Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Yoz ,

Lol I think apple should charge more..its a private company and charge any amount as it wish.
Also, a great opportunity for devs to band together and start an app store for apple phones.
Once it reaches to a point where there are less apps on the store and users stop buying iphone,everything will change.
Less fees, apps from other stores can be installed and many more perks.

PotatoesFall ,

unlike android i don't think it's possible to install another app store (iPhone user please confirm)

catalog3115 ,

That's why we all should rally behind web apps. Web apps & PWA are truly platform independent way of producing apps & games

fidodo ,

Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use Safari Web views, and Safari has the worst web bugs. I wouldn't be surprised if that was on purpose.

ohlaph ,

big mad

Lol

corsicanguppy ,

insta-downvote.

GilgameshCatBeard ,

Yep.

maynarkh ,

I wonder how this interacts with their DMA compliance. This might be fine for the US court that ruled in the Epic case, but the EU law was made to prevent exactly this.

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

Buncha fucking scumbags. Apple's greed knows no bounds.

Not gonna pretend like Google is some sort of savior but at least they allow you to use other app stores or even download them directly from the app developer.

GigglyBobble ,

at least they allow you to use other app stores or even download them directly from the app developer.

The bigger one is that the base system is still open source. That ensures a baseline of freedom. Google services are so intertwined that it's hardly possible to really live without but it is. Imagine a de-appled iPhone.

halva ,
@halva@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

That ensures a baseline of freedom

that's not how this works... nothing about android's licensing could make it impossible to make it impossible to not lock it down

GigglyBobble ,

nothing about android’s licensing could make it impossible to make it impossible to not lock it down

Sorry, I cannot decipher that. If you mean, this doesn't prevent phone makers to lock down their bootloaders: sure. But I just need to find one that doesn't and by an open source Android there will always be an image to flash. At least it's infinitely better than Apple's walled garden.

Giooschi ,

But I just need to find one that doesn't and by an open source Android there will always be an image to flash.

Unfortunately sooner or later Play Integrity will make this unfeasible in practice.

squid_slime ,
@squid_slime@lemmy.world avatar

For the regular user that wants to use banking I will agree, eventually all the large corporate application devs will be sold on play integration as a safety feature but its not hard to see that its a eco system and offers little more than locking installs in with googles walled garden.

LWD , (edited )

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    520 ,

    How is that extra fee not getting struck down by courts? Developers already paid the fee to be on the app store.

    Telodzrum ,

    No one has brought an action regarding it, yet. That's all.

    dpkonofa ,

    This structure was literally offered by the judge in the Epic case. The judge said that Apple is entitled to the fees whether the transactions are completed by Apple or not as long as they originated on the platform that Apple maintains and grows.

    kirklennon ,

    It's a commission for access to a lucrative market that Apple created. Apple gives away the developer tools and charges an extremely modest annual App Store fee, which also covers the review process and hosting. It's been common for platform creators to charge third-party developers in some capacity for many decades. Some do it by charging high costs for the developer tools, others by charging a commission based on sales. I don't think any strategy is necessarily better or worse than the other on a legal or moral basis; they're just business decisions. Previously Apple has combined the commission and payment processing costs into one fee. Apple made a decision on what they wanted to offer developers on that platform and Epic wasn't satisfied with it. They got a court to agree on what is ultimately a minor technical point in how Apple's deal is packaged so Apple is offering an alternative that they don't want to but complies with the law. It's, ultimately, a worse deal for the developer. Developers don't have a right to demand that some arbitrary percentage is the right one, tough. Apple offered a deal: take it or leave it. Developers are perfectly free to leave it.

    520 ,

    It's a commission for access to a lucrative market that Apple created.

    Which Apple already got their money for. Or did you think those $1k iPhones were at cost?

    Apple gives away the developer tools and charges an extremely modest annual App Store fee, which also covers the review process and hosting.

    A review process they themselves mandate. You also forget they also charge 30% for anything sold through their store. Which they also mandate you use.

    It's been common for platform creators to charge third-party developers in some capacity for many decades.

    Not for services they aren't providing, it isn't.

    Some do it by charging high costs for the developer tools, others by charging a commission based on sales.

    Again, these are for services that are being provided. Apple is charging people to not use their own payment service.

    kirklennon ,

    You also forget they also charge 30% for anything sold through their store.

    That’s literally what we’re discussing.

    Not for services they aren't providing, it isn't.

    Third-party console game developers paid money to the console maker even for physical sales.

    Again, these are for services that are being provided. Apple is charging people to not use their own payment service.

    The payment service is 3%; the commission is the other 27%. That’s what a commission is. It’s for access to the market.

    520 ,

    That’s literally what we’re discussing.

    No, we are discussing services not sold through their store and not using their payment provider. That is literally the topic of the post.

    Third-party console game developers paid money to the console maker even for physical sales.

    Third party console games don't literally pay money to not use services.

    The payment service is 3%; the commission is the other 27%. That’s what a commission is. It’s for access to the market.

    And that doesn't strike you as patently fucking insane? 27%? For doing literally fucking nothing? For literally providing no added value beyond which you as a developer have already paid for?

    kirklennon , (edited )

    No, we are discussing services not sold through their store and not using their payment provider. That is literally the topic of the post.

    This is about purchases of virtual goods made by users of the app either directly in the app (30% combined commission and payment processing fees), or who click a link in the app to make the purchase using an external payment provider (27% commission). In all cases, these are sales originating from within the app.

    Third party console games don't literally pay money to not use services.

    I’m not sure if there have been any changes in the last few years (I doubt it), but developers paid Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a 15% “licensing” fee for physical media games sold for their consoles. That has been the basic business model for all consoles for decades.

    520 , (edited )

    In all cases, these are sales originating from within the app.

    But the latter example is about an application not developed by Apple processing payments with mechanisms also not made by apple. In what world is it fair to be forced to give Apple another 27% when they didn't contribute shit beyond what you've already paid for.

    What next? Paying Microsoft 27% for releasing a paid for app on Windows?

    I’m not sure if there have been any changes in the last few years (I doubt it), but developers paid Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a 15% “licensing” fee for physical media games sold for their consoles. That has been the basic business model for all consoles for decades.

    I'm not sure if you're aware, but games consoles are a completely different market with completely different laws and standards governing them. Game consoles are not general purpose devices. They are closed platforms where you gotta sign lengthy NDAs and pay thousands just to get yourself a fucking dev kit.

    Comparing the smartphone market to the games console market just proves you know fuck all about either.

    kirklennon ,

    I'm not sure if you're aware, but games consoles are a completely different market with completely different laws and standards governing them. Game consoles are not general purpose devices. They are closed platforms where you gotta sign lengthy NDAs and pay thousands just to get yourself a fucking dev kit.

    iPhones are a closed platform. Ditto for iPad and Apple Vision Pro. They are essentially an app console. They have never been sold to consumers or presented to developers as anything else. For what it’s worth, almost all of the in-app revenue at the center of this discussion is gaming revenue. Everything else is a rounding error.

    520 , (edited )

    iPhones are a closed platform.

    Not like consoles, they are not. Anyone can develop for them, the only barrier is a small license fee and a Mac. Nintendo, Sony and MS will straight up not sell you an SDK if you are not an established gaming or educational organisation.

    They are essentially an app console. They have never been sold to consumers or presented to developers as anything else.

    They have been sold as general purpose devices that, like I said, anyone can develop for. Again, they are nothing like consoles.

    For what it’s worth, almost all of the in-app revenue at the center of this discussion is gaming revenue. Everything else is a rounding error.

    Spotify would disagree.

    sarmale ,

    Why cant they make their own store? Is apple mandating things like signing

    jol ,

    There's no way for users to install alternate stores in iOS

    sarmale ,

    Heared this will change with ios 17

    AProfessional ,

    The exact details aren’t known yet but likely its basic side loading, so no alternative stores, and probably only for EU phones.

    Also 17 is out, so maybe 18+.

    DrCake ,

    I know it’s the Verge and all but really, using “big mad” in a headline?

    transientpunk ,
    @transientpunk@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Gotta speak the language of the people I guess

    lolcatnip ,

    fr fr

    harry_balzac ,

    No cap

    Fly4aShyGuy ,
    @Fly4aShyGuy@lemmy.one avatar

    💯

    Imgonnatrythis ,

    Are Kids saying this? I haven't heard it. It sounds like toddler speak.

    transientpunk ,
    @transientpunk@sh.itjust.works avatar

    My partner recently started working at a high school, and I can confirm that I started hearing that shortly thereafter

    TheGrandNagus ,

    Yeah. And yeah it does.

    However when I was young in the late 80s adults were always complaining about the way we spoke, so I guess I'll refrain from doing the same thing to young people now

    IronKrill ,

    I feel like I saw "big mad" a few times in 2016, but never since...

    AlecSadler ,

    I, briefly, participated in a journalism camp for a large state newspaper where I live and the guiding advice was to, "write targeting a 6th grade education".

    That was 15 years ago, I can only imagine it's lower now.

    KpntAutismus ,

    better than the newspeak shit other websites are pulling.

    HootinNHollerin , (edited )

    Instant no-read

    highenergyphysics ,

    S L A M M E D

    B L A S T E D

    B U K K A K E D

    the absolute fucking state of journalism…

    uninvitedguest ,
    @uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca avatar

    I would read news with bukkake as a verb in the title.

    NegativeInf ,

    Next big trend in headline journalism.

    autotldr Bot ,

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    In a statement to The Verge, Spotify spokesperson Jeanne Moran says that the new 27 percent tax on alternative payment methods shows that Apple “will stop at nothing to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and consumers under their app store monopoly.”

    The company updated its App Store policies to comply with a court order handed down as part of the Epic v. Apple ruling.

    The change lets developers in the US link to alternative payment methods, but only if they shell out a 27 percent commission for each purchase made outside the App Store.

    Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney was one of the first to call out Apple’s changes as “anticompetitive,” adding the App Store policy “totally undermines” the court order.

    “Apple’s approach to ‘compliance’ with the District Court’s decision will not benefit developers and consumers,” Rick VanMeter, the executive director of the CAF, said in a statement.

    “These changes do nothing to enhance consumer choice” or to “lower prices for in-app purchases or inject competition into Apple’s walled garden.”

    The original article contains 418 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •