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

[mrochester]

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

Time will tell. Let’s hope we have a way of putting the genie back in the bottle.

 

[robbietop]

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.

Android has multiple competing app stores, and their pricing is all roughly the same.

And I am sorry, but I do not want open source software in the App Store. My experience using Linux for work for 8 years is more often than not, you need a semester of schooling to figure stuff out. Most people can barely figure out the God Damned Start menu, much less how to use some of the more complex and amazing Linux/Unix tools you can get from HomeBrew.

And also Apple would be allowed to block those apps if they don't follow Apple's HID guidelines. Apple owns all rights to the OS itself and is merely allowing the user a license. Imagine all the porn garbage that'll be just a safari wrapper pointed to a website? Those apps are forbidden on the Apple App Store because it's lazy, and if charging for it, unethical.

We're not suddenly gonna get an influx of really well written GPL open source apps just by having a third party app store. All we're gonna get is Fortnite, and eventually a deluge of pornography and app forgeries.

Which brings us to the bigger problem: Outright Theft. Google fought hard to keep Third Party App Stores under their direct control to stop people from simply copying an app and rebranding it. It's not hard to break down an APK or IPA file back into Xcode or wherever and rebrand it, thus completely stealing someone else's app. And since some countries don't abide by WTO rulings, those app devs would have little to no legal recourse to stop it.

 

[Chazak]

That’s the problem. They aren’t allowing any other stores at the moment.

Security is the problem. Apple knows eventually they will have to accommodate other app stores. The problem what rules and security standards will apply. Until that is settled, Apple should not allow other app stores. It would take about five minute to have Android style chaos.

 

[Chazak]

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.

Consumers were never going to see a dime of savings from the EU move or any move to require non-Apple app stores.

 

[tripsync]

That is the whole issue. Epic wanted to do their own thing but apple still is trying to control everything. Apple always likes to cry about "security" yet MacOS is fine with allowing downloads/sideloading from 3rd party locations.

Epic can do their own thing. They can build their own phone. Oh what? Epic doesn't want to spend billions in R&D? Then they shouldn't cry about Apple controlling the phone they built.

 

[tripsync]

The app ecosystem is what brings value to the iPhones and iPads. How many apps does Apple actually build themselves???

And in return for developers developing apps, Apple gave 30%. If developers thought this was too little, they shouldn't have contributed to the app ecosystem and should have never increased value for iPhones.

Sounds to me developers are greedy and trying to find any excuse to bring in more money now that Apple is big.

Apple have charged developers for the priviledge of access to beta SDKs for years and they provide little to no actual support for them on a case by case basis.

Talking about $99/year? That pays for...a few hours of app review time.

What about the Trillions in development costs spent investing in iOS as a platform that all combined developers have spent?

That was the developers choice, not Apple. Developers saw a nice reward for their investment risk. Who setup

No you don’t get to do that without competition and guess what the court system is part of the free market. So just stop being an Apple shill and let this unfold.

Competition is web/android. Literally competition.

The courts will decide on the matter and after a Supreme Court hearing it will be a done deal. Until Apple discovers yet another way to squeeze a dollar out of developers. LOL

Your entire argument is flawed. Too bad.

Just curious with all these opinions. How many of you have apps in the AppStore? And how many of you are actively developing apps for the AppStore?

Been an App Store developer since 2010.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Someone should sue Apple for not respecting Trademarks. We tried to get my daughter the real Anki App for her iPad. WT everlasting F... Come on Apple, it is such a nightmare finding the real owner of an app because any popular app has its name used by scam apps. It is not just me:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anki/comments/ewoir7

https://apps.ankiweb.net/ ?

or maybe

https://www.ankiapp.com/ ?

Doesn’t seem too hard. The biggest problem is that there needs to be some kind of network of interconnected systems and some kind of search engine where one could type in the name of a company or product and end up at a page that shows a list of things one COULD be looking for, like the links I posted above.

It’s an idea that’s so useful, I’m surprised it hasn’t been created already. Maybe some day soon?

/s

 

[robbietop]

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.

Hello!!!??? Welcome to real life where people get paid to give you access to over 1 billion users worldwide.
This isn't some 19 year old college communist circle jerk where we all smoke dope and sleep with each other.

You're gonna pay commission at market value based on the size of the market. And the size of the App Store consumer market is 1,360,000,000 users. Apple is only charging 15% commission for access to 1.36 BILLION people. Technically, that should be 23% given how many people have access to your app.

And costs rise on the Internet. And you hire people to maintain it, they get raises. Also, cross connects and tolls do exist on the Internet, providers sometimes charge to take a certain physical route, such as the notoriously dirty fees for crossing over the middle of the country. This is why many companies maintain an East and West Coast redundancy so they don't have to use the Colorado/North Dakota routes.

So, an third party App Store may actually increase its commission over time.....

PROVING APPLE'S POINT

 

[bsolar]

And I am sorry, but I do not want open source software in the App Store.

There is already open source software in the App Store, just not GPL. Having the ability to install GPL software would be another source of software.

Also some open source apps are considered the best in their category, e.g. VLC which is GPL for their main code-base but had to implement a completely separate code-base for iOS due to the licensing incompatibility.

Furthermore, you are making the obvious mistake of thinking that what you do not want is something everyone else do not want, or a reason others should not want that option.

And also Apple would be allowed to block those apps if they don't follow Apple's HID guidelines. Apple owns all rights to the OS itself and is merely allowing the user a license. Imagine all the porn garbage that'll be just a safari wrapper pointed to a website? Those apps are forbidden on the Apple App Store because it's lazy, and if charging for it, unethical.

The whole point of the new EU regulation is to prevent "gatekeeper" entities to control access.

"Unethical" is irrelevant and the point of not having the gatekeeper able to control access is exactly because the gatekeeper would be able to decide what is "unethical" entirely arbitrarily.

A different discussion is if an app violates the law, but in that case the entity which has standing in that violation should be the one acting and Apple would not be such entity just like Microsoft is not such entity when someone installs something illegal on Windows.

We're not suddenly gonna get an influx of really well written GPL open source apps just by having a third party app store. All we're gonna get is Fortnite, and eventually a deluge of pornography and app forgeries.

Maybe, or maybe not. I've seen my fair share of "doom and gloom" forecasts that turned out to be a big bunch of nothing.

 

[robbietop]

There is already open source software in the App Store, just not GPL. Having the ability to install GPL software would be another source of software.

Also some open source apps are considered the best in their category, e.g. VLC which is GPL for their main code-base but had to implement a completely separate code-base for iOS due to the licensing incompatibility.

Furthermore, you are making the obvious mistake of thinking that what you do not want is something everyone else do not want, or a reason others should not want that option.



The whole point of the new EU regulation is to prevent "gatekeeper" entities to control access.

"Unethical" is irrelevant and the point of not having the gatekeeper able to control access is exactly because the gatekeeper would be able to decide what is "unethical" entirely arbitrarily.

A different discussion is if an app violates the law, but in that case the entity which has standing in that violation should be the one acting and Apple would not be such entity just like Microsoft is not such entity when someone installs something illegal on Windows.



Maybe, or maybe not. I've seen my fair share of "doom and gloom" forecasts that turned out to be a big bunch of nothing.

Ok. Well, we will see then when the EU gets finished making a mockery of law.

 

[bsolar]

Ok. Well, we will see then when the EU gets finished making a mockery of law.

The law is long ratified, only the implementation is still underway as of course it gives companies a specific schedule to become compliant.

 

[gregmancuso]

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.

People keep thinking of the App Store fees as being a transaction fee. It is more than that. And more than simply exposure. Any store will have to charge something. I'd be surprised if it was any less than 10%. And even then the developer would need to compare the services provided for that 10% and weight it against the services Apple provides for the 30%.

In no way do multiple app stores benefit the consumer. Only the developers. Very few (if any) developers will charge for their products because the App Store charges lower fees - as evidenced by the fact that very fe (any?) developers lowered their pricing to the user when Apply reduced the fees from 30% to 15% in certain cases.

The fee apple charges is not a credit card processing fee. It also includes:

• Global tax payments on behalf of developers along with all required reporting
• First line support for application issues, including install and billing
• Support for the App Store (operations, personnel, real estate, hardware, utilities, real estate taxes, etc.)
• App Store review process and staff
• Free access to notifications servers
• Free access to use of Apple Maps in applications
• Free access to one petabyte of online storage for your apps' users' data
• Free access to Testflight and developer app beta support
• Funding for all developer tools which are free to use by all (Xcode, API, docs, etc.)
• Funding for new features in iOS and API (e.g., Metal, AI/ML, HEIC/ProRaw, Portrait, etc.)

And before the "but they already charge developer program fees, the $99 annual fee covers:

• Deployment certificates necessary to submit apps to the App Store
• Access to developer-beta-builds of all Apple products
• Access to developer support (2 free per year)
• Access to developer forums

We can argue all day long as to whether 30% is too high. Or even 15%. But we can all agree it is not 5%. A case could be made to have an itemized fee schedule. 6% for credit card transaction processing, plus tax accounting, and a little towards developer tools funding. An additional 9% to 24% includes all the rest. And everyone still needs to pay the annual fee anyway as they will need deployment certificates just like on Mac.

 

[bsolar]

We can argue all day long as to whether 30% is too high. Or even 15%. But we can all agree it is not 5%.

That's true but only because Apple bundles all of the features you mention and doesn't allow for competition. The value of these features varies dramatically from developer to developer, so for some developers the deal is very good, for others is so-so, for others it's very bad.

Especially a developer which has already a huge content infrastructure, their own global payment processing and good visibility, the deal is basically all on Apple's favour. For a small developer on the other side Apple's deal is incredible value.

 

[gregmancuso]

That's true but only because Apple bundles all of the features you mention and doesn't allow for competition. The value of these features varies dramatically from developer to developer, so for some developers the deal is very good, for others is so-so, for others it's very bad.

Especially a developer which has already a huge content infrastructure, their own global payment processing and good visibility, the deal is basically all on Apple's favour. For a small developer on the other side Apple's deal is incredible value.

The point being - some other App Store charges 10%. Apple will not include free Maps, storage, beta support, or whatever to your app. That is what I meant by determining if the fee is worth it. It's bundled today because there has been no need to separate it. IF third-party stares are ultimately required, you can bet that there will be a schedule of mandatory and optional Apple-fees to be paid on top of whatever fees are paid to the other store.

 

[robbietop]

The law is long ratified, only the implementation is still underway as of course it gives companies a specific schedule to become compliant.

Wow. I am so glad those companies had a choice and there was a EU wide vote on the issue.

 

[bsolar]

Wow. I am so glad those companies had a choice and there was a EU wide vote on the issue.

The companies have been involved when the law was being drafted.

The choice does not belong to the companies though, since the companies are not sovereign in the EU - the people of the EU are.

The law was ratified by the EU parliament which is elected by the people of the EU and acts as representative of the people, as basically all democratically elected parliaments do.

 

[redheeler]

Apple's App Store. Apple's own rules.

Apple App Store belongs to Apple. It belongs to Apple; thus, it needs to be played with its own rules. If these companies don't like it. Why not come up with their own App Store?

Because third-party app stores simply aren't possible without a jailbreak. Next time you look for a way to defend Apple, pick something that's actually possible.

 

[bsolar]

IF third-party stares are ultimately required, you can bet that there will be a schedule of mandatory and optional Apple-fees to be paid on top of whatever fees are paid to the other store.

What do you mean "if"? The legislation is already ratified and will pretty clearly prohibit what you suggest.

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 allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

 

[robbietop]

The companies have been involved when the law was being drafted.

The choice does not belong to the companies though, since the companies are not sovereign in the EU - the people of the EU are.

The law was ratified by the EU parliament which is elected by the people of the EU and acts as representative of the people, as basically all democratically elected parliaments do.

I am so glad the EU gets to decide what we should all be using. I am so grateful to the government for being the chooser. At least now, I can live in a dull, vapid lifestyle and let the government decide what my job is, which phone to buy, and ultimately whether or not I should be allowed to drink that soda. I am eternally grateful to the elected representatives.

 

[bsolar]

I am so glad the EU gets to decide what we should all be using. I am so grateful to the government for being the chooser. At least now, I can live in a dull, vapid lifestyle and let the government decide what my job is, which phone to buy, and ultimately whether or not I should be allowed to drink that soda. I am eternally grateful to the elected representatives.

In every democratic country the people have the government they deserve, for good or bad.

 

[Shirasaki]

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

You know, monetary benefit is not the only form of benefit, right?

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.

This just means companies must not build complete proprietary protocols and whatnot just so that their applications will never communicate with each other. Much like SMS today, the interoperability doesn’t necessarily mean there would be an abstraction layer as you call it. More of a protocol that maintain the fundamental feature of the app (say, send basic text messages in a message app). App itself can add all sort of features they want.

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.

Again, if commission guarantees a fair and just App Store experience for both developers and customers, people will accept higher than Apple commission if the experience is good enough. The problem of Apple commission is they charge 15% to 30% but experience is not there anymore. You can see another message I quoted right at the bottom from a developer. That’s the kind of story customer don’t know that makes developing iOS apps a pain for indie devs or small businesses. Apple has failed to achieve the balance between quality and exposure. But because they are the only game in town, dev have no choice but to either suck up or give up iOS user base entirely. Only game in town also means Apple can literally do whatever they want, including destroying indie developers hard work. If you think that’s a good experience, then good for you.

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

So in your opinion, Apple should build a team, scour the App Store, find good apps user love, then destroy them through merging/buyout/literal copy pasting and driving developers out of business, just because those indie or small devs don’t have the capitol to protect their hard work? Because that’s what “operate business how it wants” mean, including unrestricted terms and conditions and unlimited powers.

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.

I hope more can see this other side of the story Like yours.

 

[Shirasaki]

I am so glad the EU gets to decide what we should all be using. I am so grateful to the government for being the chooser. At least now, I can live in a dull, vapid lifestyle and let the government decide what my job is, which phone to buy, and ultimately whether or not I should be allowed to drink that soda. I am eternally grateful to the elected representatives.

I know. The government has made the world so simple. Black and white, with no shades between. It’s either right or wrong. No ambiguity, pure clarity with no wiggle room. I wonder where that place is.

 

[Naraxus]

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.

If Apple tries pulling that **** (as I highly suspect they will) then expect the EU to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Apple has no right to collect fees from third parties.

 

[Abazigal]

If Apple tries pulling that **** (as I highly suspect they will) then expect the EU to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Apple has no right to collect fees from third parties.

Hasn’t stopped Apple from trying to set a precedent.

Apple will allow Dutch dating apps to use other payment options within existing apps

Apple gets its cut even if you pay through another system.

www.theverge.com

And they will be billing the developers, not third party payment vendors. Which is why I say it’s still too early to see how this will all play out in the end. There’s the ideal scenario painted out by the EU, and then there’s the reality where companies will do their best to adhere to the letter of the law while giving up as little as possible.

So no, I feel this case is far from over, and as I have said earlier, I will believe it when I see it.

 

[bsolar]

And they will be billing the developers, not third party payment vendors.

That makes sense since what they did is unpack all bundled benefits that the fee provides and removed only the payment processing. The devs still have to pay for all other benefits as only the payment processing was made optional.

This means the payment processing alone by Apple costs 3% and if a developer decides to use a third-party payment processing service they pay Apple nothing for payment processing and the third-party whatever fee they agreed with.

Ultimately, Apple was not able to recoup that part of the fee, it was only able to limit the loss to the part of the fee affected by the ruling. The EU regulation is much broader in what it affects.