[...]
> In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats.
All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
I just bought a new m5 macbook air. The day that I can't treat my MacOS laptop as basically a glorified NeXT workstation and install/run code of my own choice (albeit after going through a few scary warnings in the default user protecting system preferences, like allow to run unsigned code, etc), is the day I stop buying apple hardware and just use linux laptops again.
I see news about apple thinking about "merging" MacOS and iOS and making a touch screen macbook and it really makes me think they are going to try to do this in the near future.
I bought a Linux laptop 1 or 2 years ago (after many years of using Macbooks), and was very surprised how well Linux works nowadays.
As a matter of fact, in many areas Linux is even better than macOS. There's so many annoying bugs in macOS that interrupt your workflow on a daily basis. So, my Linux laptop is a lot more stable too.
Would definitely recommend giving Linux a try (Unless maybe if you have very little "tech" knowledge. I would not recommend it to everyone and their grandmother just yet, since they probably aren't aware of the consequences and howto migrate things.)
(for reference: EndeavourOS, KDE)
I do this in Gnome in Fedora 44, it may even be a default setting.
> Primarily due to suspend/resume working properly
Lenovo, have not had linux issues with a lenovo in over a decade.
It is pretty clear where Apple/MS/Google OSes are headed, and it's a bad place.
So sure - the Macbook is better than a cheap ~$500 laptop. But between my work issued Macbook and my nice Dell XPS? Not much difference. In either price or hardware...
Honestly, even between the macbook and my framework - not enough of a difference to really be that upset about (my biggest complaint is mostly just battery life).
---
Personally, I would argue that OS is a much bigger pain point to deal with, and you should probably factor that higher in the decision than the hardware. Just expect to spend roughly the same on the machine (Apple is still ~20% more)
Battery life, weight/portability, ergonomics are critical for a great mobile computing experience.
Apple had a window with M1 devices where I'd probably agree they were just better. Apple also has a history of making devices that are very expensive, and have a corresponding higher quality (ex - in the 2000s when most laptop manufacturers were racing to the bottom, and things like the Eee pc were considered hot - lots of garbage quality windows machines).
But many manufacturers today have entries in the "High quality, high price" category, and they're very similar.
Ex - https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-xps-14-lapt...
The size is almost identical to an M5 laptop, the battery life is almost identical to an M5 laptop, the touchpad is almost identical to an M5 laptop (personally, I actually like the touchpad on the xps slightly more because the cutout on the front of macbooks is sharp, and I find it annoying and painful for long use, but I also have very large hands and I'm left handed).
And also - the price is functionally the same as the new M5 laptops.
All of those land in the +/- 10% range of each other. With just slight differences (ex - I can get a touchscreen on the XPS if I want, but it makes the battery life 15hrs instead of 18hrs on the macbook. The XPS is also fractionally lighter (3lbs vs 3.4lbs). The macbook is ~10% faster on single core benchmarks then the intel series 3, but identical to slightly worse on multicore. etc...)
Basically - unless you're actually using different machines here... stop it, you're talking out your ass (cough - fanboy - cough).
Even the framework... yes - it's clearly not as "good" as the $3600 macbook I have. I don't expect it to be given I paid ~$1500 for it. But it also excels in other areas that make it worth considering - I have 3 young kids, and I've had the screen pulled flat several times, the touchpad got a cup of milk dumped in it, and my oldest shoved a screwdriver into a usb-c port. Turns out new screen hinges were ~$19, the touchpad was ~$21, and the replacement port was $9. All done at home myself with simple tools.
Compared to several trips to a store and weeks without a laptop... that's a type of ergonomics that I prefer right now.
I've had various work and personal MacBooks over the years and don't really miss them. It sounds like their quality has gotten somewhat better in recent cycles but the era of keyboards so fragile they break if you sneeze on them, and gimmicks like turning part of the keyboard into a touch screen were terrible. I would absolutely take a Linux machine from that era that costs half as much over any of those devices.
One caveat is that there are Apple-specific features like some of the trackpad gestures that I've never been a heavy user of. Partly because they aren't that interesting to me, and partly because I don't like having my workflows and muscle memory tied to a specific platform I don't control. Someone heavily into those features might have a harder time switching away.
It sounds similar to people that praise "haptic feedback" on phones, and describe feedback on some devices as extraordinary. (vibration device, seriously?)
Macbook has nice hardware, if I can ignore the strange keyboard layout, although I would prefer bigger keyboard and smaller touchpad. Macbook software is something that is so bad compared to linux that I won't even comment.
Lenovo and Framework have great ones, so does Microsoft and other brands I can’t think of right now.
I also find it that “macOS is well-optimized for touchpads” actually means “macOS is hostile to traditional mice and keyboards so that Apple can sell you external mice that cost 3x the price of alternatives even though you’re using your laptop at a stationary desk with external monitor 80% of the time”.
Plug in a traditional mouse to macOS and you’ll see how horrible the OS is with it for no reason. I needed third party mouse software just to play Minecraft without a horrendous scroll wheel experience for the item bar. There’s no built-in OS setting to have separate scroll directions for trackpad versus external mouse even though such a setup is highly logical. You need third party software for that. Meanwhile, on Linux that configuration option is built-in to Gnome and KDE.
Most trackpad gestures in macOS don’t need to be trackpad gestures at all and seem to be aimed at selling expensive peripherals and making Apple’s trackpad advantage larger than it would be if their system used a different OS. There’s no advantage to three finger swiping versus a traditional keyboard shortcut (to be fair, macOS also offers the keyboard shortcuts).
With the exception of flying on an airplane, grabbing a $30 mouse out of your backpack and plopping it on the table is perfectly acceptable and portable solution and often better than any trackpad imaginable for deep productive work.
Anyway, that last bit is a tangent and a rant of mine, but either way, the list of reasons to prefer a Mac is shrinking every day, if you ask me.
For example, MacBook Pros aren’t at the top of the battery life charts anymore, that honor goes to the Framework 13 Pro with the Panther Lake chips.
I own the original chassis 13, AMD 7640U. My previous laptop was a MacBook Pro M2 14”.
There are some clear downgrades: battery life, screen, speakers. Processing power, yeah, though it’s not like I ever maxed out the one I had.
I love having ample storage though. 2TB/32GB in a MacBook Pro was wildly out of my price range. Back in the good old days of early 2025 buying those components yourself was something like a $200-300 cost while the Mac was closer to a thousand bucks. The keyboard is superior to a MacBook Pro in my eyes. I also started to really, really despise the notch and the way the menu bar software fights it.
My Framework 13 Pro arrives tomorrow. It appears like it should address every complaint I have on my original 13”. It’s just too bad about the RAM situation otherwise LPCAMM2 would be a benefit rather than something of a detractor like it is today. I’m one of the lucky people who snagged an old stock 32GB module for $250 during the announcement keynote. You’re almost better off with soldered memory in the current situation, but hopefully that’s temporary.
It’s a dream with Linux compatibility, as you’d expect. I enjoy the fact that I can play real games on Steam compared to the macOS situation where gaming was always a pain. There are also a lot of things I like about CachyOS and KDE a lot better than macOS. In a lot of ways it’s freeing, but some commercial software is obviously missing.
Minimal if you're technical, completely incomprehensible if you're not. I mean I know when the OS says "this application is damaged and should be deleted" that it's lying and there is a terminal command for it, I can never remember it off the top of my head.
At least the right click open thing was something a normie could remember, but a non-technical person doesn't understand navigating a file structure and running a terminal command on a file with flags.
At least computers of all other normal workers would be locked down; Those of developers could have development tools but certainly shouldn't be able to connect to production servers or have customer invoicing data in them. Maybe buy two computers for developers with legal tasks? Win-win for Apple.
(At least on macOS one can still disable routined. Unlnike on iOS.)
"Oh it doesn't matter coz there is workaround" repeated over and over till there isn't any
Kinda tempted to do that already just because of Liquid Glass.
I mean, if I'm going to be stuck with a *nix OS whose UI is badly thought out and inconsistent between apps, might as well take the cheaper option, right?
One thing that ticks me off about this conversation is they are always framed as anti-consumer, instead of anti-developer. It's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg, and the ad networks who have the biggest gripe with these policies, not consumers. Consumers are the ones who bear the brunt of the cost when it comes to developers who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.
>If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone?
We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).
thankfully the EU has extensive privacy regulations prohibiting developers from doing just that, so we can enjoy open platforms instead of being at the mercy of a private corporations protection racket as if it's the 19th century
But your gripe is not about open platforms. Your gripe is that Apple iOS is not an open platform. Those are two different things, there are open platforms out there.
My complaint is that iOS as a closed platform is a feature, and Apple has been a good steward for that platform that has made it a stable computing platform for the general public. Corporations (cosplaying as "poor indie developers"), are simply frustrated that Apple isn't allowing them to abuse their users for extra dollars.
These same "developers" who pretend to care so deeply about open platforms don't even distribute their software on Linux. The concern trolling about open platforms is a farce. Picking on epic games again - you can't play Fortnite on Linux. It's "open platforms for me, but not for thee"
Forget the advertising angle, lets look at payments. Apple forces you to use their payment processor and they charge a larger fee. What does the consumer get? They get a single control panel for all their subscriptions that they can cancel at any time. "Developers" hate this - not because they want to charge you less, but so that they can make you jump through 50 hoops in order to cancel.
If I have to choose between two evil corporations, Apple and the greater tech industry that shit on the web, I'm picking Apple. If I care about open platforms, I'll move to an open platform, not lobby the government for Apple to open theirs.
again, doesn't apply in the EU. Consumer Rights Directive passed a few years ago stipulates that any subscription must be as easy to cancel as it is to sign up, and created a 'two click rule'.
Practical example of this is Amazon, here in the EU it takes exactly two clicks, in a lot of other jurisdictions you have to jump through half a dozen pages.
You might have to choose between two evil corporations, my point was I don't. Here we can open Apple up so they don't get to extract platform rent and I'm still not at the mercy of Tim Sweeney. Being governed by robber barons instead of your own government is an ideological choice, if you enjoy living like that fine but we don't.
A closed platform can only ever be a feature if you're so disempowered that private companies are running circles around you, otherwise it's just anti-consumer and anti-developer behavior.
App developers have shown time and time again that they will abuse every single resource on the user's system they can get their claws into. If they can get it, they will use APIs meant for accessibility and disabled users to remote-control your system. If they can get it, they will use location/GPS when their app has nothing to do with location. If they can get it, they will spam you with notifications and alerts. The USER needs to have control over these and the ability to stop abusive developers from running roughshod over their computers.
Evil developers forcing poor users to download their applications. Guess we all to suffer with braindead supercomputers in our pockets, because granny gran installed hax to get free gems for a gacha (that she downloaded from Apple approved App Store).
Stupid users who have neglected to attain perfect and absolute information regarding all the things that the applications they install will do.
Complete non-sequitur. You don't have to suffer, you can just buy a different platform. Android has had alternate stores for decades.
This is concern trolling. If you cared about having an open platform, you could just not buy apple. But that's not what you care about - you want to be able to push your shitty software onto other people's supercomputers without Apple getting in the way.
Because the only difference between Apple and Android crap is only software, of course? I won't fit into the message limit if I start listing issues that I have with Android garbage.
> If you cared about having an open platform, you could just not buy apple. But that's not what you care about
Where did I say anything about open platform? Are you hallucinating LLM or something? I just want to install whatever I write for myself without going through the hoops of weekly resigning and big brother approving what I do on a device that I OWN.
> you want to be able to push your shitty software onto other people's supercomputers without Apple getting in the way.
What are you even talking about, lmao!
What are you talking about exactly?
On linux I can run any software I want, and how is that bad?
Don’t worry. They’re working really hard to fix the bug. It’s not intended that you can install without paying a fee.
So... Marketing?
For now. It is clear which direction Apple is going.
BTW you can't download and run arbitrary code on your Mac unless you break out a terminal and do developer-y things, because notarization has been a requirement on macOS for years. There is no clicking through scary warnings. macOS will simply tell you that an unnotarized app is broken and refuse to open it via any GUI path that exists. You'll have to strip the quarantine xattrs at the UNIX level to bypass it.
Then why did they recently launch a MacBook that costs less than an iPhone and a marketing campaign targeted at existing iPhone users?
> If you love iPhone, you'll love Mac. Mac is designed to be just as easy to learn as iPhone.
There's also a circularity issue. To write iOS apps you need a platform more flexible than iOS.
Actually, it is just apple started with app store/closed with the iphone, and got away with it.
for the mac - I don't think they could close the platform.
What I think they could do is make the ipad more appealing, add a keyboard, then kill the mac like they killed the mac pro. (fire your low-value customers)
Strictly speaking, you can. Enable developer mode, connect your phone to your Mac (you need a Mac), and you can build and install whatever code you want.
Asterisks being that your phone will uninstall it after a while I think, and you need to create a free account for Xcode.
And "whatever code you want" here excludes JIT compilation, or as I understand it memory that is both writable and executable, as your app would require a special 'entitlement' from Apple.
I considered getting an iPhone to replace my S-series Samsung, the only reason I stayed with Samsung is for the S-Pen. Had I gone with iPhone I would not be able to write and run my own software? That's absolutely ridiculous.
Because they want more money
> Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
Because Mac users will buy it anyway
Good question - maybe ask Epic (a video game company known for Fortnite) why they sued Apple and Google while ignoring Sony, Nintendo and (the Xbox portion of) Microsoft.
As arstechnica noted:
> "That might help explain why console makers feel the need to guard their 30-percent cut on software and microtransaction sales. But it doesn’t really explain why a company like Epic would be OK with paying that fee to Sony but not to Apple."
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/as-epic-attacks-apple...
[0] Which is rare. I’m installing random shit all the time using homebrew and it’s basically never an issue.
If security was a concern, these hoops would be for all apps, not just unsigned. It just shows the only function it serves is gatekeeping by Apple.
Notice that this is easier for malware authors to do than ordinary people because their business is compromising others' machines, so then they can use the signing keys of any victims who have a developer account, or sign up for new ones using stolen cards from any of the victims.
Meanwhile you would then have Apple revoking the victims' signing certificates and screwing their honest users who can now no longer install the non-malicious software they previously released.
The entire premise is a scam to extract an annual fee from a million small developers.
Are we really still having this discussion? I feel like you KNOW the answer, and why the market rewards Apple for its position here.
The curated experience on iOS is a feature, not a bug.
Which experience do you mean? The crApp Store full of obvious scams? The abuse of the built-in push notifications and apps to advertise Apple "services" on every device? I mean, how many damn times do I have to say no to Apple Arcade or iCloud+?
Maybe iOS just isn't for you.
If Microsoft had its act together PCs would have been just as locked down as phones are today and we wouldn't be questioning a difference.
I'm sad there was so much less backlash to restricting user control on phones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...
It's not as big a problem as it is with phones though because the vast majority of PCs on the market are not locked down in this way, and only a handful of PC applications (a few competitive games) use remote attestation to check for an unmodified Microsoft OS.
5% tax on all digital transactions (still applies to Kindle ebooks too I'm guessing?) and all applications have to go through an Apple review process. That's ridiculous for a government to explicitly agree to.
If that's the case then maybe we need to start considering what kind of alternate mechanisms can robustly mitigate the threat.
The IBM PC commoditized hardware and software, which facilitated PC clones. When IBM licensed DOS from MS, it allowed MS to license a version to non-IBM computers too. Thus, IBM ended up commoditizing itself and became replaceable, with the MS OS as the new standard.
Apple can lock down iPhones because it's the sole provider of the software and the hardware.
Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…
Question for those with more industry knowledge than me: If you assume a broken sandbox, is it possible for an app to record phone calls, then use that recording to create a deepfaked voice that can then be transmitted as a new call? My naïve assumption is "yes obviously", but for all I know the hardware has some way to activate a switched circuit from the phone service to the speaker and microphone that can't have other sound data pass through it.
Devices which only ran code that the vendor had specially packaged for the device always had other names, like Games Console, Word Processor, MP3 Player, Graphing Calculator, or just plain "Toy." Nobody confused those with computers and nobody accepted them as computers.
Phones entered this world already in that second category, long before Apple even considered making one. Apple kept an iron grip at first and after careful consideration, decided to only allow third-parties to even enter on terms extremely favorable and profitable to Apple, and always under their direct control.
Closing off the Mac would be very messy and also cause tremendous headaches due to it being the development platform for iOS. They don't want to bother. But the reason iOS is closed is because it's always been closed, and they'll never open it unless forced, because money.
Graphing Calculators are computers in every sense, it's hard to find one you can't at least program in a high level language like Basic or Python, and many accept assembly programs - even Texas Instruments models did, before their signing keys were brute forced.
Games consoles too almost invariably run third party code, although they tend not to be end user programmable - no different than an iPhone in that regard, really.
"Feature phones" - pre-smartphone phones with cameras and internet etc - usually had the ability to run Java Midlets without manufacturer blessing, even though you couldn't touch the OS. You could SSH into servers from those!
I think a big problem is that the distinction between "general purpose computer" and "end user programmable general purpose computer" is functionally meaningless when you can't write programs, which is most people. Instead they understand it in a functional context - what is this device for? How does it compare to how such devices usually work? The general purpose CPU inside is an implementation detail, and just because you think of an iPhone as a computer doesn't mean everyone does. They think of it as a "phone".
I had to respond first to this - I happened to grow up with Verizon phones. They had the manufacturers ship variants that replaced Java with BREW - some locked-down bastardized atrocity with DRM, which could only be acquired through purchasing in an on-device App Store (Called "Get It Now"). I knew about how everyone else had Java on their dumbphones though. But overall in that era the meme is accurate that if you even accidentally pushed the "Internet" button on your phone, the ensuing insane per-KB data charges would be noticeable. No one I know used any such apps or features.
Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest "end user programmable" was a requirement to be a computer. I meant that the computer owner expects that the computer manufacturer isn't gatekeeping.
Now, a GameCube or PlayStation buyer may have seen the gatekeeping as a positive -- knowing that Nintendo wouldn't bless a cartridge/disc that was pornographic, bomb-making instructions, or what have you, they felt it was a safer device to put in a kid's bedroom than a Windows XP computer.
I posit: To normal people, "A computer" is a subset of devices which, conceptually speaking, wants to be usable for a maximum of purposes. In other words, if you gave someone a variety of tasks (Edit the file on this flash drive, do your taxes, sort 100 photos into 3 folders based on occasion and print the best 3 of each, find an email you sent 3 months ago and quote excerpts from it) and then presented them with a bunch of devices from all the categories I mentioned, basically everyone knows a Mac or Windows PC will do that well, and anything else will lack important tools like the filesystem, drivers for hardware, reasonable multitasking, capable browsers, etc and make those tasks painful at best. And if specialized software is needed, that software will likely not run on those other devices.
Every other modern device, including my Apple Watch to a Chromebook to a PS5, is more than capable of all those tasks computationally, but the manufacturers specifically crippled many abilities and blocked all non-blessed software, and Nintendo or Samsung doesn't want you running TurboTax on the Switch or your Smart Fridge.
Then fix your s****y sandbox, Apple.
[Incoming call: National Security Agency] "Don't you dare stop our malware doing all that stuff you just said".
:P
All the other nations' agencies, outisde Five Eyes at least, will probably want to stop the NSA's malware, but may have their own instead.
This is one of the most 'evil' policies I've simply ever heard of. I know today it's not even allowed to mention it, but it seems like the most slam dunk monopoly abuse possible. The damage to customers is clear, a company could charge 15% less and receive the same amount if they were simply 'allowed' to tell customers to go to their site. Somehow Fortnite did exactly this, got banned for it, and it still wasn't enough to put an end to it.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/competit...
And on the iPhone, you MUST use the Apple App Store, not just as a means to distribute your app, but as your payment provider. You can’t collect payment details yourself, use Stripe, Paddle, anything. You MUST use Apple.
You simply cannot enter business without paying Apple a share. That’s a monopoly.
All countries with a working democracy would class Apple as a monopoly as it has significant market power, enough to distort prices.
The market is mobile devices.
Now suppose you have an iPhone and want to download an app, or want to distribute your app to customers many of which have an iPhone. What substitute for Apple's store is available to do that?
More specifically your question is like asking what if you have a car that requires diesel, what substitute is available to let you use cheaper gasoline?
Yea defining the market is 95% of anti trust cases. But asking yourself 'if Microsoft did what Apple is doing' should be enough to show at some point, it is a market.
It's like asking what the available substitute is for diesel fuel from Shell, to which the answer is diesel fuel from Chevron, BP, Sunoco, etc.
So now what are the available substitutes for distributing apps to devices that require iOS apps and can't run Android apps?
Apple can change their rules and it materially impacts the market.
If it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.
When they were found in the US to have a monopoly, they had around 95% of personal computer operating system share. Apple isn’t even close.
For iPhone apps Apple is way behind with about 0.005% of the total 2.17 million iPhone apps.
I.e. the monopoly question is: if apple takes X% for each app in this market, and a competitor can't take less, then it's a monopoly.
Are you willing to pay the storage and bandwidth costs for Fortnite since Epic apparently can’t afford to?
For the apps to go away the store for free must be imposed on Apple, Google and everybody else but I don't think it will ever happen. If it will, people will use the browser and that would be enough. Some JS APIs will be dismissed, some hardware will be removed, some functionality will become impossible and slowly forgotten. Nobody will cry too much and business and entertainment as usual.
even the name "sideloading" has come into being. When the PC first came out it was just "running".
1) find some space on the shelf and your stock room to put my stuff! 2) I don’t have a store with shelves or visiting customers, but you will sell this for me at 0% profit!
You’re paying for sales access to millions of devices with frictionless checkout.
And you want to… make it harder to check out? Because you think you’re entitled sell things to their user base?
No one wants to go to your website. You’re crazy.
However, in this scenario every neighbourhood only has 2 STORES - and each CUSTOMER only shops at one of these STORES.
Then, if you made HATS, the only way to sell HATS is to get them on the shelves of both those stores.
--
This is Australia: two major supermarkets - so the only way to sell a lot of your product is to submit to the terms of Coles or Woolworths.
1. the existing STORES also sell almost all the CARS, and the GPS in these cars is hardcoded to only drive to one of their STORES
2. The government is considering a law that forces everyone to show their ID to open the door and drive their CAR,
3. To enfore #2, the government is considering a law to prevent drivers from manually entering GPS coordinates to any other stores, because the two existing STORES promise to enforce the ID-verification system in their parking lots.
Now you want to sell your HAT, good luck, because anybody trying to open up a Hat-Droid store with your product in it, is soon legally prevented from doing so. For security purposes. Think of the children!
It's not about the market for apps, or the market for smartphones. Those markets are comparable to any market.
This is about the market for apps ON the apple ecosystem. And the problem that is being solved is: Apple can't have a monopoly on that market, such that they can (for example) charge a commission for every sale.
Basically: we can't allow a company to be so successful that their STORE becomes a MARKET.
Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. If we’re going to say that isn’t allowed, then at least make the rule across the board.
How many new companies will be popping up to manufacture these types of devices? Not many.
I think the reality is that the EU sees an opportunity to apply some pressure on a few successful foreign companies, as that potentially provides them leverage in other negotiations, or at the very least some revenue from fines.
How does that matter? Are you suggesting we must treat a massive company the same as a not-massive company? Once they reach a certain size, they're at risk of being a monopoly. Until they do, they're not. This is just a matter of size.
If you made HATS and sold them at a STORE (is the all caps thing legalese or why do we talk this this?), and the owner of BIGGEST HAT STORE walked into your STORE and told you:
"Nice STORE you have there! Would be a shame if something happened to all those HATS of yours. Pay us a five percent commission, otherwise your HATS will stop working."
We have a word for those situations, and any democratic society nip that particular type of entrepreneurship in the bud. It's just that we should have done something long before our pensions were dependent on these companies which are now too big to fail.
You’re describing racketeering, and in your analogy, you have a store.
But in reality, you don’t have a store, so the hypothetical doesn’t make any sense.
Do you want to try rail lines? You want to ship your HATS on a freight TRAIN, but you don’t have a TRAIN or even a RAIL.
Do you think the rail owner or the freight train will carry your product for free?
[...]
> "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee."
[...]
> "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats."
This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users.
The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.
That argument would assume no cost for upgrades.
I remember having to buy new operating systems.
That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free.
> Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.
Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other.
That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".
It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.
It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.
I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.
Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.
They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.
Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."
That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.
That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.
And that narrative is based on what exactly?
Apple's profit margin is 25% by the way.
iPhone sales pay for the entirety of Apple's R&D. 10 times over.
Apple sells 240+ million iPhones a year. Apple's profit margin is an unheard-of 25%.
iPhone customers pay for everything.
Not entirely how you've made formed this connection but respectively it sounds like you've confused several things here.
> Apple sets prices based on a 30% raw profit margin and ignores the market except as it constrains their raw material and manufacturing costs.
Literally impossible ahead of time, as some of their costs are fixed rather than marginal. If you spend, as they did last year, ~$34.5bn on R&D, and you make a thing that costs $1000 to make and then you price it at $1300, but the market looks at what it is and what it costs and says "nah" so only 1 million people buy it that year, then what you're actually making isn't a 30% profit, it is a loss >110x your revenue.
We don't know exactly how much R&D was spent on the AVP, nor the exact sales, but the market reaction to the price is something you should have in mind. No matter what its unit economics were, Apple probably made a loss overall.
The total cost of supporting the hardware via the OS is easily baked in to the exorbitant hardware cost, or failing that, could easily be baked in.
And you can tell this is the case because they do eventually drop support for old phones. Its not like they give you forever security updates because you buy apps.
Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution
Which censorship do you consider problematic?
The app is still available in Russia on both App Store and Play Store.
[1] https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/company-annou...
The only change made that's relevant to sideloading-a-downloaded-APK as far I understand, is a 24hour delay in enabling the ability to do so, which is a wildly overblown non-issue.
Availability is a key component of security, and this is a 24-hour DOS on apps not blessed by google.
It will likely be delayed, just like Manifest v3, but eventually it will happen.
> “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added.
There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive.
I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open
This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
How do you not use their SDK?
The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.
If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial.
Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay.
I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
> Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone
And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability.
> and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights.
> IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
It's all about distribution.
A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything.
> As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
I was referring to the distribution of the licensed technologies by Apple to the hardware purchasers. Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
> This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
The waiver scenario is meant in the context of Apple using the 5% and $99 fees as payment for the maintenance/R&D of the official dev experience. The fees would be waived because the dev isn't making any use of those tools in a hypothetical FOSS SDK.
I know. My point was that distribution of the licensed technology by Apple to iPhone purchasers does not thereby allow third-party iPhone app developers to distribute their iPhone app executables to other iPhone purchasers.
> Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
You appear to be focused on the building of iPhone apps. I'm focused on the distribution of built iPhone apps. This is why I said, "The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything."
In general, consumers are unwilling or unable to build their own apps. They need precompiled executables, distributed by third parties, to easily install on their devices. The hypothetical FOSS SDK is a red herring. I don't see how the consumer's right to use the iPhone automatically grants a legal right for third-party developers to distribute executables using Apple's licensed technology. There are other consumer products that allow personal use but don't allow redistribution.
Because calling APIs is not a "use" of the technology that IP laws would cover. Having a binary call a proprietary API but not actually containing the underlying technology that makes that API possible is not a derivative work. The technology is already inside the iPhone, the apps just call it in a very specific way, and since IP laws only regulate distribution of the technology itself, the third-party developer isn't doing anything illegal.
In any case, you're still ignoring distribution. You start with the assumption that a binary is already on the iPhone. The technology is already inside the iPhone, but the third-party app is not. Distribution is an entirely different legal matter than personal use. Are you claiming that it's illegal for Apple to control and prevent distribution of third-party apps? If so, I challenge you to file a lawsuit.
That would be illegal, yes, but for an entirely different reason (DRM bypass to get copyrighted material), not because it's calling an existing API. It's not the case for 99% of apps.
> In any case, you're still ignoring distribution. You start with the assumption that a binary is already on the iPhone. The technology is already inside the iPhone, but the third-party app is not. Distribution is an entirely different legal matter than personal use.
The third-party app does not contain any Apple-owned or licensed technology just because it's programmed to make use of it once inside a phone, and there's no IP right to control distribution of material that uses proprietary technology if that technology is not actually in the distributed material. The only barrier is Apple's own actions in how they programmed iOS to reject unsigned code and their developer program, not a legal one based on IP.
I simply don't accept your dubious claim that one person's legal API usage automatically allows that one person to subcontract API usage to another, i.e., a third-party developer. And I'd guess that your experience as a lawyer is about as extensive as your experience as an iOS developer.
Apple can charge for API use in the sense that they physically can, not in the sense that the law only allows that arrangement.
The law does not forbid people from developing unauthorized accessories to products, full stop. It only protects IP from being redistributed.
The hook that allows Apple to charge for API usage by developers is a technical one, not a legal one.
And there's no need to go for the ad-hominems that you have been going for since the beginning. Why such hostility?
This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.
I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.
Your answer seemed nonsensical to me.
What I meant, though, is that I'm not going to argue about a specific point, the viability of "some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality." If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?"
In any case, most iOS devs don't want to opt out of using the SDK. That would not be a particularly attractive route for making iOS apps. What I want as an iOS dev is the same freedom of software distribution that we have on macOS.
The basis for my claims about the subject is my knowledge of computing and development in general. I dipped my toes into iOS dev a few times and there's nothing that seemed to set it apart from any other SDK situation beyond Apple's restrictions, at least nothing that would make my claim outlandish.
Core device apis yes, everything else, maybe not?
I think we could roll our own UI - I think we can roll our own payment systems - I think we could roll our own media display.
For the primary iOS app I work on I need vulkan, gps, touches camera, sound, and phone rotation. (And standard os services)
I don’t need anything else.
Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.
And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.
> Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.
I suspect it uses much more so that it can support
- audio
- file I/O
- accessibility
- …
I doubt Apple can even ship a mobile phone without audio or I/O support even without third party apps...
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they've attained it, they won't give it up voluntarily. You have to force them.
The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them.
Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.
A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
> Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.
The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?
Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.
> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices.
Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
The idea that, for many people purchasing an iPhone, the inability to install apps from alternative stores or the web is a selling point seems rather questionable.
On top of that this could easily be provided by an optional switch that enables you to enforce this on your own device if you so desire.
It is a poor reason to request that all app distribution for everyone else also has to go through Apple and its terms, basically for your convenience.
Ultimately, an option becomes a requirement and then the protection for users is totally gone.
And that still plagues every computing platform now. Including Apple platforms. So the lockdown clearly didn’t completely solve that problem like a lot of people seem to claim
They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.
Not helping you is something different, that's not preventing.
> Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale.
Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance.
> That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.
Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices.
The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.
You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society.
Since the market for phone operating systems is not even remotely competitive regulation is necessary just like in all others uncompetitive markets.
And now you are saying that people were forced to purchase iPhones because of Android?
> which unfair market conditions made it impossible
Bank applications depending on various os or device level security features? Good luck getting developers to build applications for your platform in general until you have a very large number of users (even Microsoft couldn’t manage it when the oligopoly was way less entrenched)
Well then you aren't forced to purchase an iPhone, are you? Much less forced to develop for an iPhone. If a developer isn't satisfied with having access to billions of Android customers, then they should change careers or stop complaining.
Developers also had every opportunity in the world to offer their software for Windows Phone and BlackBerry devices. Or offer their own devices with their software. Which is an easy thing for banks to do. Their laziness and incompetence isn't an excuse for them to turn around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest.
> Which is an easy thing for banks to do.
The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks.
Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive.
> around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.
But how and why is Apple to be blamed for that?
> The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks.
The culprits are the banks, who aren't offering their customers adequate service. The culprit certainly isn't Apple. They aren't a bank.
> Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly
Some of the biggest companies in the world are competing against each other on smart phones. And customers have a great variety of devices to choose from. Smart phones is a prime example on where the free market worked: Fierce competition between several very large companies resulted in amazing devices being offered to customers. And since customers are free to choose what they purchase, they will choose the best device they can get at whatever price they deem reasonable and affordable. Companies who cannot offer good enough products fall away from the competition by the nature of the free market: Nokia, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Siemens, and more. All of them were powerful corporations.
Current hacker ideology has mixed the worst parts of capitalism and communism into weird standpoints which make no sense. Am I supposed to feel sorry that developers (they are mostly giant corporations) can't figure out how to make money without depending on Apple? And that therefore the government should intervene to guarantee the profits of these giant corporations?
Enough, already. Apple has no unfair advantage against the competition, except for the incompetence of said competition. Let them have their win, and if they are acting against the interest of their consumers, then they won't have their win for long.
> Users are free to choose a different manufacturer
It’s an oligopoly, so no, consumers are not exactly free to do what they want. If the market were truly competitive you might have a point.
I'm so shocked to read this "Each of these commissions reflects the many ways Apple creates value for developers’ apps, whether they use the App Store and/or Apple In-App Purchase." whereas it's app developpers that create value for Apple.
Without apps, Apple platform is dead.
Ah, I think it probably is the price, though Apple's hubris may be the cause of them thinking a product at that price was ever a good idea.
If you're a developer, chase the users. AVP is extremely expensive, so there's not a lot of users, so not much reason for developers to care: even cheap VR hardware has problems getting enough users to justify the effort to make games (let alone other apps) work well on it. Even ignoring AVP, the whole category's sales are, what, mostly Beat Sabre? I think? You don't need a 3.5k device for a rhythm action game.
As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go
Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.
Apple has conveniently, for them, set themselves up as an unwanted middleman.
This is only possible for them to do because they make billions per quarter and I’m a struggling solo developer.
I can’t believe people are defending apple.
I don't see users complaining, it's mostly developers.
You don’t think users wouldn’t prefer to pay less for their software?
Do you think most users have given this a thought? Do you think they are even aware of the issue?
What is it about letting them restrict what people can do in order to squeeze even more money out of them and other companies that appeals to you so much?
Where do you think this should stop?
Should my wifi router be allowed to only work with some brands of phone or laptop?
Should my mobile service provider be allowed to ask for a percentage of any payment I use over their connection?
Should my car by allowed to refuse to park if the owner of the car park doesn't share ticket revenue with its manufacturer?
If not, why not?
Personally, I choose to believe that just like some things cannot legally be agreed to contractually (even if they're in the contract and you sign it), some business models should also be unacceptable to society. That includes any situation where by owning a platform, media property, or content/service delivery technology or provider, a company wants to force itself as a middleman between any two parties.
In fact, you will have a guarantee of failure if e.g. your messaging app doesn't support iOS
And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.
Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.
I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted.
Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems.
Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics.
Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year.
I hate them.
The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps.
If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.
Apple actively prevents users from installing any other OS on an iPhone. Apple actively prevents uses from finding and installing apps through other means.
I'd be okay paying App Store fees when I had a choice, and decided that it's the best source of apps, worth the cost. But because I'm forced to pay for a service I didn't ask for, fuck Apple.
(and the mobile duopoly, ecosystem lock-ins, and barriers to entry mean I can't really refuse this shit, I can only choose one of two flavors of this shit).
Lol - I've been using the phrase "casino games for children" to describe Apple's primary App Store cash cow since I first heard someone use it since it describes the genre so well. And I just realized this latest policy is them saying "Nobody exploits children with casino games but us!"
It seams that for "reader apps" (like Netflix / Spotify), things got slightly better (https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/#:~:text=16....):
> Beginning October 1, 2026, reader apps distributed in the EU may promote out-of-app offers for digital goods and services without an actionable link [...]
So you can now at least promote your offers, which was forbidden previously.
A reader app is, in Apples words: "With reader apps, people can sign in to their account created outside the app, letting them view and enjoy previously purchased media content or content subscriptions on their Apple device."
> A person buys a handheld computer
> I make a program for the computer
> A person downloads the program directly onto their computer
> A person makes a purchase for services within my app on their computer
> Somehow Apple gets 5% of the proceeds, despite being entirely uninvolved except for the initial sale of goods
An analogous situation would be Mercedes-Benz demanding 5% of every ride booked in a taxi they manufactured, for the reason that they have to continue to make and sell parts for the vehicle, and everyone (including the EU) somehow being A-OK with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.
You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?
In this case (where Apple has power), my guess would be more along the lines of "Apple's found a lot of vulns and are ready to patch it; agencies offered a concession in exchange (and either arm twisted EU and/or gave them access to the same vulns)".
The funniest thing is there's no reason for any of this to be wrong. Individual parts have been public knowledge for a while, and putting them together doesn't take a lot of logic.
Fun reading, if you haven't read it already:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/apple...
> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “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 not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
By the way, would you happen to know if it possible to distribute the same app in the AppStore under the 15/26% commission and in alternative stores in the EU with the 10% commission?
Or maybe this somehow constitutes a danger Apple has to protect its users from, and can only be alleviated by me paying Apple the higher rate? The earlier terms certainly did their best to prevent anyone from opting into the alternative distribution terms.
Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.
The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.
For apps distributed via alternative app marketplaces or the web, Apple will charge a 5 percent Core Technology Commission.
And I'm not against a reasonable fixed fee to buy tooling that you might use, like jetbrain, visual studio, etc...
But just to be clear they sell phone and then individual users install and use apps. It is not because app run inside phones that they manufactured that it gives them divine right on everything that is happening here.
Imagine if the builder of your company office building, that sold your office to you was feeling legitimate to say that he is owed a cut of everything you make as a software developer, because you work in the building he did.
The manufacturer of your car that ask for a fee each time you do car sharing or use your car for a business activity, because he manufactured your car.
Everywhere else it would look insane and would only work if you are in a position to do extortion like Apple.
I definitely recall previous iterations where Apple announced changes to comply with legal requirements where the authorities ended up saying "this absolutely doesn't resolve the issue".
I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.
“I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”
“Please stop me. I’m about to install a program by a small independent developer that does something I want. Stop me, and first charge me 15%, and them $100. Oh, and install it in my old phone??? No! Please stop me and force me to upgrade!!”
“Oh my phone is too old!! Please force me to but another one!!”
No. I already do what I want to do. I don’t use apps. Regardless if it comes from the App Store, or any other website on the internet. How do you arrive at your interpretation.
If the App Store is such a customer-friendly shield, then why are there millions of scam apps in the App Store?
To combat software threats, sandboxing and fine-grained permissions (which Apple basically pioneered in the consumer space!) is the answer. App Review can't catch all malicious actors. When a vulnerability exists in the sandbox, the exploit can easily be slipped past App Review, with a feature flag holding it until the scammer is ready to attack.
App Review, Notarization, etc. isn't for us. It's for Apple. It's the control that allows them to extract the money. Simple as that. Without the control, only small indie developers would list on the App Store because it's (A) shitty in quality, (B) shitty in financial terms, and (C) shitty at keeping people safe from scams.
If you want proof of that, look at the tumbleweeds in the Mac App Store, where it's not mandatory and anyone can distribute an app in a zip file, and where notarization hasn't (yet) been weaponized to censor apps[1] for reasons having nothing to do with platform security.
No one wants to use the MAS, so they don't, and Apple doesn't get to take 30% of all revenue for every app distributed. You can see why they are fighting tooth and nail to not have the much more important iOS platform turned into that.
[1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/06/14/utm-blocked-outside-app-s...
Don’t get me even started on the hypocrisy of the people wanting what you propose. So, the reason you want to build an app for iOS is that there are many of us. There are many of us because of App Store, mainly, as an end user. Pick one. You are proposing breaking the only platform making the iPhone an interesting product for a computer illiterate.
Don't install random shit scam apps then. It's easy. Just don't do it. Use the App Store. Just because you trust them doesn't mean the entire userbase should all be forced to trust Apple and only Apple.
I have my popcorn ready for the new wave of installing malware apps through some click jacking scams.
Again, Apple already allows grannies to be scammed with apps right on the App Store. Apps which are advertised by web popups that try to stop you from going Back, and throw up "You're INFECTED!" warnings and alerts. Then they route you to the App Store to get the scammy apps, with often weekly subscriptions. Apple routinely lets these listings stay up for a long time. I can see an app right now called "Storage Cleaner_ Phone Cleanup" It charges victims $9.99 a month to pretend to do several things that the OS already includes as features. And another one called "Phone Guard: Secure Cleaner" - same basic deal, $6.99 a week.
The sandboxing should be what keeps us safe from "malware" -- these apps don't have root. They can't access your phone's contacts without explicit permission, nor take control of the radios, nor replace your system apps.
Apple can't or won't keep people safe on the App Store. But they still use this line about the poor confused grannies and toddlers as an excuse of why we have to let them keep 100% control of every iPhone in the world, in a way that just happens to earn them tens of billions of dollars every year.
Article 5(4):
> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, *free of charge*, communicate and promote alternative offers *and conclude contracts* with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.
Article 6(4):
> “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 not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.
And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity *only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate.* How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
This is quite a big change for EU users. What I don't understand is how Apple will track the new 5% commission for web distributed apps. You do need to register for the programme, so maybe that is one way they track businesses and get a right to audit their books.
> Companies will now qualify if they:
> * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet. > * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company. > * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm. > * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant. > * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.
Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.
My guess: since all apps will need to be notarized, even web distributed ones, your phone will phone home to Apple servers when you first launch it (and periodically afterwards), to verify it isn’t in a revocation list. That will allow Apple to track unique installs and then bill the Apple developer account based on pricing data reported by the web distributor as part of their separate agreement with Apple.
My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.
I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.
Now hold on a minute here. It’s Apple’s own App Store requirement that forces any developer regardless of payment option to pay a commission or be delisted. Framing it as an “we charge you because of the EU” is a plain simple lie. The EU forced their hand in allowing different payment channels at low commission rates with no repercussions.
Imagine if every purchase of an application on Windows had to pay a 5% EU allowed Microsoft Monopoly tax.
Is Apple still able to apply this to digital stores too, like Kindle ebooks, or has that at least been fixed? Because, again, imagine if Microsoft also required you to pay a 5% tax on every purchase made on Windows.
It's just crazy that the EU literally worked with Apple to allow this.
> Web distribution, which is available only in the EU
I assume this settles it, since it was always possible to web-distribute desktop apps outside the EU.
this seems to imply the Commission signed off on this. I really can't imagine that this changes anything meaningfully wrt to the DMA?
I am really hoping this isn’t the end of it, general purpose computing devices need to allow its user to choose the security model, in my opinion the entire industry fundamentally depends on it, and without that freedom we will have monopolies deciding everything sooner or later.
The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software.
My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise.
We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.
See? “Development machine” just means the ability to do what you want with your own machine. No third party interference.
Let Timmy Can’t-Tune bring his guitar to someone who can. Let grandma have her new phone be setup by her grandson appropriately so she can’t install malware.
Freedom. Digital rights.
A quick Google produces nothing. Fishy.
So that means Fortnite can't link out, right? Or does this mean because it's being delivered by the Epic Games Store, they can bypass that rule?
Would it better a payment commission (free apps do not pay but apple takes a cut on everything) or would it better to an installment fee (pay X euros per installation but no commission cut for Apple) ?
Well everything depends on the fee/commission values but after I put the pitch fork down I was left wondering...
I was once a iOS mobile dev before - most apps don't need to be native unless banking, maps, video games & maybe ride-hailing (before I even used uber web).
the rest the web is sufficient - hell even games.
so most of what apple is proposing won't affect you if you're using the web platform.
They always have someone to protect, some holy cause.
Who are we to complain about the tiny detail of computers not being personal anymore?
Installing software in iOS uses Apple intellectual property and WIPO guarantees their right to charge a commission.
If you don’t like this, get rid of WIPO!
It's straight up protection money. They're not even pretending anymore.
Are you saying that this is not the case at all?
God damn it all to hell when even the comms department issues stupid crap like this.
There may be consequences, however.
What the fuck. Does this also include apps that keep purchase management entirely out of the app? And if so, is that even legal?
Hope I'm misreading this...
Edit: to give some context to my "what the fuck is that even legal", consider this. my phone provider has an app that lets me modify my cell contract, and buy additional services (fast 5g, extra sims, whatever). Utility providers, grocery delivery platforms, many such cases. what's next for apple, will they come for their pound of flesh there, too?
All of it's purely arbitrary and based on whatever the max Apple thinks they can skim from every transaction based on what leverage they have. The App Store has corrupted Apple into a form I don't even recognize anymore.
does anyone experience the same?
I'll state plainly: Apple should get 0% of the non-Apple-processed payments.
- You link out (or even payments in-app not through Apple): Apple gets 0%
- You aren't in the app store: Apple gets 0%
They should have to actually compete, do things like allow developers to give refunds, allow different monetization strategies (upgrade pricing?), make App Store Connect _not_ a steaming pile of shit.
The rent-seeking has got to stop.
Apple makes money on the hardware, Apple makes money off developers, Apple makes money off ads, Apple makes plenty of money. Taxing every financial activity (expect for the growing list of carve-outs which look sillier and sillier as time goes on) is beyond the pale.
I will say that I think the 30% deal was a good deal when the App Store launched but times have changed, taking payments online has gotten easier, hosting something like the App Store has gotten cheaper, and the App Store does not provide enough value to deserve so rich a cut.
The crap apps that sail by review while legitimately good and well-crafted Apps get held up is but one example. If App Review was faster and/or better we might be having a different conversation but Apple has not upheld its end of the bargain and has the audacity to still think they deserve a huge cut.
There are whole categories of apps I wish I had on my iPhone that will never see the light of day because of Apple's policies and/or they are DOA because Apple wants 30% [0].
If macOS launched today I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because of how locked down it would be. Even now we have to fight to run the software we want unless it's signed. How Apple doesn't see that they are killing the golden goose is beyond me. There is plenty of money for them to make and the only way Apple can continue to squeeze is due to anti-competitive practices which harm all consumers.
I still think the DMA was ham-fisted and written by complete morons but it was a step in the right direction. It's too bad our "elected" officials are bought and paid for and too busy engaging in one-upmanship or cheap shots to do anything close to actually governing.
Lastly, I continue to find it disgusting and immoral how much money Apple makes off incredibly unsavory practices like the casinos for children (and adults) they promote and encourage (gems, coins, tokens, loot boxes, and the list goes on). Our corrupt politicians are complicit in abdicating any responsibility for the cesspool which is 99% of IAP.
[0] Yes, I know it's 15% for small business but while they tout that regularly it's not so black and white. There are cliffs, it's not progressive, and you have to apply for it. 1 good year can screw you over and using just revenue as the marker is wrong IMHO.
Yeah, because developers have historically been super reasonable when it comes to pricing.
Just the other day someone posted a truly simple camera app with a freaking subscription in place. For crying out loud.
With the way developers like to price their apps, I’m sort of glad Apple is taking a chunk of the money. Fuck subscription based apps.
Turnis taking the reins perhaps?
This has clearly been tilting at windmills this entire time. They were never going to win. How much time and money could they have saved by giving a reasonable amount instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you why do you love criminals”?
Ternus is going to be the last CEO. They're going to be next Nokia, lack of AI native is going to bite them hard.
Good. It will allow you to learn how little your "position" matters.
Apple cares about the hundreds of billions of dollars held by large investors, not some rando Reddit-grade Wall Street wannabe.