▲ 27 points
back
60 comments
Apple's clear intent is to make it extremely unattractive to use alternative stores (unless you've got an app with a very high ARPU). You can argue about ambiguities in the legal text, but this is absolutely contrary to the intent of the DMA, which is to foster competition.
I would be pretty surprised if the EU has no objections to this policy.
I don't understand the situation.
If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app?
Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?
Apple will no longer block apps based on content, only on malware or accessing private apis. That is the change that 3rd party app stores bring. You could now have porn apps, emulators, copyright infringement (though I assume the rights holders will come after the 3rd party store in that case) and Apple will notarize them so they can be distributed on 3rd party stores.
The point is malicious compliance with EU regulations.
They cannot overtly say they are not going to do what they were told to.
How could the EU strongly respond to Apple's malicious compliance here? (Assuming regulators see blatant violation in Apple's new policy.)
The removing of the app is not the problem. Apple requires signed apps before they can be installed. They retain the right to remove apps specifically for security violations.
This does not give them the right to block apps based on content or similar factors. You could publish a porn app that Apple would normally disallow. In this program Apple would not try to prevent that from being installed. If it started stealing user credentials, then their security provisions would come into play and the app would be removed.
This absolutely gives them the ability (they have all the rights here, and publishers and users have none -- they only need abilities) so your entire line of argument is rendered silly and moot. What they can do they can do and no amount of fanboy defense changes that. Apple has given itself the ability (rights are immaterial, you have none) to do this, and that's that.
As it is now, you cannot publish an app on an alternative app store without Apple's permission.
The financial part doesn't even matter, they're still reserving the right to censor.
I would say it's the right of exclusion that they keep post sale via cryptography.
You are right, right now there's no point to it and I doubt that'll be good enough for the EU.
> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple.
(It’s per year, not per month.)
Also of note, updates count as downloads.
It's 0,5 USD for every install after the first 1 000 000, per year. Updates don't make any difference. Worth noting is that a user who never opens the app after the first time will still count as an install.
There is a couple of interesting ramifications there.
1 obvious, so, they just disincentivised updates? Brilliant. Or maybe the idea is for app developers to charge for updates.
2 oh right, developers have to update frequently or else Apple will remove the app for being a security risk or simply no longer being compatible with current os and apis, os and apis whose changes are controlled by who again?
So they charge for updates, and make it a rule that you must update.
What a great racket!
They count as downloads but the count is download/per-user/per-year. Still not going to be cheap but yeah. If you have 2M users and you ship 1 update or 1,000,000 new updates in a year you just pay $0.50/user (for 1M of them, since the first 1M is "free").
However on the flip side a user can be someone who downloads your app, pokes at for 10 minutes and deletes it. Not something I would call a user, but for apples purposes it works.
Honestly, part the issue is the DMA does little about the infringement of personal property rights of device owners.
Just going to repost this comment I made a few days ago to explain:
Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that.
Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain.
Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here.
In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own.
For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]
in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"
For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise:
Microsoft clearly wants Apple to spearhead this viewpoint that platform owners can't be regulated by legislation. It's entirely logical for them.
In case you're new to this industry, let me illuminate this for you. All these rich guys and tech companies are trying to get richer and if that means supporting their competitors positions some of the time, they do it. Everyone wants the kind of control Apple stole from users with the App Store so everyone, including Apple competitors, are going to do what they can, including praising Apple, to get some of that sweet, sweet lock-in for themselves. This is not a difficult concept and I'm surprised to see HN commenters so oblivious and so obsequious.
I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.
If you don't pick the new terms nothing at all changes for you.
What are you talking about? Nothing changes for current apps, and nothing stops you from continuing with things as they are.
> 1_000_000$
The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions.
As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a personal choice. I agree with the author that only allowing third-party browser engines in certain locales would create an undue burden on companies like Mozilla, or really anyone who wants to compete without WebKit, and seems mean-spirited in that it follows the letter of the regulation without following the spirit.
> most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM
Commas, dots and spaces are also used. Underscores are unusual, a bit of a vestige of maritime communications.
As I said, most publications would use commas, and they'd put the dollar sign in front of the value.
It’s used in Apple’s programming language swift.
> The way most publications would write that value
He doesn't appear to be a "most publications" to me. He's a computer programmer, blogging his thoughts, presumably speaking to other computer programmers.
The convention he uses is widely used, in computer programming languages. Swift, Python, Rust, C and javascript all allow it.
Yeah, that styling reads like something out of an exceptionally unconvincing scammer email.
This is about the EU, and in the EU it would be written 1.000.000. Since that could be confusing for US readers, they used 1_000_000, which happens to be a convention that Swift supports, so many Apple developers would be familiar with it.
Or perhaps, you know, perhaps they happen to be a French citizen. "In France, the full stop was already in use in printing to make Roman numerals more readable, so the comma was chosen." [1] By using an underscore, they avoid using the English style separator.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#:~:text=In....
I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country".
For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it affords me.
But their stance here is impossible for me to defend. It makes me wish it was possible for competition to exist in this space beyond the duopoly. The reality is that "make your own phone" is not viable, and because it is not viable, these kinds of policy decisions are extremely impactful.
I've never been under any illusions about Apple's benevolence, i.e. I know they're a company out to make money like the rest and not some force for good. But I've respected what they've accomplished. This latest move has made me lose quite a bit of respect. They're barely attempting to hide the maliciousness of their "compliance".
I hope the EU takes it to them at this point.
My only hesitation with these rules is that I feel like Apple, as a business, has a right to do whatever they want with their business so long as there are alternatives and I do consider Android to be a viable alternative. I wouldn't want the government forcing my business to do anything that I felt devalued my brand or my product so I do understand the "maliciousness of their compliance".
Let's say that I created some kind of device, not as complex as a phone, but something that was like a little portable video game system or something. If the government can tell Apple that they have to allow third-parties to be able to do whatever they want to these devices, then it may hurt my business if third-parties don't have the same standards of quality as I do. Apple's standard is really, really high (insanely high by some accounts) and I feel like mine is too.
That's the only reason that I would oppose this type of legislation. The people complaining about Apple's behavior are the people that have become successful off of Apple's ecosystem and customer base. They want the benefits of having access to Apple's highly curated customer base without the downsides of having to develop and foster is themselves. It feels entitled in a way that I only begrudgingly support because of Apple's size and resources. If it was any other large corporation, I'd feel the same way. I wouldn't feel this way about any regular company, though. I would be rallying against the governance.
It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily:
That's like saying "if you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and live on a yacht in the ocean". You can, at huge cost, but a lot of stuff you're relying on just doesn't work any more because the people who made them have no interest in servicing you, e.g. your bank accounts.
A better option is "use Android", which already does support multiple stores.
The retort makes more sense if you think of it as being addressed to someone like Epic, who frankly could take Android and build it into something more competitive, which would benefit us more than just deciding Apple has won.
The problem with this is that you'll never get every 3rd party service to support it. Everybody I've talked to who had a Windows Phone really liked the OS, but with so many apps missing compared to Android and iOS it was dead in the water.
PWAs could bring some improvement here, but there are also plenty of services (ie Dropbox) that are essential to people and need to be integrated into the system more than that.
The moat of 10000 other companies saying "we already maintain our app for two platforms" is basically insurmountable to new entrants.
Many things about Apple phones annoy me:
* App store restrictions.
* I want a phone I can use one-handed. 4 inches is the largest screen I could tolerate.
* No removable battery?
Why is it that no manufacturer will come along and make something better? Every year I look at other options. There are none that meet even one of my requirements.
I get that normal people want the app store Apple made. One where draconian requirements on developers make it hard to sneak in malware. But why can't I have a phone that fits in a normal sized human hand?
> I want a phone I can use one-handed. 4 inches is the largest screen I could tolerate.
I also prefer smaller phones, but over the last five years I've found it increasingly difficult to find software whose UI are designed with even 4.7 inches in mind, let alone 4.0 — and in at least one occasion that has included the UI design I was given to implement by the design team of the place I was working.
Because Apple is too big to bother catering to a 2-3% segment of their customers. Doesn't matter that 3% is still a couple million devices, it's too little for Cook.
Maybe the EU can force Apple to do these things too.
There are dozens of us!
Can't wait for Microsoft to start saying this about PCs/Windows. Gonna be a "great" future. We'll look back at the "open" PC era like some kind of fabled golden age.
Edit: Actually the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it?
>> the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it?
Because Apple controls your phone:
The flipside of that is: If you want to sell your product in a nation, you must comply with the nation's rules.
I can't make my own phone, I'm too busy building my steel mill.
Oh bravo, is that how you respond to all anti-competitive practices?