Apple faces 'strong action' if App Store changes fall short, EU's Breton says | Hacker News Reader

Apple faces 'strong action' if App Store changes fall short, EU's Breton says

cnbc.com

80 pointsbelter27 comments

   But even if developers opt not to use Apple’s App Store or payment system, they will still be required to pay a “core technology fee” of 50 euro cents per user account per year.

Alias "the Apple racket fee".

How can this be accepted? You don't use any Apple infrastructure but you owe them money. And it's not like phone owners were not paying more than multiple times the real cost of their devices to Apple.

Pure greediness in action.

If the $1000 for the phone wasn't a "core technology fee" IDK what is...

it’s the price users will pay for the phone, not the price developers pay for utilising apple APIs and services?

There are no Apple services being used?

You haven't actually read up on this. They're still using Apple infrastructure, because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware.

This isn't totally free ride on Apple hardware. You can complain about that if you like, but unless the EU objects, Apple is still going to attempt to protect users who buy Apple products.

apple forcibly inserted themselves to "protect" their ~~users~~ cash cows

Good. I want this as an Apple user.

I am happy that Al Capone protects me.

I feel so much safer in life.

And it's perfectly just that this security has a price tag.

Then don't install apps outside the App Store and live you life inside the prison

Nobody forces you to install apps outside of the App Store. On Android I don't know of any large-scale app that is not available on the Play Store despite 3rd party stores being supported.

Sounds like mafia

> ... because Apple is still providing some security guarantees and the ability to revoke malware.

HAHA! That was their choice to do it that way!

Indeed. Very odd choice too. I would imagine providing zero security guarantees or ability to revoke malware would’ve been their first choice.

it's not about users though. it's about the business relationship between gatekeeper and third parties who want access to the software and APIs and platforms.

if you sideload an app you are still taking advantage of apple's UI, user base, API SDKs, etc. and apple did enter into a relationship with its users which it wants to protect, in terms of security, privacy, and functionality of the device.

if apple wants to protect the enclave, for example, by ensuring alternate store apps use its APIs, that makes sense. this was never about running arbitrary code on iPhone; that's not what gatekeeper status or the DMA was meant to provide.

apple is like 22% of the market in europe. where's all the furor about every other business? the 78% owner also has a lot of issues, but i understand that apple is just so hated for being a company whose products people enjoy that don't get canceled after one year of operation.

also, the DMA doesn't say that apple can't make profit. the EU is still a capitalist society, and until there is a regulation that says what companies can and can't charge for phones, developer entitlements, services, then... there's not much to be done.

lastly, if there were no fees or hurdles or restrictions for alternate app stores then every single large company (not just gatekeepers) would open one so they could plaster their ads, make their own profit, drive users to their own stuff, and basically capture them in their fiefdom. and the DMA makes no provision as to how alternate markets need to behave. i and probably many many others do not want meta or msft or tencent or whomever to steal data, use underhanded business practices, ship shitty code, and do basically anything they want (that apple nor its users could control or do anything about) and that's just wrong.

openness is good, but if the cost is that chrome takes over the world like IE again and that meta can spy on iOS users and drain their batteries like no tomorrow, and force users to use their NFC payment system and secrets manager and whatever other ridiculous crap in order to use their social network, please stop. the DMA has failed if that is the case. we'll head back to the 90s and dumbphone era when you were trapped to use, see, or suffer from terrible and insecure 3rd party applications.

the one thing that cannot be argued is how good apple is at data protection and user privacy. please don't ruin that for millions because spotify wants to earn more money.

yes and if I make toast on my toaster I'm still taking advantage of the UI, technology, research that went into it, the branding and look and the possible customer support if it ever breaks. So I should pay 50 cent per toast. You see... rhetorically it's always possible to come up with something clever to make people believe in a certain reality.

Don’t forget all the 5G technology. ATT should get 30% of all iPhone revenue that connects to their network!

have you heard of licensing for chip technologies? maybe from qualcomm?

the reason apple doesnt pay carriers is that the market has changed and handset makers have more power. also phones work on wifi too ;)

You jest, but AT&T co-invented the first practical implementation of what would become Wi-fi (i.e. WaveLAN). There's probably some agreement between Qualcomm and AT&T, Alcatel-Lucent, or whatever holding company retains the rights these days.

Exactly!

I was about to come up with a similar analogy.

The horrific example is Auto Makers charging each time you drive or take a passenger in your car.

Or how about charging to use a Sofa every time a customer sits on it because you licensed the fabric! LOL

Where will it end!

At this point Apple are inhibiting the growth and vitality of our Capitalist Democracies and we need to resolve this issue.

I’m an Apple share holder and all-in on the Apple eco system, and even I can agree that none of this is healthy.

That's why you pay to buy the toaster...

If I took your toasters of the back of a truck, added "Powered by MagicMoonlight" on the side and started getting people to pay me for them, I'd imagine you'd be displeased. You built the toaster and now I'm making all the money from it. I'll tell you that I'm the one covering all the marketing budget and the electricity bill so it's not even affecting you, but is that really the case?

this analogy doesnt work because it’s not at all even in the same realm of utility or function.

the reality, as you say, is that development and operation of services and APIs isnt free, and you are not entitled to sell your apps to apple’s users. the og iPhone didnt even have an app store; a lot of work went into making a great product and an ecosystem.

developers and apple enjoy a certain relationship, and users love iOS apps, but its not true that developers have the right to do whatever they want (privacy, security, not their platform).

go invent your own OS and phone then

> lastly, if there were no fees or hurdles or restrictions for alternate app stores then every single large company (not just gatekeepers) would open one so they could plaster their ads, make their own profit, drive users to their own stuff, and basically capture them in their fiefdom. and the DMA makes no provision as to how alternate markets need to behave.

So you mean competition? Isn’t that the whole point of the DMA?

> apple is like 22% of the market in europe. where's all the furor about every other business? the 78% owner also has a lot of issues, but i understand that apple is just so hated for being a company whose products people enjoy that don't get canceled after one year of operation.

The 78% owner has supported alternative stores and side-loading since forever.

as a ploy to get manufacturers on board with their “open” platform which they now control (and also have stupid fragmentation issues)

> And it's not like phone owners were not paying more than multiple times the real cost of their devices to Apple

Isn't Apple's gross margin closer to 45%?

I would also suggest that the "real cost" isn't just component and manufacturing cost, and should include amortized R&D, etc.

My main concern is that I still can’t just write up my own app for personal use and just side load it onto my phone. An Apple developer account is still required for notarization which costs something like $99 per year.

Yeah, I've never signed and notarised any of my macOS apps because I don't want to pay Apple $99 per year for the priviledge. I hope that EU isn't done with Apple since I find the lack of sideloading bullshit. Why am I not allowed to write an application and install it on an iOS device that I own without paying Apple for the privilege?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com