Apple still plans to charge developers for sideloading apps in EU
If a new report is correct, Apple still plans on doing some form of iPhone app review and charge developers for sideloaded apps in the European Union, but the details aren't fully clear.
European Union flags
A report on Wednesday morning has laid out what may be Apple's plan to address the EU's requirements in the Digital Markets Act (DMA) mandating third-party app stores. Citing "people familiar with the company's plans", the Wall Street Journal says that software review will still take place, and there will be fees charged.
What is not spelled out in the report, are details about both the expected fees and how a software review would be executed. In the US, Apple is planning to levy a 27% fee on first-year subscriptions, and a 12% fee on following years if users are prompted through the app to buy a subscription outside of the App Store.
The EU's DMA doesn't appear to explicitly disallow fees for side loading and alternative app stores. What's not yet clear is how the EU will respond to Apple's filing that it must make on the matter, detailing the company's response to terms in the DMA.
The report also addresses what other big tech companies are preparing in response to Apple being forced to allow sideloaded apps. Meta is said to be considering a system that will allow users to download apps directly from Facebook advertisements.
Spotify's plan appears to be simpler. The music streamer will just provide apps on a download page on its website.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) of the European Union is a series of regulations aimed at big tech "gatekeepers." Any large company with a monthly total of 45 million active users in Europe and at least 75 billion euros ($80 billion) in market capitalization is labeled a "gatekeeper."
Currently, there are six companies labeled as gatekeepers, including Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok's parent company, Bytedance.
These laws aim to ensure fair competition by restricting the priority a company can give its own first-party services. Gatekeepers are expected to comply with the regulations by March 7. Failure to comply with the DMA rules could trigger an EU investigation, which might lead to "behavioral or structural remedies."
According to the DMA, companies that act as gatekeepers must ensure fair competition by providing equal opportunities to their competitors' products and services. This means that Apple, for instance, would have to allow third-party app stores and side-loading apps on iPhone. Additionally, Apple would be obliged to permit developers to use third-party payment systems instead of mandatorily using the one provided by Apple.
In November, Apple drafted an appeal against the DMA, arguing that it should not be required to allow alternative app marketplaces on its devices.
The Cupertino-based tech giant later accused the European Union of incorrectly assessing how many app stores it had -- clarifying that it has five app stores, not one.
In September, Apple received a temporary exemption from the DMA. The company claimed that its messaging service, iMessage, was not large enough to qualify as a gatekeeper service. EU regulators are now investigating whether the DMA applies to iMessage or not.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Regardless of where an app came from, if it doesn't have an approved signature certificate from Apple, it won't run.
I'm good with that.
In all of their supposed “consultations” about side loading did it not occur to anyone what to do about various “what ifs” that might come up? Like, I don’t know, does Apple (or Google) have the right to still collect a fee or do they have the right to review Apps that aren’t on their stores?
Of course they’ll amend the DMA to deal with these issues, but it makes them look like idiots for having missed something so obvious in the first place.
Makes you wonder if they had ANY discussions before forcing side loading onto Apple.
This will all come as huge and shocking news to Tim Sweeney, who apparently seriously believes you can just barge into someone’s house and set up your own store and owe the homeowner nothing.
Yes. If you want to write apps for iOS, you **must** be a licensed developer, which means paying the developer fee to Apple. There are **no** un-reviewed and unlicensed developers for iOS/iPadOS/et al.
Previously some of the costs for this were covered by the commission. Now, Apple will likely set rates for reviewing and certifying the apps, whether they are available on Apple’s App Store or not.
Google is likely to have very similar, albeit slightly different, rules for Android. All of this is perfectly legal and has already been cleared by courts numerous times.
If this pisses off a few developers along the way then oh well. So be it. Those very developers also don't care how much it costs Apple to run its own platform either with not just the store but Xcode and its continuous development with improvements, new API's, features and support for its developers all of which is mostly free minus a very cheap developer fee.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/android-will-now-scan-sideloaded-apps-for-malware-at-install-time/
By the way, on the Android platform, one of the more popular 3rd party app stores is F-Droid. They've had an amazingly low incidence level of malware. IMO, most (not all) of The "OMG, MALWARE stories we're bombarded with are designed to protect the OS providers profits, scaring us into submission, or circulated by antivirus companies wanting to give you a reason to buy their product.
And it works.
the EU abusing its power and trying to force socialistic principles onto American companies by giving away their stuff just backfired.
any attempt by the the to further harm companies like Apple by trying to make it so they can’t receive their platform fee or not be able to ensure their customers are protected from malicious developers should be referred back to the USA will foreign policy drafted in kind. That crap is just wrong and needs to be addressed in a major way.
No. It doesn’t. It may catch the truly egregious stuff that’s coded using obvious and ubiquitous malware. Not the custom stuff. The nature of android itself is so open in data connections that it will always be a problem. The custom malware gets right past those scans.
As you implied, Play Protect isn't yet foolproof, but still a very worthwhile and effective service for people who insist on sideloading anyway. Kudos for protecting those users who avoid paying a fee to Google for the apps they install. They didn't have to invest in resources for them, but they have.