

Sure, great idea.

[Incoming call: National Security Agency] "Don't you dare stop our malware doing all that stuff you just said".

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.

skybrian

4 hours ago

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?

mzajc

4 hours ago

> $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.

cadamsdotcom

3 hours ago

The $99/yr part gives me the ick.

ulfw

4 hours ago

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

cube00

4 hours ago

> 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.

Zak

4 hours ago

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...

repeekad

4 hours ago

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.

ApolloFortyNine

4 hours ago

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.

toukale

an hour ago

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.

HumblyTossed

4 hours ago

What the heck does this defeatist argument have to do with it???

gumby271

4 hours ago

If [shitty thing] had been normalized years ago, we wouldn't be questioning [shitty thing]'s existence today. I mean, yeah dude.

dbbk

4 hours ago

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.

robhlt

3 hours ago

I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?

hadlock

35 minutes ago

>I do disagree.

Do you do anything else?

Despegar

3 hours ago

It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.

EMIRELADERO

3 hours ago

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.

Despegar

3 hours ago

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.

xp84

3 hours ago

> 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.

insane_dreamer

an hour ago

there would be 100x that many spam apps if it wasn't gated by a fee, esp nowadays

dbbk

3 hours ago

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.

Y-bar

4 hours ago

> 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.

xp84

3 hours ago

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.

bubblegumcrisis

4 hours ago

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.

hoechst

4 hours ago

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."

ApolloFortyNine

4 hours ago

>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.

xp84

2 hours ago

> 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!"

arpinum

5 hours ago

> 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.

adrian_m

4 hours ago

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.

Kwpolska

4 hours ago

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.

bubblegumcrisis

4 hours ago

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.

lapcat

4 hours ago

No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace.

Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.

lapcat

4 hours ago

> 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.

cube00

4 hours ago

> 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.

zoobab

5 hours ago

European Commission caved in, developers lost.

gpm

4 hours ago

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".

twiss

3 hours ago

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-...

lsxr

5 hours ago

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.

realusername

5 hours ago

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

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

As opposed to what? What’s the alternative you propose?

varun_ch

4 hours ago

not the OP, but I assume: Apps don't need to go through Apple and Apple doesn't get to take a cut?

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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!

xp84

3 hours ago

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.

realusername

4 hours ago

Just download the app from the website and install it

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

Hahahaha, are you fucking serious. As an Apple customer, that’s exactly what I don’t want.

chichichi

an hour ago

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!!”

throw1234567891

an hour ago

> “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.

realusername

4 hours ago

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

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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.

xp84

3 hours ago

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...

throw1234567891

2 hours ago

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.

xp84

2 hours ago

> 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.

throw1234567891

2 hours ago

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.

mytailorisrich

5 hours ago

Consumers never had an issue with Apple's app store. They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.

xp84

3 hours ago

> They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.

No it absolutely doesn't. Search is so broken that you can't even tell people "Search for Hacker News on the App Store" and have them find your app called "Hacker News" -- search ads get top billing now, so it may be a competitor called "Hacker News Today" infested with unskippable ads and a weekly $14.99 in-app purchase. Not that their organic search results themselves are good either.

So, smart companies send customers to a web URL, and then link to their App Store product page directly. The App Store provides zero value to anyone but Apple (by design).

Customers also don't open the App Store today to browse for new and interesting apps, the way Apple seems to pretend. Customers find out about apps from social media ads and install them directly.

realusername

4 hours ago

Every time you try to inform consumers how much Apple charges, Apple bans the app though.

So even Apple thinks informing consumers on how the appstore works is a threat

mytailorisrich

3 hours ago

How is it relevant to a consumer? If I pay for an app I am interested about how much I pay, not about any fees Apple charges the publisher of the app. Same as when I buy something in a shop...

xp84

3 hours ago

How is it Apple's business to raise that question? They don't own the device, they don't own my app, and they don't employ me or the customer.

chichichi

an hour ago

You know the trump tariffs. I guess you are cool with them too.

iamnothere

3 hours ago

So you’re opposed to more transparency?

mnewme

4 hours ago

Well at least 10x better than in the US now

stockresearcher

2 hours ago

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!

tefkah

4 hours ago

> 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?

rekoil

an hour ago

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.

s_dev

3 hours ago

Where is the corresponding EU announcement?

A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.

rekoil

an hour ago

Not necessary, corporations can speak for governments these days, its all cool!

ApolloFortyNine

4 hours ago

>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.

isoprophlex

5 hours ago

> 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?

xp84

2 hours ago

* 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.

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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.

Schnitz

4 hours ago

I wish Apple would extend these options to me as a US user and developer. I’m jealous to be honest.

xp84

3 hours ago

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.

user

3 hours ago

[deleted]

user

4 hours ago

[deleted]

theodric

4 hours ago

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.

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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.

Zak

4 hours ago

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...

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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?

Zak

3 hours ago

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.

weberer

4 hours ago

They do it because they can. You're signaling that you're OK with it by continuing to buy Apple products.

throw1234567891

4 hours ago

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.

knollimar

4 hours ago

But mercedes benz makes sure all the taxi desinations are safe!

Spacemolte

4 hours ago

So how are they trying to circumvent the EU regulations this time?

input_sh

4 hours ago

Have you tried reading the submitted URL?

layer8

4 hours ago

It would be better to read the page the URL links to.

MBCook

5 hours ago

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”?

brcmthrowaway

5 hours ago

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.

OneDeuxTriSeiGo

4 hours ago

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.

slater

5 hours ago

Luckily, none of that is even remotely close to happening.

HumblyTossed

4 hours ago

Nobody cares about AI. Nobody wants that shit running on their device eating away at precious battery life.

reaperducer

4 hours ago

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.

bubblegumcrisis

4 hours ago

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.

kotaKat

5 hours ago

> 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?

burnhamup

4 hours ago

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?

joshstrange

4 hours ago

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.

idichejcjd

3 hours ago

> 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.

nickslaughter02

5 hours ago

[flagged]

lsxr

5 hours ago

What are these “European” value requirements? Apps sold in the EU must comply with local laws.

nickslaughter02

4 hours ago

Anything EPP and their Ursula von der Leyen think they are. Mandatory surveillance of your communication for example, something they have been trying and slowly succeeding in for the past 5 years.

> Chat Control 1.0 passed the European Parliament — through the back door

https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas...