Judge Lets Apple Further Delay Implementing App Store Rule Changes From Ongoing Epic Dispute

[bsolar]

More than likely, Apple will pay a fine per device for non compliance and pass that fee along to each EU customer.

My understanding is that the fine for non-compliance can be up to 10% of the global turnover... There is no way Apple would be willing to incur that.

Apple already reported themselves to the EU authorities as "Gatekeepers", which means they acknowledge they fall under the new regulations.

 

[Abazigal]

Looking forward to March 2024 when all of this is no longer an issue in the EU

Details ultimately matter, and we still don’t know how Apple intends to implement those features in the EU. For example, Apple might be able to find a way to still bill developers who collect payments via third party means, essentially negating any savings to be had from not going through iTunes. They can make the process of sideloading so onerous and inconvenient that almost nobody bothers with it.

As the saying goes - I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Kazgarth]

Details ultimately matter, and we still don’t know how Apple intends to implement those features in the EU. For example, Apple might be able to find a way to still bill developers who collect payments via third party means, essentially negating any savings to be had from not going through iTunes. They can make the process of sideloading so onerous and inconvenient that almost nobody bothers with it.

As the saying goes - I will believe it when I see it.

The EU law is clear as day. Allow third party app stores with equal functionality as their own store, any favoritism will result in a hefty penalty.

 

[mrochester]

The EU law is clear as day. Allow third party app stores with equal functionality as their own store, any favoritism will result in a hefty penalty.

It’s just a shame that is to developers benefit and not consumers

 

[CarAnalogy]

There is nothing inherently unconstitutional or evil about anti-steering policies. Apple’s policy is really no different than that every other retailer has in place. A manufacturer is not allowed to sell stock a Target, for example.with packaging stating that the price is cheaper at another WalMart or directly from the manufacturer.

I personally have no opinion on the provision, but it really is not the hill to die on.

It’s not unconstitutional yet. Let’s see what the court says. This is more like forbidding any packaging sold in Walmart from having the company’s website on the box. I don’t think it’s entirely clear whether it’s ok to forbid something like that or not. As Homer Simpson said, “That’s for the courts to decide.”

And Apple has apparently chosen the App Store as the hill to die on. I agree, but apparently they don’t.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Hence achieving the ultimate dream: a soup of random app stores.

Imagine it. What if there was a whole world of them? A World Wide Web of them, if you will. Where people post whatever they want and whoever wants to download it can. I don’t know, sounds crazy.

We already have: App Store, Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam Store, Epic Store, apt, yum, Flatpak, Snap, etc etc etc etc.

We are already there. What we need are more interoperable standards like the old days.

 

[mrochester]

Imagine it. What if there was a whole world of them? A World Wide Web of them, if you will. Where people post whatever they want and whoever wants to download it can. I don’t know, sounds crazy.

We already have: App Store, Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam Store, Epic Store, apt, yum, Flatpak, Snap, etc etc etc etc.

We are already there. What we need are more interoperable standards like the old days.

I always struggle with this concept of ‘interoperability’ being some sort of gold standard to attain as it just means the control for how something works passes from one organisation to another organisation. If you want software to be interoperable across multiple different platforms then you need to introduce an abstraction layer, and then who owns and operates and decides how that works? Everyone would then be constrained by what the abstraction layer can do, and competitive advantages between different ecosystems would be eliminated and the market would consolidate even further to even fewer competitors.

 

[robbietop]

So, a third party App Store won't take a cut from developers?

 

[mrochester]

So, a third party App Store won't take a cut from developers?

They almost certainly will take a cut else they’d quickly go out of business.

 

[robbietop]

They almost certainly will take a cut else they’d quickly go out of business.

Well, the way some people talk it sounds like Apple is evil for taking a cut. And all I can think is "So will the third party App Store."

You get pissed off at Comcast for increasing your bill and leave for AT&T.....only for AT&T to do the same. It's like....how dumb can people be?

 

[mrochester]

Well, the way some people talk it sounds like Apple is evil for taking a cut. And all I can think is "So will the third party App Store."

You get pissed off at Comcast for increasing your bill and leave for AT&T.....only for AT&T to do the same. It's like....how dumb can people be?

The expectation is that other app stores will charge a lower commission (although it‘ll need to be high enough to at least cover their costs and factor in some profit). Developers will need to very carefully decide whether paying a lower commission is worth the (what I’d expect) lower levels of exposure that they’ll get from being in a third party app store vs being in the Apple App Store.

If being in the Apple App Store means your app can seen by up-to 95% of iPhone users, but being in a third party store means you app can only be seen by up-to 25% of iPhone users, you need to decide whether that’s a trade-off you are prepared to make to save on commission.

 

[laptech]

And that people is how you prevent changes from taking place, you appeal after appeal after appeal and after appeal. Apple have got very deep pockets they can keep this going for a number of years.

 

[Dremmel]

It’s just a shame that is to developers benefit and not consumers

That isn't necessarily true. A new store might

1. A new store might push more of the most suitable content rather than the most profitable.
2. A new store might give equal weighting to paid apps so that you can pay a one off $1 rather than subscribing $1 a month forever.
3. A new store might treat developers equally which is what Apple's store originally did until the big money names got involved. Got 5 similar different apps? A big name has 5 similar to your 5? You'll be told to make them all in to one container app losing four apps and the visibility without even being able to inform your users. Meanwhile the big name keeps all of theirs, and other big names hoover up your old app names.
4. Different charts might be given equal weighting so that you don't have to trawl through all the monetised stuff first before you can get to the genuinely free stuff.
5. Genuinely free apps might get their own section.
6. App news might be genuine i.e. developers with the biggest wallets can't buy a huge advert like the 'Today' one.
7. The charts might not be so static.
8. The recommended apps might get some variance rather than being the usual suspects.
9. We might even get an ad free store. Imagine a store where the developers can't rig the search buy buying keyword impressions. Much easier for the best to rise to the top.
10. The charts might actually be legitimate. Not rigged by Search Ads. Not curated based upon whether they make loads of money / have IAPs etc.
11. We might see indie developers come back. How often do we now see new, innovative and original apps in the top charts?
... this list could go on forever ...

 

[mrochester]

That isn't necessarily true. A new store might

1. A new store might push more of the most suitable content rather than the most profitable.
2. A new store might give equal weighting to paid apps so that you can pay a one off $1 rather than subscribing $1 a month forever.
3. A new store might treat developers equally which is what Apple's store originally did until the big money names got involved. Got 5 similar different apps? A big name has 5 similar to your 5? You'll be told to make them all in to one container app losing four apps and the visibility without even being able to inform your users. Meanwhile the big name keeps all of theirs, and other big names hoover up your old app names.
4. Different charts might be given equal weighting so that you don't have to trawl through all the monetised stuff first before you can get to the genuinely free stuff.
5. Genuinely free apps might get their own section.
6. App news might be genuine i.e. developers with the biggest can't buy a huge advert.
7. The charts might not be so static.
8. The recommended apps might get some variance rather than being the usual suspects.
9. We might even get an ad free store. Imagine a store where the developers can't rig the search buy buying keyword impressions. Much easier for the best to rise to the top.
10. The charts might actually be legitimate. Not rigged by Search Ads. Not curated based upon whether they make loads of money / have IAPs etc.
11. We might see indie developers come back. How often do we now see new, innovative and original apps in the top charts?
... this list could go on forever ...

That’s an awful lot of mights against the backdrop of the reality that any new competitors will need to make money (and they’ll not only need to make money, they’ll need to continue growing the amount of money they are making)

I admire your optimism but I think the reality is we’ll get more stores that’ll be WORSE than the way Apple operate as I expect that they will monetise personal data a lot more aggressively than Apple. All competitors operate in the same capitalist economy as Apple and will have the same incentives.

 

[bsolar]

Well, the way some people talk it sounds like Apple is evil for taking a cut. And all I can think is "So will the third party App Store."

The issue is not Apple taking a cut, it's Apple stifling competition. Competing App Stores would be able to compete in features and/or price or even try different monetization models.

Furthermore, the differences might not even be on price. Due to Apple App Store licensing limitations, GPL applications are incompatible and cannot be offered. A third-party App Store compatible with the GPL could open a lot of additional open source software to the ecosystem.

 

[mrochester]

The issue is not Apple taking a cut, it's Apple stifling competition. Competing App Stores would be able to compete in features and/or price or even try different monetization models.

Furthermore, the differences might not even be on price. Due to Apple App Store licensing limitations, GPL applications are incompatible and cannot be offered. A third-party App Store compatible with the GPL could open a lot of additional open source software to the ecosystem.

Is there any software that falls under a GPL license that users are currently demanding but unable to get?

Users already accomplish just about every task they could possibly want on a smartphone, to the extent that for many people, their smartphone is their ONLY computing device.

I’m yet to be convinced by what piece of software/functionality is missing from that that is suddenly going to be widely available and used that makes disrupting the current model worthwhile.

All I can see we’ll end up with is a balkanised collection of app stores with users having to give their personal and financial information to more institutions which in turn leads to greater opportunities for users to be scammed and defrauded, or have dark patterns/blockers thrown in their way by having to maintain subscriptions/apps from multiple different stores.

You can imagine the news headlines now ‘iPhone users scammed by third party App Store. Regulators call on Apple to do more to protect consumers’.

I suppose we can all have a good laugh when that inevitably happens.

 

[bsolar]

Is there any software that falls under a GPL license that users are currently demanding but unable to get?

Yes.

Furthermore, even existing software which currently requires separate code-bases to satisfy the App Store licensing requirements might receive better support, better features or become easier to maintain for developers.

 

[bsolar]

All I can see we’ll end up with is a balkanised collection of app stores with users having to give their personal and financial information to more institutions which in turn leads to greater opportunities for users to be scammed and defrauded, or have dark patterns/blockers thrown in their way by having to maintain subscriptions/apps from multiple different stores.

You can imagine the news headlines now ‘iPhone users scammed by third party App Store. Regulators call on Apple to do more to protect consumers’.

I suppose we can all have a good laugh when that inevitably happens.

You do realize that third-party software or digital stores are available in basically all other platforms? Why would it be a complete disaster on iOS when it's daily business everywhere else?

 

[CarAnalogy]

I always struggle with this concept of ‘interoperability’ being some sort of gold standard to attain as it just means the control for how something works passes from one organisation to another organisation. If you want software to be interoperable across multiple different platforms then you need to introduce an abstraction layer, and then who owns and operates and decides how that works? Everyone would then be constrained by what the abstraction layer can do, and competitive advantages between different ecosystems would be eliminated and the market would consolidate even further to even fewer competitors.

I'm thinking more about things like licensing and distribution. Which is what the App Store does.

 

[mrochester]

You do realize that third-party software or digital stores are available in basically all other platforms? Why would it be a complete disaster on iOS when it's daily business everywhere else?

I do realise that but it's a worse experience for consumers than it is on iOS. But that's what the regulators demand then so be it.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Apple should be allowed to operate its business how it wants. Im pro union, pro worker, anti monopoly but this feels like government overreach.

 

[bsolar]

I do realise that but it's a worse experience for consumers than it is on iOS. But that's what the regulators demand then so be it.

It might be a worse experience for some consumers, but better for others.

 

[mrochester]

It might be a worse experience for some consumers, but better for others.

We should have it whichever way is better for most consumers IMO.

 

[jkichline]

Developer here. Apple has just started enforcing an App Store guideline that is forcing us to not collect any personal information in the app, even if our app relies on account creation. That means we are not allowed to ask for email address if the user is making a purchase. This is new and an app that we've submitted for review since 2012 and has been approved 37 TIMES is now being rejected for this new rule.

Apple likes to claim this is for customer privacy. But let's be real here. They don't want developers to require email address for in-app purchased because they are being forced to allow developers to tell users via email that there's another way to pay for subscriptions. They are not allowed to enforce that. So in Apple fashion now they are disallowing something they've permitted for 10 years, a simple email address.

I've changed the app to not require the email address (there's a link people can click if they don't want to provide information) and yet Apple still rejected the app. I suspect that THIS will be used as further monopolistic behavior and will arrive in a courtroom at some point.

I've been a big advocate for the App Store and my business would not have existed without it. BUT... the App Store is not keeping up with needs of developers. The in-app subscription system is terrible and they try their best to keep out other platforms and ecosystems to almost a laughable extent. Their systems cannot handle the nuance of group of subscriptions with multiple users or multiple platforms and now they are trying to lock in users. This is why developers want out... because of App Store limitations.

I'd happily pay Apple a kick back for "discovery" if it meant I could route payment and account systems elsewhere. It's that big of a nuisance and point of confusion for our users. I don't want to prevent Apple from getting what they are due and I'd happily pay for product placement in the store, but the rules they have in place are monopolistic and draconian in nature and it causes them to not listen to the needs of developers and those who have created value in their products in the first place.

 

[bsolar]

We should have it whichever way is better for most consumers IMO.

It's a matter of opinion which way is better. The EU believes the new regulation is better for consumers after all.