Apple provides services for that Apple tax. A new competitor with no ability to create APIs and new tools is not going to compete on quality.
I don’t see what changes this will make. I can see the case for game app stores but regular apps? If apps sell more on the Apple App Store devs will gladly pay some Apple tax.
What apps will we get that are not available now? You need to convince the developers to move platforms, not just the users. So what is the benefit of using a different store?
It’s funny how people assume that alternative app stores would mean they can get around paying their cut.
As was established in Epic v. Apple, it’s not a payment processing fee, it’s an IP fee:
Indeed, as the Court has found, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.
This applies to sideloaded apps, alternative app stores, external payment processing, etc. The fee is to be payed for using the platform, its tools, and technologies, and having access to the user base generated by Apple via their hardware. That’s what you’re paying a 30% cut for.
They might have to - while the DMA requires them to allow sideloading or alternative stores, the DSA requires them (and alternative stores) to govern the system and protect users as well as remove illegal and violating content (and the EUs level of free speech varies between member countries).
And even under the DMA ‘the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking … strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party [apps and app stores] do not endanger the integrity of the [gatekeeper’s] hardware or operating system, provided such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper’.
People seem to be grossly under-informed (or unfazed) about either regulation and also blissfully unaware of the muzzling of free speech and the amount of censorship provisions contained in the DSA.
It’s as if the EUs regulatory left hand does’t know what its right hand is doing. The EU has an almost naive belief in the ‘magical’ abilities of software companies to make opposing legal requirements work so they can have their cake and eat it too.
Sideloading does not mean that you’re not subject to a ToS or that you will get full access to system frameworks.
This would potentially still require you to have an Apple developer membership to properly codesign binaries (like on macOS) if you distribute binaries and thus Apple could ask for financial audits to determine your income made with iOS customers.
This was explicitly mentioned in the court ruling: If a payment provider outside of Apple is used, Apple is entitled to such an audit to determine the size of the fee.
That’s not an enforceable policy though. If you allow any form of sideloading, people will get around that quickly. Jailbreaking is already possible, sideloading will make it easy.
How is this going to reduce the apple tax?
Apple provides services for that Apple tax. A new competitor with no ability to create APIs and new tools is not going to compete on quality.
I don’t see what changes this will make. I can see the case for game app stores but regular apps? If apps sell more on the Apple App Store devs will gladly pay some Apple tax.
What apps will we get that are not available now? You need to convince the developers to move platforms, not just the users. So what is the benefit of using a different store?
It’s funny how people assume that alternative app stores would mean they can get around paying their cut.
As was established in Epic v. Apple, it’s not a payment processing fee, it’s an IP fee:
This applies to sideloaded apps, alternative app stores, external payment processing, etc. The fee is to be payed for using the platform, its tools, and technologies, and having access to the user base generated by Apple via their hardware. That’s what you’re paying a 30% cut for.
There is no way they can collect such a cut under the new rules.
They might have to - while the DMA requires them to allow sideloading or alternative stores, the DSA requires them (and alternative stores) to govern the system and protect users as well as remove illegal and violating content (and the EUs level of free speech varies between member countries).
And even under the DMA ‘the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking … strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party [apps and app stores] do not endanger the integrity of the [gatekeeper’s] hardware or operating system, provided such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper’.
People seem to be grossly under-informed (or unfazed) about either regulation and also blissfully unaware of the muzzling of free speech and the amount of censorship provisions contained in the DSA.
It’s as if the EUs regulatory left hand does’t know what its right hand is doing. The EU has an almost naive belief in the ‘magical’ abilities of software companies to make opposing legal requirements work so they can have their cake and eat it too.
If sideloading is allowed, how would they enforce that?
Sideloading does not mean that you’re not subject to a ToS or that you will get full access to system frameworks.
This would potentially still require you to have an Apple developer membership to properly codesign binaries (like on macOS) if you distribute binaries and thus Apple could ask for financial audits to determine your income made with iOS customers.
This was explicitly mentioned in the court ruling: If a payment provider outside of Apple is used, Apple is entitled to such an audit to determine the size of the fee.
That’s not an enforceable policy though. If you allow any form of sideloading, people will get around that quickly. Jailbreaking is already possible, sideloading will make it easy.