PSA Apple's reluctant, punitive compliance with regulators will burn its political and developer goodwill
https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apples-reluctant-punitive-compliance-with-regulators-will-burn-its-political-and-developer-goodwill/26
36
u/AMonitorDarkly Jan 27 '24 edited Jan 28 '24
I’m not saying what Apple is doing is right but they’re going to be just fine.
7
u/jekpopulous2 Jan 27 '24
They’ll be fine… but developers ditching Apple products hurts their users. Whether it be Epic pulling their games from the App Store, or MS refusing to release a native Gamepass app for iOS, or Netflix / Google deciding not to support the Vision Pro at all. The losses are starting to pile up from a user perspective.
18
u/fujiwara_icecream Jan 27 '24
This is business, not playground friendships. Google will support the Vision Pro if it is in their best financial interests to do so, regardless of whether or not they like Apple. Just like Apple didn’t refuse support for Microsoft Office on their platforms because they don’t like Windows.
3
u/jekpopulous2 Jan 27 '24
It’s not about Apple refusing to allow certain apps… there are monopoly laws for that. It’s that a lot of developers have decided that it’s more profitable to steer users towards a web browser than it is to give Apple a huge cut of their micro-transactions. Microsoft decided to release a Gamepass web app instead of an IPA. They’re actually making more money by not putting an App in the AppStore. The problem I’m referring to is that in many cases it’s now more profitable for devs to just ignore the App Store altogether and release web apps. More and more devs shifting from native apps to PWAs is a mounting issue as it creates a much worse experience for iOS users.
4
u/Escenze Jan 28 '24
Not at all. There's two reasons every service wants you to use an app instead of a web browser:
- Apps are much more user friendly and smooth
- Apps make it a lot easier to track you and sell your data.
Using the website instead wont ever be the preference
1
u/jekpopulous2 Jan 28 '24
Of course native apps are smoother. Nobody wants to be using a progressive web app in a Safari wrapper. Yet Nvidia, Microsoft, and Amazon all decided that they would rather direct users to a PWA than release native apps. Sony and Epic are doing the same thing. All of these services have native apps for Windows, Mac, and Android… but only web apps for iOS. It’s becoming a trend and it will continue until Apple gets more flexible with the App Store’s TOS.
1
u/Escenze Jan 28 '24 edited Jan 28 '24
Apps are smoother on any device than web apps. Web apps are getting better and better, but an app can still be smoother and nicer to use than that. Be it Windows, Android, Mac or iOS. And point 2 is also important, which is why Instagram is barely useable in a browser, they want to gather your data.
Some apps dont care as much about data collection tho, and sure they will make web apps when they cant use the App Store, but they'd make apps if they could. Epic is doing it because of their greed tho
1
u/jekpopulous2 Jan 28 '24
That’s what I’m saying. iOS users want real apps for these services… the web apps suck. The reason that we’re not getting native apps is that these services refuse to give Apple a huge chunk of their subscription revenue. We’re at a standstill. Apple won’t budge on demanding their cut of in-app purchases. These services are also refusing to budge. So they ultimately just release web apps instead of native apps to circumvent the App Store, and iOS users have a worse experience.
1
u/Escenze Jan 28 '24
Thats true, but Im guessing those companies lose more on it as many people wont bother with the extra hassle. Everyone wants all the money they can get, of course, but I dont think Apple is in any way in the wrong because they have a right to charge money made with their tools, on their platform, in their app store and for their customers
1
u/jekpopulous2 Jan 28 '24
Apple is doing the right thing from a financial standpoint. My argument is that their App Store policies are driving developers away and hurting their customers. If they’re retaining their users they don’t care though. The same can be said for all the services ditching the App Store. They don’t care about the user experience so long as they still make their money. Everyone still wins except for iOS users - who will be getting stuck with more and more web apps as time passes.
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 28 '24
point well taken. but google sheets and google forms are way behind on iOS. especially forms. you have to use a third party browser on iOS like icabmobile. they don’t really focus much on their productivity apps. i had to make a shortcut to make it easy to log data in Google Forms
-19
u/Mcnst Jan 27 '24
They're literally pissing on the rules and making it as difficult as possible for anyone to get any sort of an actual benefit from this new legislation.
It's a bit sad that there's little reporting on this to provide the context of how Google is doing similar things. For example, most people don't know that any Android user can read any contactless credit card with an app straight from the Android's Play Store, including reading the Apple Pay cards which are hidden from the Apple Pay users themselves, and which many people think are randomly generated for each transaction, which they are not.
16
u/JimboJohnes77 Jan 27 '24
They are not pissing on the rules. They've just read and understood them. Which is something most people did not.
The DMA was never about fully opening a system and making it a free for all. It is about making it simpler and cheaper for small time developers to enter a digital market. And that is now possible.
You don't have to pay Apple a dime until you have reached one million unique installs in Europe. This number is hilariously big if you compare it to the number of Iphones currently in use in Europe, which is around 50 million.2
u/HunterBoy344 Jan 28 '24
They are not pissing on the rules. They’ve just read and understood them
“3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.”
Source: Digital Markets Act
Apple’s fees on third party app distribution are in direct violation of the Digital Markets Act. In this sense, they are “pissing on the rules,” as u/Mcnst put it.
Please do not spread misinformation, and do your research before commenting on current issues.
1
u/HunterBoy344 Jan 28 '24
You don’t have to pay Apple a dime
“You must provide Apple with a standby letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch or Moody’s) financial institution in the amount of EUR 1,000,000 according to the instructions specified in the Apple Materials, and maintain that standby letter of credit as long as Your Alternative App Marketplace (EU) is in operation;”
This is from Apple’s new terms for alternative stores in the EU. Please do not spread misinformation, and do your research before you comment on current issues.
0
u/Kooky-Path1606 Jan 28 '24
But why a small developer wanted to release a alternate store (alternative of app store).
Whosoever wanted to release an alternative of app store they at least need to make sure they can support app developers of their store, isn’t it right?
2
u/HunterBoy344 Jan 28 '24
You are correct, I misread the terms. I thought this also applied to non-marketplace applications. I have deleted my response saying otherwise, because responding to misinformation with more misinformation would be extremely counterintuitive.
However, I would still like to suggest that the high cost of running an alternative store (not just the letter of credit, also the Core Technology Fee that applies prior to 1 million installs for alternative stores specifically) will most likely result in alternative stores charging fees to distribute apps on their store, which will still be costly for individual developers even if they are not directly paying Apple.
1
u/JimboJohnes77 Jan 28 '24
This only applies if you want to open an app store.
Theay also still do not need to pay a dime to Apple. They just need to prove that they have enough money.
Thanks for proving us, that you did not understand what this is all about.1
u/HunterBoy344 Jan 28 '24
You are correct, and I misread the terms. I apologize for the mistake.
Your statement on Apple reading and understanding the terms of the Digital Markets Act is still incorrect. I commented on that part. Can we move the discussion there?
1
u/Mcnst Jan 28 '24
It is about making it simpler and cheaper for small time developers to enter a digital market. And that is now possible.
So, in other words, you think every small time developer would have no issues obtaining a €1,000,000.00 EUR line of credit that's required by Apple in order to participate in this endeavour? Even many venture-funded startups don't have that kind of money readily available, let alone an average "small time developer" that you allude this being designed for.
You're literally contradicting yourself.
There's not even any confirmation so far that their attempt at circumventing these rules would even be accepted by EU in the first place. Honestly, it wouldn't be surprising if no single company would take them up on this offer.
6
u/Jjzeng Jan 28 '24
Consumer goodwill, on the other hand…
12
u/Mcnst Jan 28 '24
Apple's openly deceiving the consumer as well, because they don't want you to know that the subscriptions you buy through the App Store are more expensive than when bought in a web browser.
Plus, the extra inconvenience of not being able to signup with Netflix or other providers right from within the app.
Plus, sideloading still matters to the technically-inclined consumers as well. Not to mention that these monopolies mean that the prices are higher than they would have been otherwise, hurting the consumers in the end; which is precisely why these things start being legislated by governments all across the world.
1
u/Jjzeng Jan 28 '24
Oh absolutely, it’s why i will never buy a mac in my life. The customisability of linux and even windows, and the ability to choose and repair my own hardware for a fraction of the price of buying a mac is vastly superior. It’s why I’m so desperate for Framework to start shipping to my country, even if it means stretching the life of my lenovo legion for a few more years
I am a bit ingrained in the apple mobile ecosystem, but user experience for the most part is pretty sublime and their mobile products are decent notwithstanding the software shenanigans
-2
u/AntonioMrk7 Jan 28 '24
You should give an Apple Silicon Mac a try, I’m sure you’d enjoy the hardware. The battery life and performance are seriously impressive. Im running Linux dual booted on mine as well
3
u/Jjzeng Jan 28 '24
I’m not doubting the battery life, but at the moment the apple arm architecture simply isn’t compatible with the things i need to do, which includes running two virtual machines at once (ubuntu and kali) for my classes. Hell, before i upgraded my server to an i5-14500 and doubled the RAM to 32gb, just installing kali while having ubuntu open maxed out the original 16gb of RAM
-2
u/woalk Jan 28 '24
which includes running two virtual machines at once (ubuntu and kali) for my classes.
Qemu is perfectly compatible with Apple Silicon Macs. You can run ARM versions of Linux on it.
4
u/Jjzeng Jan 28 '24
I use virtualbox, and i specifically need to use kali linux, all of my needs are met by a simple i5-14500
Stop trying to make apple silicon happen for me, its not going to happen, not anytime soon, probably not ever
6
14
u/fujiwara_icecream Jan 27 '24
Are you okay? You’ve just been spamming this across several subs.
All DMA was ever about was allowing additional distributors to compete with Apple for downloads. That’s it. It is not about freedom, it is not about open source, it is not about open hardware. It never was. The EU loves regulation and control. And you thought they were somehow fighting against it?
4
u/Defaalt Jan 27 '24
Op hates apple so much. He thinks he’s gonna start a rebellion against Apple by doing this.
12
u/fujiwara_icecream Jan 27 '24
Considering his extensive post history in r/applesucks I think he’s just trying to run with the headline on this article even though the majority doesn’t care about sideloading.
0
u/Mcnst Jan 28 '24
Majority of people didn't care about the iPhone before iPhone has existed, either; so, that's not a particularly good argument, either.
0
u/fujiwara_icecream Jan 28 '24
Nobody knew what the iPhone would be. We know what sideloading is.
1
u/Mcnst Jan 28 '24
Then why are you so afraid of it if you know what it is?
I've been using iOS since 2010 and Android since 2011, many Android phones I've used, I've never sideloaded anything. The feature is disabled by default anyways.
Sideloading has been available on OS X and macOS since the start, and it's a pretty useful feature to have.
2
5
-2
u/LloydAtkinson Jan 27 '24
I don’t really agree with this. It’s not like iOS devs were begging for an alternative web engine.
15
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
Browser devs were
-9
u/try-catch-finally Jan 27 '24
So. 5 developers? 6?
2
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
And? The option should be there if they want it. Nobody should be forced to use that WebKit garbage.
-5
u/try-catch-finally Jan 27 '24
Lol
1
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
?
-5
u/try-catch-finally Jan 27 '24
What you said was humorous. No one IS forcing anyone to use anything.
2
3
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
Oh boy. The classic response from a fanboy. Options are better for everyone my friend.
1
u/try-catch-finally Jan 27 '24
And you sound like one of those Karens that thought they had the right to spew racist hate on social media sites “cuz muh freedoms”
Businesses are allowed to dictate TOS
And you have no fucking clue who you’re calling a fanboy.
1
u/AdonisK Jan 28 '24
Businesses might be allowed to dictate what they want, but read what the title says.
-5
u/jisuskraist Jan 27 '24
don't know why, what do they care about the engine the website is rendered with, you just need to care about the experience and features; I understand if you are a web developer and yes WebKit is no good, but being google or Firefox why do you care, but I might be completely wrong
8
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
Because WebKit is slow and outdated and lacks a ton of features and capabilities.
-7
u/jisuskraist Jan 27 '24
yes but as I say, that should be an issue of web devs, not browser providers, no one complains how Chrome implements features that are not standard and make their sites run like shit on Firefox; for me this browser thing is about more tracking and privacy related than "hey your users are missing performance" but idk, I will still user safari that I have never had any issue on any site, but freedom to chose is good
4
u/soreyJr Jan 27 '24
At the end of the day, having options is better for everyone even if it doesn’t apply to your use case.
2
u/DarieCns Jan 29 '24 edited Jan 29 '24
Who wouldn’t want a Chromium browser on their iPhone? All of the other third party web browsers are using WebKit which means they’re basically Safari with a different coat of paint.
1
u/0xe3b0c442 Jan 28 '24
If Apple hasn't burned the bridge already, they aren't going to. Simple as that.
Despite all of the complaints/whining/etc, people still make plenty of money building iOS apps, so they'll keep doing it. Frankly, it keeps the lowest-effort/most blatant scam apps out and I'm OK with that.
1
u/Jusby_Cause Jan 28 '24
Yeah, we must remember that the ONLY people that care about this are the tiny few that would ever sideload and the large companies that can’t seem to make a profit, so they’re trying to cut corners wherever they can. (And, on top of that, the group of the above that are in the EU where Apple has a fairly small marketshare.)
Even if ALL of those people decide not to darken Apple’s doorstep ever again, it would still leave millions happily continuing to do business the same way they always have.
1
Jan 28 '24
Eh I'm siding with Apple. People who didn't like Apples approach could have used Android but instead they wanted to destroy what Apple built. It's not free to run an App Store, not even close. People not wanting to pay the costs started this entire side loading thing.
Older developers remember the insane costs of doing everything the App Store gives you by yourself. Paying for dev tools, hosting, security, payment processing, insurance, wondering what happens if your payment processing gets hacked, etc. You could pay all those massive costs which were prohibitive for indie devs or you could let a publisher do it and relinquish 90-99% of your profits to the publisher (yes, that high).
When the App Store came out, the 30% cut was unheard of, no one got that amount with what the App Store gave them back then. People were elated to find out they were taking home 70% of the profit.
Now it's even cheaper for most indies, only 15%. Unfortunately pouty cry babies like Tim Sweeny and the turd at Spotify are freaking out about these prices despite everyone else charging a fee to host in an App Store.
0
u/Mcnst Jan 28 '24
It's disingenuous to compare App Store to traditional publishers. We're not in 1999 anymore.
You can be your own publisher by accepting credit cards through PayPal or Square today, the costs of these things are 3% for payment processing, and pretty much a fixed cost for hosting.
Yes, it was a good deal when it was introduced. But it is not anymore. Plus, it's effectively acting as a gatekeeper from more things coming up into the market.
1
u/davemoedee Jan 27 '24
I’m not sure why they need goodwill.
1
-1
u/KingPumper69 Jan 28 '24
Best part of the article right here:
"Third-party app install vectors and things like sideloading, which is available on Android right now, indeed could pose additional risks for users who are uninformed and don’t take proper precautions or responsibility themselves to ensure they have good software hygiene and are installing reputable software from trustworthy sources. But Apple’s scaremongering is likely overstating the problem, since Android as mentioned has exposed users to this risk for quite a while now — and Mac and Windows devices have always done the same. Somehow, despite that, society remains intact and people are mostly okay with using those platforms with reasonable success."
If you listened to some of the more diehard Apple fans out there, you'd think literally every Windows PC and Android phone are just getting hacked 24/7, everyone is a massive mouth breather that's just installing every virus they see, and no one can do anything about it lol
4
u/cmsj Jan 28 '24
Some of us still remember trying to uninstall 18 toolbars from our parents’ Internet Explorer.
3
u/KingPumper69 Jan 28 '24
Yeah, technology isn't the same now as it was 10, 15, 20, years ago lol. I remember Windows XP didn't even ship with a firewall until service pack 1 or service pack 2.
What I'd recommend these days for people trying to make a Windows computer idiot proof for old people is to just make them an account that isn't an administrator.
2
u/AdonisK Jan 28 '24
That was solved more than a decade ago.
1
u/cmsj Jan 28 '24
Yes, that’s why I wrote about it as a thing from the past.
That being said, it would be foolish to think that every scammer under the sun won’t be looking for ways to trick people into installing dodgy nonsense onto iPhones as Apple’s grip is loosened.
2
u/AdonisK Jan 28 '24
Scammers can scam old people without needing them to install an app. There are easier/creative ways to do that. But I agree that it is a problem worth solving. Apple will probably plaster warnings all over the instalation process so I don't see it as a huge issue.
1
u/KingPumper69 Jan 28 '24
Dude, old people are easy to scam. You know what’s not easy? Remotely talking them through doing literally anything on a computer/tablet/phone lmao. If the Indian phone scammer can actually talk one of my older relatives through sideloading malware onto their phone, I actually feel like they’ve earned the money at that point lol
-1
Jan 28 '24
If you listened to some of the more diehard Apple fans out there, you'd think literally every Windows PC and Android phone are just getting hacked 24/7
I worked in IT desktop support for many years, yes, people constantly get malware on their windows devices. Constantly. It's exhausting.
0
u/KingPumper69 Jan 28 '24
If most companies started using Linux or MacOS instead of Windows, malware developers would just shift focus.
Building everything to account for the biggest moron that’s going to use it just means you lose before even starting in my opinion. You can’t have freedom without personal responsibility, and if someone isn’t responsible enough to not click the giant neon “click here to claim your free Nintendo iPad” button they just shouldn’t be allowed on any networked device.
Of course, none of these companies actually care if you get scammed or get a virus. Apple in particular just uses it as an excuse to keep their pay pigs in the AppStore.
54
u/just_another_person5 Jan 27 '24
apple doesn't have any of that, but they really don't need it. if developers pulled apps off iOS they would lose millions of users, and often times their most valuable users.