Craig
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉The issue is that these developers wanted one thing (lower fees), but lobbied for “freedom of stores” and “external payment systems”
They got what they asked for, which is not what they wanted.
mcc@Migueldeicaza This isn't how it works. The problem with install-based fees isn't that it's too high. It's that it makes it generally impossible to make software at all. This is why it was rejected so completely with Unity.
An install fee means "with these terms, you're not going to release the software at all". It was how Unity used it (they didn't want you to pay the fee; they wanted you to use their ad network) and it's how Apple is using it (they don't want you to use an alt app store).
Louis Ingenthron@mcc @Migueldeicaza That may be their complaint now, but it's not the original complaint that spawned the lawsuit.
phi1997@LouisIngenthron
Because charging people for the privilege of running their code on a device is utterly ludicrous. It's totally reasonable for developers not to expect that catch.
@mcc @Migueldeicaza
Because charging people for the privilege of running their code on a device is utterly ludicrous. It's totally reasonable for developers not to expect that catch.
@mcc @Migueldeicaza
Bart Wronski 🇺🇦🇵🇸@mcc @Migueldeicaza I never though about Unity stuff this way. It was just plain bizarre. But it makes a lot of sense explained this way.
@BartWronski @mcc Unity were two issues: (a) pricing change; (b) effectively pricing was retroactive. People had to go back to the drawing boards and reevaluate their business model.
In this case, you don’t have to change the model. You put your projections on a spreadsheet and you figure out whether to keep your existing deal or opt into the new deal.
Victor Bogado@mcc @Migueldeicaza
Also is very naive stating that "your specification was not precise, therefore you got what you wanted". In this case there's an imbalance of power between the large company that controls the app store and the devs.
No matter what people ask, a powerful player will be able to satisfy the requirements while making things even worse.
Matthaus Woolard@mcc Apple is not doing an install fee per install they are doing a fee per user.
This is very common in the SDK space, you typicly pay up front for 10k users or 100k users when you license most SDKs.
Alvaro@Migueldeicaza the audacity of a company that pays the least to musicians (Apple Music pays ~ 3X per stream)
Mieszko Ślusarczyk@Migueldeicaza What they should do is look at how fair their attitude towards artists is (and how little they’re paying them).
Cory 
@Migueldeicaza that also assumes that Apple is complying in good faith — it's more that they're trying to maintain their rents while appearing to comply.
@cory it would be negligent of them to not ensure they were in compliance with the law.
@Migueldeicaza well sure, but do they levy these same fees on macOS? And what's so untenable about the macOS security/app install model that it can't be applied to iOS? It's complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.
@cory it’s a business model choice. Presumably these choices optimize for a set of goals. And these are not uniform across their offerings.
@Migueldeicaza I suppose, but it invites regulatory scrutiny and the users lose out.
piofthings@Migueldeicaza 😬😬😬 I am missing some finer details here, but your post by itself is 🤭🤭🤭
Vicente Reyes@Migueldeicaza They wanted free markets. Apple gave them free markets with a "2nd government" charging taxes.
@vicho none of these traitors find or advance free and open platforms.
@Migueldeicaza if I'm understanding correctly, you're criticizing Epic and Spotify because of their game and podcast exclusivity deals, right? Why does that make them traitors? At best it'll make them hypocrites.
Anyway, if I had a music service and a competitor was using its privileges as platform owner to beat me, I'd be reminded of Netscape's fate.
Anyway, if I had a music service and a competitor was using its privileges as platform owner to beat me, I'd be reminded of Netscape's fate.
@vicho no. I mean every vendor that is up in arms about closed platforms could have taken a stand years ago and said “we will nurture a fully open platform and desktop” and support AOSP, Linux desktop.
But they chased the money and the convenience.
And now they are crying.
savaran@Migueldeicaza I'm hesitant to say they got anything. There's certainly not "freedom of stores" by any meaning of the word.
Would anyone accept it if Walmart had to approve everything on the tables in your local farmer's market? Or even the Whole Foods? Because we've got the software equivalent happening here.
@savaran that’s not what is going on. You can publish whatever you want in the EU now via other AppStore’s.
You do have to pay a fee to sell your goods in Walmarts parking lot though.
@Migueldeicaza How is it Walmart's parking lot if it's in my living room and bought from a different store and paid through a different payment provider? How does Walmart still deserve rent for the parking space that isn't being used?
overstrike@Migueldeicaza Yes, but also: Epic doesn't want lower fees; they want the Epic Game Store on every platform. Whatever else one thinks about this issue, Epic being one of the deepest-pocketed complainers isn't doing the rest of the developer community any favors here.
@overstrike oh absolutely. This has always been the end game for Epic.
Dominic Hopton@overstrike @Migueldeicaza if you don’t want to pay apple anything, just start an alertnative store? For the people who are dropping press releases & doing interview the $1,000,000 credit line proof isn’t an issue, so… just do it?
@overstrike @Migueldeicaza I’ve been miss understanding this. Would swear on my initial reading of the new rules at https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#distribution-eu it said the CTF was only applicable for the new business terms on the App Store. But no, upon checking again this evening the CTF is ‘… and/or alternative app marketplace’.
Which, really is downright Unity like. wtf.
Bynkii@overstrike @Migueldeicaza epic wakes in a hot sweaty mess from fever dreams of being able to charge customers by the minute to play their games.
@Migueldeicaza
I feel like you're assuming there weren't people just interested in side loading software onto their devices. This feels like victim blaming to me.
I feel like you're assuming there weren't people just interested in side loading software onto their devices. This feels like victim blaming to me.
Felipe Cepriano@Migueldeicaza I find it weird that the EU wasn't more specific about taxes or accepting apps.
They do regulate debit/credit cards interchange fees, and the DSA regulates content moderation on social media.
@felipecn because it is not a credit card processing fee.
@Migueldeicaza Yep, I agree. I'm not saying it is (also because cards interchange is regulated at 0,30% maximum!)
But the EU already regulate other markets more specifically. They could've regulated a max 15% fee for gatekeepers and required app approvals to be transparent and appealable
They didn't regulated those, but just opened up the market (in hope EU companies can compete on them, I think)
Sweepi@Migueldeicaza nonsense. "We" did not get "freedom of stores". According to Apples proposal, stores need to collect money for apple and all apps shall still be reviewed and signed by Apple. Also Apple can make arbitrary conditions on those who want to open a store. We will see if this model is sufficient to comply with the new EU rules.
@Sweepi by freedom of stores they wanted “we want to publish whatever without Apple approving”.
Apple has always been crystal clear they want a fee for using their work
@Migueldeicaza There is no need to using Apple's work to publish apps for iOS, except where Apple is (currently) forcing one to use their work and then also wants to collect a fee for that burden.
@Sweepi you seem to be under the impression that iPhone is a public good
@Migueldeicaza I am under the impression that 3rd party apps for iOS is market that Apple gatekeeps, as per the following definition:
>>The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of clearly defined objective criteria to identify “gatekeepers”. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services.<<
>>The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of clearly defined objective criteria to identify “gatekeepers”. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services.<<
@Sweepi excellent! Good job! Now read the rest and discuss with your lawyer!
Ciao!
Garrett Wollman@Migueldeicaza @Sweepi What they want (well, what their management and shareholders want; corporations do not have desires) and what they are morally entitled to are entirely different propositions.
Pomegranate County Irregulars@Migueldeicaza Spotify who gave a gazillion to Rogan and wasted money on attempting to rule podcasting?
Oh, yeah, Mr. Ek, it’s Apple that’s in the way of your profitability, which is a neat trick considering how well Android does in mobile and Windows on the desktop.
Max Leibman has moved!@pomCountyIrregs @Migueldeicaza Yep, this. Apple isn’t a good guy here, but the Spotifies and Epics of the world aren’t making a moral stand—they’re just mad that they aren’t the most successful monopolies in the ecosystem.
Juan Tatay Galvany - silta 🔥@Migueldeicaza
i am thinking of the spanish, odoom which says “be careful with what you desire… “
apple may be greedy or just looking for its own interests… but no doubt they seem to be smarter, at least crunching laws…
i am thinking of the spanish, odoom which says “be careful with what you desire… “
apple may be greedy or just looking for its own interests… but no doubt they seem to be smarter, at least crunching laws…
Kristopher Browne@Migueldeicaza unfortunately the poster kids they selected like Spotify and Epic are bad faith actors trying to crack control for even bigger bad faith actors (tencent)
donkey@Migueldeicaza @HilliTech I’d argue that they actually wanted no fees rather than lower fees. They wanted uncontrolled access to iOS devices/users for free - which is just ridiculous.
@donkey @HilliTech yeah. They just couldn’t ask for that.
@Migueldeicaza @HilliTech Indeed! And every change Apple makes which doesn’t result in free access for them will be met by them throwing another tantrum.