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

[dk001]

In fairness, that's not true. I've downloaded apk's and installed. Yes, there is a setting to allow it in the first place, and a few warnings to dismiss, but it's no major headache. I've downloaded a couple and done it easily enough.

But it is difficult and/or annoying enough that many on Android won’t.
It could be simplified by a good bit depending on what OEM.

 

[BaldiMac]

But it is difficult and/or annoying enough that many on Android won’t.
It could be simplified by a good bit depending on what OEM.

You download an app. Approve downloads from the source. And press install. I can't imagine that any reasonable person would expect it to be more simple than that.

How to Sideload Apps on Android

An important thing every Android user should know.

www.howtogeek.com

 

[dk001]

You download an app. Approve downloads from the source. And press install. I can't imagine that any reasonable person would expect it to be more simple than that.

How to Sideload Apps on Android

An important thing every Android user should know.

www.howtogeek.com

I have several Android devices and that is the minimum on two. The other four there is a bit more.
Don’t forget the warning screens or popups.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In fairness, that's not true. I've downloaded apk's and installed. Yes, there is a setting to allow it in the first place, and a few warnings to dismiss, but it's no major headache. I've downloaded a couple and done it easily enough.

Depends on the phone, Samsung phones and especially Huaweii phones are a pain in the ass doing that. Especially when you have zero knowledge of how android works.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No it doesn't. It gives the developer the choice where to sell their App. Not the consumer. Which means a developer could make an 'App Store' without any regard for the user's privacy or security (if they want) and then force the user to switch to their 'App Store'

I’ll correct myself, if you insist: It allows for consumer choice - because developers can sell through alternative channels (outside of the App Store).

As the Mac App Store however indicates, many developers are quite happy with offering apps on their own store and through Apple‘s App Store. So it will, de facto, likely give consumers more choice.

None of this regulation is about consumer choice or making things better for consumers.

It reduces distribution costs for developers - which can lead to lower consumer prices.

Claims that developers are going to pocket the difference themselves are conjecture. Developers may be able to do it in some cases - but certainly not all.

Monopolies are rarely good for consumers. Allowing for competition almost always results in at least some advantages for consumers (though some may, as a matter of individual preference, value the “everything from one single store” concept much higher).

 

[seek3r]

Monopolies are really good for customers.

You typed that with a straight face?
EDIT: this was typo from OP, so ignore my commentary folks

 

[AppliedMicro]

You typed that with a straight face?

I must have mistyped, and the automated correction turned my „rarely“ into a „really“ 😌

 

[1129846]

You typed that with a straight face?

To give him something, some monopolies are good for consumers as they are a natural monopoly. Things like say utilities lines, ISP wires hell even cell towers could be argued. I mean it would cost way to much if say every power provider had to build their own lines to each house. Imagine a city with 20 different power companies running lines all over the city. Hell the city of Lubbock Texas has more power lines than needed because 2 power companies could not get along for a while and so they built out most of the city with their own lines doubling the lines all over the city.

I could even argue an OS tends to form a natural monopoly or at least as we see in smart phones a natural dounopoly. But it should come at a heavy price that in those cases above that the monopoly owners are heavily and I mean heavily regulated to prevent them from using that natural power. In this case gatekeeper status. They should not be allowed to use that power in any way shape or form vertically

 

[AppliedMicro]

No, it doesn't. Again, the DMA doesn't say the can't charge commissions on outside sales, so there is nothing to circumvent.

As we both agreed, there is no regulation preventing them from charging the commission on external purchases.

I'll certainly continue to omit it because it's nonsense. Charging a commission on third-party sales is a common and reasonable licensing term

I guess today's announcement settles it for the time being, doesn't it? At least with regards to what Apple themselves think they're allowed to do (though Sweeney may differ).

👉 They are not going to charge a commission (as a percentage) on sales through other channels - as you claimed they could.

Why not? Is that out of mere good will - or because they believe they're not allowed to? I think we both know the answer.

Then again, they do believe that they can...

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.

...charge a platform licensing fee - as you also stated they could.

And that's a 50 cents per first app installation, Apple account and year (above the first million installs). So far from substituting their current commission rates - as I said.

 

[BaldiMac]

I guess today's announcement settles it for the time being, doesn't it? At least with regards to what Apple themselves think they're allowed to do (though Sweeney may differ).

👉 They are not going to charge a commission (as a percentage) on sales through other channels - as you claimed they could.

Why not? Is that out of mere good will - or because they believe they're not allowed to? I think we both know the answer.

Then again, they do believe that they can...

...charge a platform licensing fee - as you also stated they could.

And that's a 50 cents per first app installation, Apple account and year (above the first million installs). So far from substituting their current commission rates - as I said.

Still playing with words, I see. A 0.5 euro commission per install per account per year is still a commission even if it's not a percentage.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Still playing with words, I see. A 0.5 euro commission per install per account per year is still a commission even if it's not a percentage.

I maintain it's not a commission - it's more of a licensing fee. But leaving the "playing with words aside".

That said, it applies only to installs. They are not charging it on purchases or sales (as you claimed they could - I already highlighted it above).

The point here is not who's right or wrong. But the fact crucially shows Apple's limited ability to monetise - while maintaining fair and equal terms of access (as they're legally required by the DMA, from what I read) and without deterring free apps.

Especially as Apple has shown (in the U.S. and Netherlands) how they want to charge a proportional amount on sales through other channels (the infamous 27%/12%).

 

[BaldiMac]

I maintain it's not a commission - it's more of a licensing fee.

They two are not exclusive. It can be described either way.

That said, it applies only to installs. They are not charging it - as you claimed they could - on purchases or sales (I already highlighted it above).

They're certainly charging it on purchases or sales for apps with more that 1 million installs. And they are charging it annually.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They're certainly charging it on purchases or sales for apps with more that 1 million installs. And they are charging it annually.

They are not.
They're charging it on installs only.
👉 There's no relation to purchases or sales. The highlighted part (on purchases or sales) is plain wrong.

But they'd charge it even on apps that are totally free (no digital goods or services sold - unless benefitting from the non-profit exemption), provided that their developers agreed to the new EU terms.

You can have a 100 million first installs and they'll charge the same technology fee - whether your apps makes a billion or zero EUR in purchases or sales afterwards.

 

[BaldiMac]

They are not.
They're charging it on installs only.
There's no relation to purchases or sales.

Again, you're simply playing with words. Two things can be true at once.

But they'd charge it even on apps that are totally free (no digital goods or services sold - unless benefitting from the non-profit exemption), provided that their developers agreed to the new EU terms.

So now you want to quibble over whether buying a free app is considered a purchase or sale? Good luck with that. Maybe other posters will find that interesting.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, you're simply playing with words. Two things can be true at once.

No, you are.

You claimed they could charge commission based on sales or purchases.
Apple seems to believe they can't.

So now you want to quibble over whether buying a free app is considered a purchase or sale?

There is a relevant difference between charging a commission on sales - and a fee and based on (kind of) usage of a thing or service.

Commissions, fees, duties and taxes are not the same economically - for good reason.

Commissions on sales or purchases usually means: More sales - more (total) commission to pay. Most commonly as a percentage on earnings or revenue.

A fee on usage does not. You even pay when you're not making money.
That is a relevant difference in this context.

👉 Your wording of "commissions on sales/purchases" suggests that Apple could legally charge developers more, the more they earn from their apps. That's apparently wrong.

 

[CarAnalogy]

How is an iPhone different from a Playstation, XBox or Switch? Aren’t they also software-based platforms?

Why shouldn’t people be able to sideload games onto the Playstation or XBox? Isn’t Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo withholding hardware functionality from users/developers?

I honestly don’t see any difference and would love to understand why this law doesn’t apply to game consoles.

Because the purpose of a game console is to be a locked down, tightly controlled, stable development platform and income stream. There are similarities, but also important differences.

On a game console nobody wants people to mess with things, because people will use it for cheating. Everyone has agreed to be purposely limited.

Consoles are also frequently sold at cost, with the idea being that the maker gets the profits in skimming off the developers. Also very similar but this is not the model we are sold on when we buy an iPhone.

Finally and most importantly, iPhones and especially Macs are meant to be general purpose computers. We don't want to live in a world where computers can only run software approved by the platform owner. And not just approved for security but also content, and most importantly for control to prevent any possible threat to any business model they want to block.

By the way, the game developers aren't thrilled with the arrangement on consoles either. But they're just making games, not general purpose software.

 

[dk001]

Because the purpose of a game console is to be a locked down, tightly controlled, stable development platform and income stream. There are similarities, but also important differences.

On a game console nobody wants people to mess with things, because people will use it for cheating. Everyone has agreed to be purposely limited.

Consoles are also frequently sold at cost, with the idea being that the maker gets the profits in skimming off the developers. Also very similar but this is not the model we are sold on when we buy an iPhone.

Finally and most importantly, iPhones and especially Macs are meant to be general purpose computers. We don't want to live in a world where computers can only run software approved by the platform owner. And not just approved for security but also content, and most importantly for control to prevent any possible threat to any business model they want to block.

By the way, the game developers aren't thrilled with the arrangement on consoles either. But they're just making games, not general purpose software.

Btw - I can side load on my Xbox and ps4 (don’t have a 5). They are moderately locked down but where there’s a will a gamer will find a way.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Btw - I can side load on my Xbox and ps4 (don’t have a 5). They are moderately locked down but where there’s a will a gamer will find a way.

That’s good. I just feel like the entire invented word “side-load” is poisoning the context of the conversation. It hides the complexities but it also implies certain assumptions, like that hardware shouldn’t allow unapproved (by the hardware vendor, not the user) software to run. Even if it can, it implies it’s somehow a backdoor that could close at any moment.

 

[deevey]

Because the purpose of a game console is to be a locked down, tightly controlled, stable development platform and income stream. There are similarities, but also important differences.

Why should a phone be treated any differently? If anything your phone should be more locked down, have tighter security and be more stable than a games console. The iPhone and subsequent App store was designed to do just that and barring (very few) gaps in the gate has done a remarkably good job until now.

People don't use a games console to store and manage and share (And I mean literally in many cases) their entire life.

You can use the excuse the people are not idiots. But unfortunately many (and I fear the majority at this point in time) are, or we wouldn't have warning labels on items that can obviously cause harm.

I'm all for darwinism up to the point that my life is affected negatively by someone else's stupid choices.

That’s good. I just feel like the entire invented word “side-load” is poisoning the context of the conversation. It hides the complexities but it also implies certain assumptions, like that hardware shouldn’t allow unapproved (by the hardware vendor, not the user) software to run. Even if it can, it implies it’s somehow a backdoor that could close at any moment.

I buy my devices based on researching their capabilities at the time of purchase. Not what the hardware could be capable of if I break features that make the device what it was (a secure device that doesn't allow myself or others unapproved vendor apps).

Sure you can do the same thing with a car (remap) and void the warranty.

Everyone has agreed to be purposely limited.

Who is everyone?

Consoles are also frequently sold at cost, with the idea being that the maker gets the profits in skimming off the developers. Also very similar but this is not the model we are sold on when we buy an iPhone.

Most consoles are only initially sold at a loss, I would assume with the understanding that after a couple of years in production that it will eventually turn a profit or break even on unit sales. Everyone except Microsoft has made a profit on their consoles after extended production runs.

Did you buy that Xbox/Playstation becuase it was sold at a loss, or becuase it was what you wanted to game on? So it "came out" in the press at some point that manufactures are willing to sell at a temporary loss to gain sales.

You also do not know if Apple exec's have factored in the current pricing for an iPhone based on the fact that users will buy apps through the store. If the App store did not exist as a profit center, the prices for their devices might be higher.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Why should a phone be treated any differently? If anything your phone should be more locked down, have tighter security and be more stable than a games console. The iPhone and subsequent App store was designed to do just that and barring (very few) gaps in the gate has done a remarkably good job until now.

People don't use a games console to store and manage and share (And I mean literally in many cases) their entire life.

You can use the excuse the people are not idiots. But unfortunately many (and I fear the majority at this point in time) are, or we wouldn't have warning labels on items that can obviously cause harm.

I'm all for darwinism up to the point that my life is affected negatively by someone else's stupid choices.


I buy my devices based on researching their capabilities at the time of purchase. Not what the hardware could be capable of if I break features that make the device what it was (a secure device that doesn't allow myself or others unapproved vendor apps).

Sure you can do the same thing with a car (remap) and void the warranty.

Who is everyone?

Most consoles are only initially sold at a loss, I would assume with the understanding that after a couple of years in production that it will eventually turn a profit or break even on unit sales. Everyone except Microsoft has made a profit on their consoles after extended production runs.

Did you buy that Xbox/Playstation becuase it was sold at a loss, or becuase it was what you wanted to game on? So it "came out" in the press at some point that manufactures are willing to sell at a temporary loss to gain sales.

You also do not know if Apple exec's have factored in the current pricing for an iPhone based on the fact that users will buy apps through the store. If the App store did not exist as a profit center, the prices for their devices might be higher.

“Everyone” in that context meaning console gamers. There is an implicit understanding that the system is locked down in large part to prevent cheating.

Phones should be treated differently because they are general purpose computers.

I think you and I are talking about two different things. Apple has many, many systems in place for security. They are just taking the control too far. That’s all I’m saying.

Maybe you don’t remember the early 90s which was the last time anyone really made a big deal about it, but software freedom is a real issue. That’s my concern.

 

[dk001]

That’s good. I just feel like the entire invented word “side-load” is poisoning the context of the conversation. It hides the complexities but it also implies certain assumptions, like that hardware shouldn’t allow unapproved (by the hardware vendor, not the user) software to run. Even if it can, it implies it’s somehow a backdoor that could close at any moment.

I half agree with you. Side load and alternative app stores are two very different things but they are being mixed Willy nilly.

If I buy and own the hardware and want to run something on it (software), I should be able to do that and not be artificially limited by the hardware vendor/manufacturer.

 

[I7guy]

I’ll correct myself, if you insist: It allows for consumer choice - because developers can sell through alternative channels (outside of the App Store).

As the Mac App Store however indicates, many developers are quite happy with offering apps on their own store and through Apple‘s App Store. So it will, de facto, likely give consumers more choice.

It reduces distribution costs for developers - which can lead to lower consumer prices.

Claims that developers are going to pocket the difference themselves are conjecture. Developers may be able to do it in some cases - but certainly not all.

Monopolies are rarely good for consumers. Allowing for competition almost always results in at least some advantages for consumers (though some may, as a matter of individual preference, value the “everything from one single store” concept much higher).

It’s not consumer choice, it’s dev choice. Your spin on this is flawed. A saving grace is that there is some review process, but as a consumer my choice has been taken away, because now, if a dev pulls the app from the iOS App Store, I have to decide whether to delete it or figure out where it is.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I half agree with you. Side load and alternative app stores are two very different things but they are being mixed Willy nilly.

If I buy and own the hardware and want to run something on it (software), I should be able to do that and not be artificially limited by the hardware vendor/manufacturer.

I’m not sure which part you half agree with because I agree with you completely.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s not consumer choice, it’s dev choice. Your spin on this is flawed.

It’s primarily dev choice, I agree. Developer choice allows for greater consumer choice though.

because now, if a dev pulls the app from the iOS App Store, I have to decide whether to delete it or figure out where it is.

Not „now“.

Developer have always been able to pull their apps from the iOS App Store. And many did. Some releasing a „new“ version that you‘d have to pay for again - and some discontinuing the app altogether, figuring out is wasn‘t worth their while.

It’s not as if anything has fundamentally changed or choice was taken away by regulators/new law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It’s not consumer choice, it’s dev choice. Your spin on this is flawed. A saving grace is that there is some review process, but as a consumer my choice has been taken away, because now, if a dev pulls the app from the iOS App Store, I have to decide whether to delete it or figure out where it is.

So what would you do when a developer pulled their app and only put it on the play store in the past?