Apple announces changes for apps in the European Union
Apple has announced significant changes to its app business terms for the European Union, purportedly in close collaboration with the European Commission. However, the Hacker News community largely views these adjustments as a cynical act of 'malicious compliance' rather than a genuine shift towards openness. The discussion is rife with frustration over Apple's continued stringent control and perceived anti-developer fees, leading many to question the effectiveness of EU regulations.
The Lowdown
Apple has unveiled revised business terms for app developers operating within the European Union, following what it describes as extensive cooperation with the European Commission. These modifications aim to resolve prior disagreements concerning business terms and alternative app distribution, streamlining all EU developers under a single set of terms effective October 1.
Key changes include:
- The previous per-install Core Technology Fee is replaced by a 5 percent Core Technology Commission on digital transactions for apps distributed outside the App Store.
- Standard App Store apps using Apple In-App Purchase will face a 26 percent commission, or 15 percent for smaller developers and specific programs.
- App Store apps using alternative payment processing will have a 20 percent commission (10 percent for smaller developers).
- Apps linking out for purchases will incur a 15 percent commission (10 percent for smaller developers).
- Developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, provided they adhere to consistency requirements.
- New child safety measures are implemented for alternative payments, including parental gates and restrictions on linking out for purchases for younger users.
- Eligibility for operating alternative app marketplaces or web distribution is expanded but still requires meeting financial stability criteria, public trading status, venture funding, financial audits, or being a government/educational/nonprofit entity.
- All alternatively distributed apps will still be subject to Apple's Notarization process for baseline review and security.
Apple states these changes reflect its ongoing commitment to user safety and privacy while adapting to regulatory requirements, asserting that these new terms conclude its disagreements with the Commission.
The Gossip
EU's Cave-in Catastrophe
Many commentators express profound disappointment and anger, viewing the EU Commission as having 'caved in' to Apple. They argue that Apple's new terms, particularly the 15% commission on external purchases and the 5% Core Technology Commission for non-App Store transactions, are a form of 'malicious compliance' that fundamentally undermines the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Users cite specific articles of the DMA, arguing that the fees and eligibility requirements for alternative distribution are explicitly forbidden or disproportionate. This sentiment is amplified by the perception that everyone loses except Apple, and that the EU's regulatory power has been effectively nullified or circumvented.
Walled Garden Woes: Control, Commissions, and Consumer vs. Developer Rights
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around Apple's continued control over its ecosystem and the justification for its various fees. Critics contend that Apple's commissions are exorbitant, especially for transactions occurring outside its direct payment system, and that the notarization process and eligibility criteria for web distribution are unnecessary gatekeeping measures. The core debate pits Apple's stated rationale of user security and R&D cost recovery against developers' desire for freedom and lower costs. Some users draw parallels to the more open macOS ecosystem, questioning why iOS remains so locked down, while others cynically point out that the App Store is designed to primarily benefit Apple, not developers or consumers, especially given the prevalence of scam apps.
Security Scare Tactics or Genuine Safeguard?
The comments are divided on whether Apple's strict control, particularly regarding notarization and restrictions for children, genuinely enhances security or is a convenient excuse for rent-seeking. Proponents of Apple's stance argue that the 'closed garden' model protects users, especially the less tech-savvy, from malware and scams, contrasting it with the perceived 'wild west' of PC platforms. Conversely, many argue that sandboxing and granular permissions are the true security mechanisms, and that App Store review is often ineffective against scam apps. They assert that the 'grandma argument' is a thinly veiled justification for Apple to maintain its monopoly and extract maximum profit, rather than a sincere effort to protect users.