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).

> So for, say, your iPad mini plus 2–5 other iPads, the workable setup is: Mac + Xcode → $99/year developer membership → register each iPad's UDID → create an Ad Hoc build → install that build on those devices. You don't have to publish it, make it discoverable, or have Apple review it.

That would work for me, except that I prefer to build web apps instead. There’s nothing I really want to build that couldn’t be done as a web app.

As for why one computing platform would be different than another, if you don’t think there’s any difference then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.

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.

> “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

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they've attained it, they won't give it up voluntarily. You have to force them.

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.

Don’t worry. They’re working really hard to fix the bug. It’s not intended that you can install without paying a fee.

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".

Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution

This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.

How do you not use their SDK?

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.

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.

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.

[0] Which is rare. I’m installing random shit all the time using homebrew and it’s basically never an issue.

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

Yeah...

> then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?

Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.

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.

Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.

> 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 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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

It would just be limited to 3 apps per device that require to be refreshed every 7 days to continue to be able to open them.

Web apps are a non starter for iOS since the only allowed browser on iOS happens to not support crucial standards and may drop your app's persistent data.

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.

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.

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.

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 it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.

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.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

This is older than the current smartphone duopoly; IIRC, with a few exceptions like the N900 and the Palm Treo, cell phones were always very locked down. It probably came initially from the phone companies being control freaks, and wanting to restrict which devices (even mechanical ones with no electrical or radio interface) could be attached to their phone system.

For now. It is clear which direction Apple is going.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

> [“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...)

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.

It will likely be delayed, just like Manifest v3, but eventually it will happen.

> 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

- …

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.

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.

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.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/competit...

Are you saying that this is not the case at all?

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.

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).

Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.

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.

As I said, just speculation, but this is how most of the time these things go

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 EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For iPhone apps Apple is way behind with about 0.005% of the total 2.17 million iPhone apps.

That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".

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

Availability is a key component of security, and this is a 24-hour DOS on apps not blessed by google.

iPhone sales pay for the entirety of Apple's R&D. 10 times over.

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.

Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.

Not entirely how you've made formed this connection but respectively it sounds like you've confused several things here.

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.

Stupid users who have neglected to attain perfect and absolute information regarding all the things that the applications they install will do.

> [“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...)

You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?

If that's the case then maybe we need to start considering what kind of alternate mechanisms can robustly mitigate the threat.

It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.

> N900 and the Palm Treo

Performance-wise, a modern iPhone is more closely comparable to room-sized (building-sized?) supercomputer of that era.

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.

In fact, you will have a guarantee of failure if e.g. your messaging app doesn't support iOS

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.

That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.

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.

“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!!”

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.

Which censorship do you consider problematic?

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.

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.

https://donatstudios.com/mac-terminal-run-unsigned-binaries

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All countries with a working democracy would class Apple as a monopoly as it has significant market power, enough to distort prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

The market is mobile devices.

Apple can change their rules and it materially impacts the market.

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?