App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline

[Sophisticatednut]

You're begging the question. iOS developers aren't paying for a store. They're paying a licensing fee for use of iOS and associated services that is collected as a commission on sales subject to specific terms.

iOS developers aren’t just paying a developers fee, but a commission on sales in their digital store front and associated functionality they provide.

They aren’t paying a fee to access iOS, but for the certification of their apps.

To turn it around, why does the Steam store charge so much when all they provide is a storefront?

That is quite the assumption, they provide a lot more than a store front, and the matter is the tremendous value the functionality valve provides is sufficiently valuable for them to take such premium. Apple on the other hand isn’t. The Mac AppStore is only a year younger than steam on Mac.

3rd Party Keys

✅

⛔️

Developers can use 3rd party keys to sell their games on other platforms, offer promotions, reward backers, and more. Valve takes 0%

Apple does not have that feature. All sales take 15-30%

SDK	✅	⚠️very limited
developer tools	✅	⚠️limited
Game engine	✅	⛔️

Here you can read the details of the list

SDK	✅Valve’s SDK is the Source SDK, which is a software development kit that allows developers to create mods and custom content for Source-based games. The Source SDK includes the Source engine, the Valve Hammer Editor, FacePoser, model and texture tools, and documentation. The Source SDK also supports Steamworks, a set of APIs and tools that enable developers to integrate Steam features such as achievements, leaderboards, matchmaking, cloud, and more into their games.	⚠️Apple’s SDK is the iOS SDK, which is a software development kit that allows developers to create apps and games for iOS devices. The iOS SDK includes the Xcode IDE, the Swift programming language, the Cocoa Touch framework, the iOS Simulator, and documentation. The iOS SDK also supports various Apple services and technologies, such as App Store Connect, TestFlight, App Store Review Guidelines, App Clips, ARKit, Core ML, SiriKit, and more.
developer tools	✅Valve provides a comprehensive set of tools and technologies to create state-of-the-art games with the Source engine, including the Valve Hammer Editor, plug-ins for popular 3D art and animation programs, FacePoser, Source Model Viewer, Particle Editor, Material Editor, Commentary Editor, performance monitoring tools, and multiplayer network features4. Valve also offers complete source code for Half-Life 2, Portal, and Team Fortress 2, as well as extensive documentation and community tutorials	⚠️Apple offers a variety of developer tools and technologies to build apps and games for iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, and visionOS, including Xcode, Swift, SwiftUI, SwiftData, Macros, Observation, SwiftUI animations, WidgetKit, interactive widgets, Metal, and more5. Apple also provides sample code, articles, tutorials, API reference, design guidelines, human interface guidelines
Game engine	✅Valve’s game engine is Source, which is widely recognized as one of the most flexible, comprehensive, and powerful game development environments available4. Source combines leading-edge character animation, advanced AI, real-world physics, shader-based rendering, and a highly extensible development environment to produce some of the most popular computer and console games4. Source supports HLSL shaders, radiosity lighting, high dynamic range lighting, radiance transfer, dynamic shadows, shadow depth mapping, rim lighting, advanced material rendering, and a full range of special effects6.	⛔️Apple does not have its own game engine,.

Never said it doesn't. We were discussing whether a specific regulation exists within the DMA. We agreed that it does not.

There is, Apple cannot require developers to sign any agreement or services to be approved to sell software outside the AppStore

Especially when we look at their definition of

identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used​

(57)

If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

More information in the quote below 👇

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.

3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.
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.

7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.
8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) or which meet the thresholds in Article 3(2), point (b), as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services listed pursuant to that Article.


Article 2

Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

(10)	‘operating system’ means a system software that controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;

(11)	‘web browser’ means a software application that enables end users to access and interact with web content hosted on servers that are connected to networks such as the Internet, including standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar;

(12)	‘virtual assistant’ means a software that can process demands, tasks or questions, including those based on audio, visual, written input, gestures or motions, and that, based on those demands, tasks or questions, provides access to other services or controls connected physical devices;

(13)	‘cloud computing service’ means a cloud computing service as defined in Article 4, point (19), of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council (24);

(14)	‘software application stores’ means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications as the intermediated product or service;

(15)	‘software application’ means any digital product or service that runs on an operating system;

(16)	‘payment service’ means a payment service as defined in Article 4, point (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;

(17)	‘technical service supporting payment service’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (j), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;

(18)	‘payment system for in-app purchases’ means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions, features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases;

(19)	‘identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;

(20)	‘end user’ means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user;

(21)	‘business user’ means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity using core platform services for the purpose of or in the course of providing goods or services to end users;

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They're definitely not doing anything like progressive taxation. Billion dollar companies like Spotify and Tinder are exempt from the DMA.

lol, you people keep making things up. There’s no exception to the DMA

Except that forcing sideloading/third party stores was never on the ballot. That's what the EU is going to find out. This is a change that wasn't spearheaded by the general population of the EU. It came from the lobbyists for billion dollar companies like Spotify, Tinder and Epic and trillion dollar companies like Microsoft.

Will this really be popular in the EU with voters? I tend to doubt it. The idea that the mobile software business is the place where prices are too high and have plenty of room for cuts is the opposite of what actually exists. Mobile is already the bargain market.

It was on the ballot and they did ask the public

Are you sure about that? What's to stop the EU from mandating that Meta is free to build and operate their own apps the way they see fit? Remember, the EU is in negotiation with both Meta and Google, as well. Have the EU banned data tracking from apps?

See, you've just ceded control to a government, and taken that control away from Apple. You can't say for certain how this plays out.

Existing privacy laws prevents that from ever happening. Eu have mandated you need explicit consent from the user in a clear manner. Eu isn’t negotiating with Meta or google, they are in litigation for breach of privacy laws and antitrust rules

Most game emulators are technically illegal unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holders you can emulate the game. Breaking encryption and copyright is illegal. It just hasn't been sent to court yet and you are not likely to be targeted. Just like with Steam and Dolphin emulator, Apple is required by law to not include these types of apps.

I have spoken to my attorney in charge of my game development legal side at length about this.

Well in eu you are free to do whatever you want with the game you purchased. So if you own a SNES game you can emulate it without Nintendos permission

Why do you get your way but to damned with our ways? Just don't install app that require side loading. There, iOS can stay as it is.

Other operating systems don’t do that, but if apple tried it I’d hope that the EU clarified that linking to a library does not require a copyright license and that a header (or equivalent) is merely descriptive of a copyright work and not itself copyrightable.

Ideally such behaviour would push more people into realising that copyright is a blight on humanity and should never have existed in anything like its modern form, but even when a critical mass of people can be convinced (however long that takes) the EU commission won’t care.

Well the DMa doesn’t exactly deal with that, but existing copyright law already clarifies that Apple can’t do any of that.

This is the part I'm not so sure about:

Does the DMA require Apple to carry everyone's and anyone's app? Don't think so.
In which case I can totally anticipate Apple deciding (not publicly, of course):

Once a developer offers their app from their own website or a third-party, we'll boot them from our own store - to take away that developers income stream and set an example to deter others from offering their apps elsewhere.

(Which would also "confirm" the opinion of quite a few on this thread: "See, I told y'all! It was only a billion dollar lobbying effort. Only the biggest billion dollar companies like MS or Epic that will make you sideload. No small developer wants to!")

Well this is actually the funniest part. Apple needs to have an independent investigation ruling on their conditions

…publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Those general conditions should provide for a Union based alternative dispute settlement mechanism that is easily accessible, impartial, independent and free of charge for the business user, without prejudice to the business user’s own cost and proportionate measures aimed at preventing the abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism by business users. The dispute settlement mechanism should be without prejudice to the right of business users to seek redress before judicial authorities in accordance with Union and national law​

(62)
For software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision, gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Those general conditions should provide for a Union based alternative dispute settlement mechanism that is easily accessible, impartial, independent and free of charge for the business user, without prejudice to the business user’s own cost and proportionate measures aimed at preventing the abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism by business users. The dispute settlement mechanism should be without prejudice to the right of business users to seek redress before judicial authorities in accordance with Union and national law. In particular, gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores are an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation.
Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in a Regulation on a single market for digital services.

 

[BaldiMac]

The law spells out the following:

"The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services."

And also:

"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."



It won't amount to similar commission rates as introduced in the U.S. Not when the DMA was designed to "ensure contestability", "combate unfair practices weakening contestability" in these markets, and limit gatekeepers' power "to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users".

👉 If developers had to pay 30%/15% on Apple App Store Sales and 27%/12% on outside sales, that effectively makes the Apple App Store incontestable. This is obvious.

You're talking in circles here. You posted the same quotes at the beginning of our conversation. And we both agreed that they the DMA doesn't prevent Apple from charging a platform licensing fee to developers.

iOS developers aren’t just paying a developers fee, but a commission on sales in their digital store front and associated functionality they provide.

They aren’t paying a fee to access iOS, but for the certification of their apps.

Nope. That's just something you assumed because it fits your argument. Apple is clear that it considers its commission to primarily be a licensing fee for use of its property and services.

 

[OneBar]

When I look at this I see it from an alternative angle.
1st - Reduce cost by getting rid of or reducing the Apple pushed for subscription model.
2nd - This allows the introduction, or reintroduction of apps Apple has either not allowed or arbitrarily removed from the App Store. Including legacy apps.

These are the items I am hoping to eventually see in the iOS/iPadOS world.

A single purchase app doesn't fall under any subscription model. If there's a sub, it's the app dev doing it, not Apple.
I'll allow it provides for apps similar to what Apple has that they've summarily disallowed but unless you're able to break your phone and roll it back, legacy apps generally won't run on up to date OS's. Otherwise they wouldn't be legacy apps.

 

[OneBar]

It can become a viable business if a company is able to offer pricing, features, options, etc. appealing to developers and/or users.

Like Apple does? So you want more than one of the exact same thing you already have because arbitrary choices are somehow better?

Not every company has the overhead Apple does or wants/needs the profit margins Apple seeks.

Why does Apple have the overhead that it does? Where does it come from? You don't think that if an app dev can sell an app for the same price it's going for on app store but get 20% more profit out of it that they'll reduce the cost? That's not how business works.

 

[dk001]

A single purchase app doesn't fall under any subscription model. If there's a sub, it's the app dev doing it, not Apple.

Keep believing that. Subscription based apps have exploded over the last few years in the App Store. Apple is pushing this as it ensures a steady predictable income stream. Something that company finance just loves! For the developer it will likely lead to an increase in profits. It can also lead to lazy devs.
But some of the subscriptions …. Themes? WTH? Sell me v1.x and when you have a significant functionality update, v2.x sell me that. Maybe with a discount for current users. There are other options.

I'll allow it provides for apps similar to what Apple has that they've summarily disallowed but unless you're able to break your phone and roll it back, legacy apps generally won't run on up to date OS's. Otherwise they wouldn't be legacy apps.

Legacy as Apple has kicked them due to a lack of periodic updating (not all apps need this) or the developer pulled it due to a beef with Apple. While some won’t run, others will.
Other apps Apple doesn’t allow for one reason or the other.

I see these issues on both Android and iOS/iPadOS.

 

[OneBar]

Keep believing that. Subscription based apps have exploded over the last few years in the App Store. Apple is pushing this as it ensures a steady predictable income stream. Something that company finance just loves! For the developer it will likely lead to an increase in profits. It can also lead to lazy devs.
But some of the subscriptions …. Themes? WTH? Sell me v1.x and when you have a significant functionality update, v2.x sell me that. Maybe with a discount for current users. There are other options.

Apple isn't forcing anyone to use sub models. If they are, it's because that's the trend anymore and people have been conditioned into the sub model by companies who realized that's the easy way to make more money. If you think that's going to change because app devs can use a different app store, I'll point you at Adobe.

Legacy as Apple has kicked them due to a lack of periodic updating (not all apps need this) or the developer pulled it due to a beef with Apple. While some won’t run, others will.
Other apps Apple doesn’t allow for one reason or the other.

I see these issues on both Android and iOS/iPadOS.

If they're not seeing periodic updates, then they're going to run afoul of OS incompatibilities, as I already said. I've had a couple apps do that. They stopped updating and then they eventually quit working because they were no longer compatible with the OS. Unless you're somehow rolling your phone back to old OS's, legacy apps aren't a compelling reason.
And no app dev is holding on to their app after having beef with Apple on the off chance that one day they'll be let back in. They've redeveloped it for Android and are over there or they moved on to other iOS apps.

 

[dk001]

Apple isn't forcing anyone to use sub models. If they are, it's because that's the trend anymore and people have been conditioned into the sub model by companies who realized that's the easy way to make more money. If you think that's going to change because app devs can use a different app store, I'll point you at Adobe.

Forcing? Not in actuality. “Encouraging” it? Yes. Implement a long term subscription and your rate drops.
I have not been part of that for a couple of years now but based on the sheer volume in the App Store I suspect it hasn’t changed.

If they're not seeing periodic updates, then they're going to run afoul of OS incompatibilities, as I already said. I've had a couple apps do that. They stopped updating and then they eventually quit working because they were no longer compatible with the OS. Unless you're somehow rolling your phone back to old OS's, legacy apps aren't a compelling reason.
And no app dev is holding on to their app after having beef with Apple on the off chance that one day they'll be let back in. They've redeveloped it for Android and are over there or they moved on to other iOS apps.

Not always. Having an app that can survive several OS updates and being forced to update or it drops is a very real thing. Then if the developer membership expires for whatever reason ….

 

[BaldiMac]

Forcing? Not in actuality. “Encouraging” it? Yes. Implement a long term subscription and your rate drops.
I have not been part of that for a couple of years now but based on the sheer volume in the App Store I suspect it hasn’t changed.

Sure, but that's hardly Apple pushing subscriptions as you claimed. Plus, it only applies to less than 2% of apps in the App Store since the rest pay a lower rate already.

 

[dk001]

Sure, but that's hardly Apple pushing subscriptions as you claimed. Plus, it only applies to less than 2% of apps in the App Store since the rest pay a lower rate already.

There is “push” and blatant “you must”. Apple is using the former.
Effectively.

 

[BaldiMac]

There is “push” and blatant “you must”. Apple is using the former.
Effectively.

I see no evidence of that. I see a general trend among some software developers on multiple platforms to move to subscription pricing. Feel free to post evidence otherwise.

 

[webkit]

Like Apple does? So you want more than one of the exact same thing you already have because arbitrary choices are somehow better?

Apple actually prevents alternative app stores from becoming a potentially viable business by restring app access on iOS and iPadOS. They are stifling app access competition on major (as part of duopolies with Android) mobile and tablet operating systems.

Why does Apple have the overhead that it does? Where does it come from? You don't think that if an app dev can sell an app for the same price it's going for on app store but get 20% more profit out of it that they'll reduce the cost? That's not how business works.

Apple has the overhead they do because it’s a global company employing over 150,000 people, is involved with various types of products, etc. Being a public company can also elevate the importance of profits and profit margins. Smaller, leaner companies don't necessarily expect/need the profit margins Apple seeks and are also able to provide competitive options and ideas that Apple may have chosen not of felt no need to because they’re been able to restrict app access competition on iOS and iPadOS.

 

[dk001]

I see no evidence of that. I see a general trend among some software developers on multiple platforms to move to subscription pricing. Feel free to post evidence otherwise.

Your view. BTDT, tested with a couple of vendors whom had issues over that.
But that’s cool. I have been out of the actual dev and launch for a few years.

Apple will continue App Store subscription push with developer offer codes for customers - 9to5Mac

As more apps are switching to subscription models, Apple is reminding developers that they will have access to new App...

9to5mac.com

Like IAP, most won’t mention proof of it. Remember this? https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/...-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap.

If you want to continue discussing this lets put it into a new thread not to further derail this one.

 

[BaldiMac]

Your view. BTDT, tested with a couple of vendors whom had issues over that.
But that’s cool. I have been out of the actual dev and launch for a few years.

Apple will continue App Store subscription push with developer offer codes for customers - 9to5Mac

As more apps are switching to subscription models, Apple is reminding developers that they will have access to new App...

9to5mac.com

Providing tools for developers that want to use subscriptions is not the same as pushing developers to use subscriptions.

Like IAP, most won’t mention proof of it. Remember this? https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/...-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap.

If you want to continue discussing this lets put it into a new thread not to further derail this one.

Your example is a app that clearly broke longstanding rules and then released a misleading statement to complain about it? What nonsense.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And we both agreed that they the DMA doesn't prevent Apple from charging a platform licensing fee to developers.

I agree. They currently charge a $99 developer fee for access to their platform. And the DMA doesn’t seem to prohibit that in the future.

Before we’re going in more circles, please point out what you’re trying to get at.
And/or a practical example of why, how and how much they’ll be able to charge developers for apps that are not distributed through Apple. (just as I did when stating that the 27%/12% model will not be tolerated).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I agree. They currently charge a $99 developer fee for access to their platform. And the DMA doesn’t seem to prohibit that in the future.

Before we’re going in more circles, please point out what you’re trying to get at.
And/or a practical example of why, how and how much they’ll be able to charge developers for apps that are not distributed through Apple. (just as I did when stating that the 27%/12% model will not be tolerated).

I would argue there’s nothing Apple can do to enforce developers to sign up to apples developers program.

Xcode isn’t needed to make iOS apps. And the DMA prohibits the use of any information services used to track and/or identify developers.

A developer isn’t using any Apple services or IP that is protected under copyright.
The consumer is the one who downloads/ install the software on the phone.

You're talking in circles here. You posted the same quotes at the beginning of our conversation. And we both agreed that they the DMA doesn't prevent Apple from charging a platform licensing fee to developers.


Nope. That's just something you assumed because it fits your argument. Apple is clear that it considers its commission to primarily be a licensing fee for use of its property and services.

Apple can levy a fee IF the developer signs the agreement to do so.

But I’m not assuming it, there’s thousands of iOS apps sold in cydia and they don’t pay Apple a fee because they don’t have a contract with them.

What practically differentiate a consumer purchasing an iOS app on their windows computer or in the browser on their phone?

What rights does Apple have to levy a fee on someone who they don’t have a contract with?

On what basis will Apple argue they ask for a commission when they haven’t done so for third party apps not sold on their store for the last 16 years.

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree. They currently charge a $99 developer fee for access to their platform. And the DMA doesn’t seem to prohibit that in the future.

No, they charge $99 plus a percentage of sales under certain terms and conditions.

Before we’re going in more circles, please point out what you’re trying to get at.
And/or a practical example of why, how and how much they’ll be able to charge developers for apps that are not distributed through Apple. (just as I did when stating that the 27%/12% model will not be tolerated).

It's not that hard to follow. My only point is that the DMA does currently contain any regulation that would prevent Apple from charging a licensing fee for iOS apps sold in or out of the App Store. Your opinion on whether they will tolerate it notwithstanding.

You keep agreeing that I'm right and then backpedaling to say it won't be tolerated.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Nope. That's just something you assumed because it fits your argument. Apple is clear that it considers its commission to primarily be a licensing fee for use of its property and services.

What legal basis are a developer falling in this category?

what service are a developer using? Apple can’t require developer to register for any service?

How can a developer have free access to the hardware and API functions as described below if they are forced to pay a commission?

How can a competing application store compete on similar terms if they must pay a commission on all sales to Apple who runs their own store and have no fee for themselves?

If developers uses logos and iconography they would fall under a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory(FRAND) terms.

In these points it seems very hard for Apple to do anything point:

EEA relevance​

• 39: Prohibition of restricting business users from offering better conditions elsewhere:
• 40:Freedom of business users and end users to choose and promote distribution channels:
• 41: Prohibition of restricting end users from acquiring content outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper:
• 40: Communication and promotion freedom:
• 41: Content and service access
• 43: Prohibition of imposing services on business users and end users
• 44: Prohibition of requiring subscription or registration to other core platform services:
• 57: The problem of dual roles in digital markets & their obligation
• 62: Obligation to publish and apply fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory general conditions of access
• 70: Prohibition of imposing unfair or unjustified general conditions, including pricing conditions

Article 2​

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply

• 2:core platform services
• 7: online social networking service
• 10: operating system
  • means a system software that controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;
• 14 :software application stores
  • means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications as the intermediated product or service;
• 15: software application
  • means any digital product or service that runs on an operating system;
• 16: payment service
• 17: technical service supporting payment service
• 18: payment system for in-app purchases
  • means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions, features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases;
• 19: identification service
  • means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;
• 20: end user
• 21: business user
• 29: interoperability
  • means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function;

Article 5​

• 3:Price and condition parity
• 4:Communication and promotion freedom:
• 7:Identification service, browser and payment service choice:
• 8:No obligation to use core platform services

Arricle 6​

• 4:Third-party software applications or software application stores installation and use
• 7:Interoperability with hardware and software features:
• 10: Data access and sharing:

Article 13​

• 3: Compliance
• 4: Compliance with obligations:
• 6:No degradation of conditions or quality:

Article 28​

• 1-5
  • introduce a compliance function that is independent from its operational functions and composed of one or more compliance officers, including the head of the compliance function.

(Text with EEA relevance)​

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,​

​

(39)

In certain cases, for instance through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct online sales channels. Where such restrictions relate to third-party online intermediation services, they limit inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation services for end users. Where such restrictions relate to direct online sales channels, they unfairly limit the freedom of business users to use such channels. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services or direct online sales channels and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users.

(40)

To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, and in order to promote multi-homing, the business users of those gatekeepers should be free to promote and choose the distribution channel that they consider most appropriate for the purpose of interacting with any end users that those business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper or through other channels. This should apply to the promotion of offers, including through a software application of the business user, and any form of communication and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. An acquired end user is an end user who has already entered into a commercial relationship with the business user and, where applicable, the gatekeeper has been directly or indirectly remunerated by the business user for facilitating the initial acquisition of the end user by the business user. Such commercial relationships can be on either a paid or a free basis, such as free trials or free service tiers, and can have been entered into either on the core platform service of the gatekeeper or through any other channel. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect channel that such business user uses.

(41)

The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant.

43)

Certain services provided together with, or in support of, relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, such as identification services, web browser engines, payment services or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, are crucial for business usersto conduct their business and allow them to optimise services…. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. In order to avoid a situation in which gatekeepers indirectly impose on business users their own services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, gatekeepers should also be prohibited from requiring end users to use such services, when that requirement would be imposed in the context of the service provided to end users by the business user using the core platform service of the gatekeeper. That prohibition aims to protect the freedom of the business user to choose alternative services to the ones of the gatekeeper, but should not be construed as obliging the business user to offer such alternatives to its end users.

(44)

The conduct of requiring business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any other core platform services of gatekeepers listed in the designation decision or which meet the thresholds of active end users and business users set out in this Regulation, as a condition for using, accessing, signing up for or registering with a core platform service gives the gatekeepers a means of capturing and locking-in new business users and end users for their core platform services by ensuring that business users cannot access one core platform service without also at least registering or creating an account for the purposes of receiving a second core platform service. That conduct also gives gatekeepers a potential advantage in terms of accumulation of data. As such, this conduct is liable to raise barriers to entry and should be prohibited.

(57)

If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware…The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware.

(62)

For software application stores, …gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Those general conditions should provide for a Union based alternative dispute settlement mechanism that is easily accessible, impartial, independent and free of charge for the business user, without prejudice to the business user’s own cost and proportionate measures aimed at preventing the abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism by business users. … In particular, gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores are an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. …gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. … prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right...

(70)

Given the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that the obligations are applied effectively and are not circumvented. To that end, the rules in question should apply to any practice by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, insofar as the practice corresponds to the type of practice that is the subject of one of the obligations laid down by this Regulation. Gatekeepers should not engage in behaviour that would undermine the effectiveness of the prohibitions and obligations laid down in this Regulation. Such behaviour includes the design used by the gatekeeper, the presentation of end-user choices in a non-neutral manner, or using the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof to subvert or impair user autonomy, decision-making, or choice. Furthermore, the gatekeeper should not be allowed to engage in any behaviour undermining interoperability as required under this Regulation, such as for example by using unjustified technical protection measures, discriminatory terms of service, unlawfully claiming a copyright on application programming interfaces or providing misleading information. Gatekeepers should not be allowed to circumvent their designation by artificially segmenting, dividing, subdividing, fragmenting or splitting their core platform services to circumvent the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation.

Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

2)	‘core platform service’ means any of the following: (a) online intermediation services; (b) online search engines; (c) online social networking services; (d) video-sharing platform services; (e) number-independent interpersonal communications services; (f) operating systems;

(7)	‘online social networking service’ means a platform that enables end users to connect and communicate with each other, share content and discover other users and content across multiple devices and, in particular, via chats, posts, videos and recommendations;
10)	‘operating system’ means a system software that controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;

(14)	‘software application stores’ means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications as the intermediated product or service;

(15)	‘software application’ means any digital product or service that runs on an operating system;

(16)	‘payment service’ means a payment service as defined in Article 4, point (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;

(17)	‘technical service supporting payment service’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (j), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;

(18)	‘payment system for in-app purchases’ means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions, features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases;

(19)	‘identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;

(20)	‘end user’ means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user;

(21)	‘business user’ means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity using core platform services for the purpose of or in the course of providing goods or services to end users;

(29)

‘interoperability’ means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function;

Article 5
Obligations for gatekeepers

3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.

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.

7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.
8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services …as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services…

Article 6​

Obligations for gatekeepers susceptible of being further specified under Article 8

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.
7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system…
10. The gatekeeper shall provide business users and third parties authorised by a business user, at their request, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access to, and use of, aggregated and non-aggregated data, including personal data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services or services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users.

Article 13

Anti-circumvention

3. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 are fully and effectively complied with.
4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.

6. The gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.

Article 28

Compliance function

1. Gatekeepers shall introduce a compliance function, which is independent from the operational functions of the gatekeeper and composed of one or more compliance officers, including the head of the compliance function.

2. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the compliance function referred to in paragraph 1 has sufficient authority, stature and resources, as well as access to the management body of the gatekeeper to monitor the compliance of the gatekeeper with this Regulation.
3. The management body of the gatekeeper shall ensure that compliance officers appointed pursuant to paragraph 1 have the professional qualifications, knowledge, experience and ability necessary to fulfil the tasks referred to in paragraph 5.
The management body of the gatekeeper shall also ensure that such head of the compliance function is an independent senior manager with distinct responsibility for the compliance function.
4. The head of the compliance function shall report directly to the management body of the gatekeeper and may raise concerns and warn that body where risks of non-compliance with this Regulation arise, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the management body in its supervisory and managerial functions.
The head of the compliance function shall not be removed without prior approval of the management body of the gatekeeper.
5. Compliance officers appointed by the gatekeeper pursuant to paragraph 1 shall have the following tasks:

(a)	organising, monitoring and supervising the measures and activities of the gatekeepers that aim to ensure compliance with this Regulation;

(b)	informing and advising the management and employees of the gatekeeper on compliance with this Regulation;

(c)	where applicable, monitoring compliance with commitments made binding pursuant to Article 25, without prejudice to the Commission being able to appoint independent external experts pursuant to Article 26(2);

(d)	cooperating with the Commission for the purpose of this Regulation.

​

Edit: more info

 

[dk001]

Providing tools for developers that want to use subscriptions is not the same as pushing developers to use subscriptions.


Your example is a app that clearly broke longstanding rules and then released a misleading statement to complain about it? What nonsense.

And Marketing is just giving you options.
Got it.

Like I said, BTDT.

Btw, that was an example. I’m not here to dive into the deep details and what wherefore of those past items. They were examples of behavior.

Like I said, if you want to continue on this off topic item, lets take it to a new thread.

 

[AppliedMicro]

plus a percentage of sales under certain terms and conditions

Yes - a percentage on sales when Apple is acting as commissionaire. For purchases through other channels, Apple isn't the commissionaire - so they can't charge that percentage commission anymore.

Otherwise, see the post by @Sophisticatednut above.

Apple may try to introduce another, new „licensing fee“ it in their terms elsewhere, and developers would first need to agree on that - but how/where, in light of the provisions of the DMA?

 

[mrochester]

Yes - a percentage on sales when Apple is acting as commissionaire. For purchases through other channels, Apple isn't the commissionaire - so they can't charge that percentage commission anymore.

Otherwise, see the post by @Sophisticatednut above.

Apple may try to introduce another, new „licensing fee“ it in their terms elsewhere, and developers would first need to agree on that - but how/where, in light of the provisions of the DMA?

I wonder if the commission rates will be attached to the signing certificate?

It looks like the DMA says Apple won’t be able to charge for access to hardware or software features and won’t be able to charge for app developers to communicate and promote offers to end users. Can Apple therefore charge for the certificate that allows the app developer to actually distribute their app?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes - a percentage on sales when Apple is acting as commissionaire. For purchases through other channels, Apple isn't the commissionaire - so they can't charge that percentage commission anymore.

Otherwise, see the post by @Sophisticatednut above.

Apple may try to introduce another, new „licensing fee“ it in their terms elsewhere, and developers would first need to agree on that - but how/where, in light of the provisions of the DMA?

Updated it a little.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I wonder if the commission rates will be attached to the signing certificate?

It looks like the DMA says Apple won’t be able to charge for access to hardware or software features and won’t be able to charge for app developers to communicate and promote offers to end users. Can Apple therefore charge for the certificate that allows the app developer to actually distribute their app?

Well as it seems currently as I read it: Apple must allow developers the ability to distribute their apps for free.

The only place the certificate is applicable is for AppStore distribution. And I don’t see a practical way for them to force developers to use the certificate.

Requiring app developers to use Apple’s in-app purchase system and pay a commission: This would violate paragraph 39, as it would prevent app developers from offering their products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or direct online sales channels. It would also violate paragraph 40, as it would limit the freedom of app developers to choose and promote alternative distribution channels for their products or services.

 

[AppliedMicro]

the only place the certificate is applicable is for AppStore distribution.

It's not.

In-house Apps signed with enterprise certificates are not for App Store distribution - but still signed. And the end user has to trust the developer (and its certificate) when "sideloading" an app.

Same with macOS - on which you can, in addition to a) signed apps from the App Store and b) signed apps acquired from identified developers elsewhere, also run apps from unidentified developers.

 

[OneBar]

Forcing? Not in actuality. “Encouraging” it? Yes. Implement a long term subscription and your rate drops.
I have not been part of that for a couple of years now but based on the sheer volume in the App Store I suspect it hasn’t changed.

And? That's not going to change because the store changes. There's a reason that model is being pushed; everyone gets more money by charging monthly because people don't do simple math and realize they're paying much much more.

Not always. Having an app that can survive several OS updates and being forced to update or it drops is a very real thing. Then if the developer membership expires for whatever reason ….

That didn't even address the point...