Epic Games & Spotify unsurprisingly unhappy with Apple's latest DMA update

Posted:
in iOS

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney was quick to criticize Apple's new fee structure in the EU, calling them "junk fees," while Spotify said the update is "unacceptable."

The 'Fortnite' logo with characters surrounding it
'Fortnite' maker isn't happy with Apple's revised DMA rules



Apple's initial attempt at following the EU's Digital Markets Act didn't pan out, with the EU finding it in breach. So, Apple announced a revision to its terms in an attempt to comply while still maintaining some level of control.

It didn't take long for some of Apple's biggest antagonists to take the stage and declare the new rules a violation. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney took to X to air his complaints, calling Apple's latest adjustments a "junk fee."

In the European Union where the new DMA law opens up app store competition, Apple continues its malicious compliance by imposing an illegal new 15% junk fee on users migrating to competing stores and monitor commerce on these competing stores.https://t.co/YUYwsnrh32 pic.twitter.com/xAWGkOWPrH

— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic)



A statement shared by Spotify and first covered by TechCrunch shows the company's own disdain for Apple's implementation. It sees Apple's latest rule change as disregarding the DMA.

We are currently assessing Apple's deliberately confusing proposal," the company statement reads. "At first glance, by demanding as much as a 25% fee for basic communication with users, Apple once again blatantly disregards the fundamental requirements of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The European Commission has made it clear that imposing recurring fees on basic elements like pricing and linking is unacceptable. We call on the Commission to expedite its investigation, implement daily fines and enforce the DMA."



These comments come after Apple adjusted the fee structure surrounding alternative app stores and external app fees. The Core Technology Fee remains, but the previous commission has been split into two new fees.

The first is an Initial Acquisition Fee, where Apple charges 5% of any purchase made by a new app user for the first year if the app uses links to direct users out of the App Store. The second is a Store Services Fee that is 10% of any sale in the first year.

If the app is re-installed or updated, the year counter restarts.

There are variations to the fee based on whether the developer is being grandfathered into the new rules or if they are part of the small business program. Either way, there is no escaping Apple's fee structure, even when offering purchases outside of Apple's domain.

It seems Epic and Spotify expect the EU to rule that Apple must not collect any fee on app sales or purchases made outside of the App Store. Of course, Apple believes it has a stake in these purchases because the user gained access to the app through the App Store.

Epic doesn't currently operate on the iPhone, though it is planning a third-party store and will distribute Fortnite and other games through other stores like AltStore. Spotify is the most popular music streaming service on earth and currently pays Apple very little, if any money, beyond the $100 developer fee.



Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 774member
    At least now we can move on from the pretense that this is about the users. Epic and Spotify want to profit from the App Store for free, period. 
    9secondkox2ssfe11beowulfschmidtmike1danoxStrangeDayswilliamlondonwatto_cobraMacPropscooter63
  • Reply 2 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,136member
    I wish Apple would/could take a cue from diners and post a sign on their App Store proclaiming their right to refuse service to anyone.  

    Epic and Spotify should be permanently banned from ever being allowed in the App Store.  They are digital Karens and I'm just fed-up with them.
    9secondkox2ssfe11mike1danoxwilliamlondonwatto_cobraMacPropscooter63
  • Reply 3 of 35
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 3,141member
    The moment the eu opened the door for competitors to dictate what’s acceptable, they ensured it was a farce to begin with. 

    No set standard. It’s all if someone gets upset, whether justifiable or no. 

    Trying to cut the people providing discover, storage, bandwidth, customer access, and marketing completely out of the revenue stream is just not ethical, sustainable, or business by any definition. It’s slavery. 
    edited August 8 ssfe11mike1danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 35
    ssfe11ssfe11 Posts: 104member
    lol “unsurprisingly unhappy” I like that. Of course these whiners are. Man even the EU must be getting sick of these two. Eventually a mother will say to her whining children….”stop!” enough!” ….

    im going into Walmart today and demand they give me eye level shelf space for FREE to sell my product and I don’t care about their overhead costs(heat, light, advertising, security, safety etc)! If they don’t I’m calling the Justice Dept!
    edited August 9 danoxStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,650member
    IMHO, Apple doesn't expect this latest proposal to be any more acceptable to the EU authorities as the initial one was. Both are at odds with “the spirit” of the legislation. But it's here that the EU becomes the problem. They have not been specific with Apple, nor other big techs, as to what the expectations are. They simply note something is in violation, then wait for the offender to propose another path, then look at the new proposal and object with that one too as needed, with compensatory fines.

    It would be far simpler and faster to, in this case at least and probably others, come out and tell Apple very specifically what they will have to do to satisfy DMA. Then the two have something to negotiate. 

    As it is, Apple will prod in one direction and then the push in the next, just as many for-profit companies would, until they know where the hard lines lay. This is so time-consuming and expensive when all the EU needed to do after the first silly and unreasonable Apple proposal: Tell them what they must do, not wait to respond to each version of a possibly by not likely acceptable one. Then the world becomes simple. Leave the EU marketplace, comply, or go to court. As it is, they'll drag this out for several more months, well into next year, without ever finding agreement. 

    Having a law where those it applies to are expected to say “here's what I'll do, let me know” instead of the authority saying “here is what you WILL do” is a horribly designed law. 

    edited August 9 muthuk_vanalingamdanox
  • Reply 6 of 35
    The moment the eu opened the door for competitors to dictate what’s acceptable, they ensured it was a farce to begin with. 

    No set standard. It’s all if someone gets upset, whether justifiable or no. 

    Trying to cut the people providing discover, storage, bandwidth, customer access, and marketing completely out of the revenue stream is just not ethical, sustainable, or business by any definition. It’s slavery. 
    One can't help but get the impression that you have no f-ing idea what slavery is. That you diminish what people actually went through for the same of hyperbole is just offensive. 
    nubus
  • Reply 7 of 35
    The EU needs to take the gloves off.  Apple is obviously not serious about complying, it's time to hit them with the daily billion dollar fines until they end the nonsense and just allow normal software installation on iDevices.  There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.

    I don't care if Apple charges a 95% commission in their app store.  But we should be able to install software from ANYWHERE ELSE without paying them a penny or saying "mommy may I" first.  I should be able to go to Github, download a .ipa, and install it.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    gatorguy said:
    IMHO, Apple doesn't expect this latest proposal to be any more acceptable to the EU authorities as the initial one was. Both are at odds with “the spirit” of the legislation. 
    The "spirit" of the legislation was an attempt at increasing competition not cherry picking which companies are allowed to make money from software development. Apple wants to make money from the development of iOS. Epic and Spotify want to make money from the development of their apps on iOS. All of the complaints from Epic and Spotify now are entirely centered around complaining that Apple wants to monetize iOS.  
    danoxwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 35
    There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.
    They developed the OS and the hardware that runs it. The entire package is 1st party. That has always been considered a reason to have control, i.e., you have control of your own IP. 
    danoxssfe11StrangeDayswilliamlondonwatto_cobraMacPro
  • Reply 10 of 35
    XedXed Posts: 2,887member
    The EU needs to take the gloves off.  Apple is obviously not serious about complying, it's time to hit them with the daily billion dollar fines until they end the nonsense and just allow normal software installation on iDevices.  There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.

    I don't care if Apple charges a 95% commission in their app store.  But we should be able to install software from ANYWHERE ELSE without paying them a penny or saying "mommy may I" first.  I should be able to go to Github, download a .ipa, and install it.
    That's like saying an auto maker should have no say what liquids you put in your gas tank... but then also try to force them to make your car run on urine simply because you don't want to be forced to use gasoline.

    There are major costs associated with SW and I'm afraid of how IOS, Xcode, App Store and all those advancements we see each year at WWDC could hurt users if companies like Epic and Spotify keep making all the rules.
    edited August 9 danoxssfe11watto_cobraMacPro
  • Reply 11 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,650member
    gatorguy said:
    IMHO, Apple doesn't expect this latest proposal to be any more acceptable to the EU authorities as the initial one was. Both are at odds with “the spirit” of the legislation. 
    The "spirit" of the legislation was an attempt at increasing competition not cherry picking which companies are allowed to make money from software development. Apple wants to make money from the development of iOS. Epic and Spotify want to make money from the development of their apps on iOS. All of the complaints from Epic and Spotify now are entirely centered around complaining that Apple wants to monetize iOS.  
    Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    nubusVictorMortimer
  • Reply 12 of 35
    nubusnubus Posts: 622member
    Xed said:

    There are major costs associated with SW and I'm afraid of how IOS, Xcode, App Store and all those advancements we see each year at WWDC could hurt users if companies like Epic and Spotify keep making all the rules.
    This is a tax on those creating great products and on those handling customers on their own platform. Apple is giving the platform away to banks, agencies, and all the companies offering free apps. Those failing to create great apps pay less. I don't see forced corporate socialism and taxing success as American values.

    Both the illegal anti-competitive kickbacks Apple took from Google and the handling of App Store indicate that something is rotten with Apple Services. We could see Apple banned from distributing apps.
    williamlondonVictorMortimer
  • Reply 13 of 35
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,103member
    The EU needs to take the gloves off.  Apple is obviously not serious about complying, it's time to hit them with the daily billion dollar fines until they end the nonsense and just allow normal software installation on iDevices.  There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.

    I don't care if Apple charges a 95% commission in their app store.  But we should be able to install software from ANYWHERE ELSE without paying them a penny or saying "mommy may I" first.  I should be able to go to Github, download a .ipa, and install it.
    It’s a closed platform. See PlayStation and Nintendo - you can’t get first-party software to run on them except via their platform. Big deal. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 35
    XedXed Posts: 2,887member
    nubus said:
    Xed said:

    There are major costs associated with SW and I'm afraid of how IOS, Xcode, App Store and all those advancements we see each year at WWDC could hurt users if companies like Epic and Spotify keep making all the rules.
    This is a tax on those creating great products and on those handling customers on their own platform. Apple is giving the platform away to banks, agencies, and all the companies offering free apps. Those failing to create great apps pay less. I don't see forced corporate socialism and taxing success as American values.

    Both the illegal anti-competitive kickbacks Apple took from Google and the handling of App Store indicate that something is rotten with Apple Services. We could see Apple banned from distributing apps.
    It sounds like they're allowing startups and home-brew developers to gain a foothold with the only requirements being having access to a Mac and a $99 developer program account. The same cost all developers have, from you building an app that might attract a few hundred people to Google or TikTok with potentially billions of users. Do you really think you should be charged tens-f-thousands of dollars just to put an app on the App Store when you will have so little revenue and cost so little in effort and traffic from Apple? Can you imagine what the App Store would be if it were like Playstation's devkit cost?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 35
    gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify. 
    Xedwilliamlondonwatto_cobraMacPro
  • Reply 16 of 35
    XedXed Posts: 2,887member
    gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify. 
    Maybe Gatorguy hasn't seen this quote before...

    Steve Jobs Quoting Alan Kay
    williamlondonwatto_cobraforegoneconclusion
  • Reply 17 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,650member
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify. 
    Maybe Gatorguy hasn't seen this quote before...

    Steve Jobs Quoting Alan Kay
    Cute saying, but not particularly true with photo processing programs, accounting software, graphic design, engineering design programs, and a plethora of other software uses that doesn't require the provider create their own computer for the programming to work properly.

    Apple's goal from the beginning was inventing consumer hardware devices. Having a software system capable of operating a smartphone or tablet was a necessary sub-development, not the goal. It's in hardware that ongoing iOS development is monetized. If there were no Apple hardware to run it, the OS would have zero value unless they go the Microsoft route and license it to computer or smartphone manufacturers for their own hardware. 

    Anyway, I'm sure when that slide was presented it was relevant to that particular discussion. It doesn't make it applicable here. 


    edited August 9 nubusctt_zh
  • Reply 18 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,650member
    gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability.
    Purple 2 (what some call Project Purple) wasn't a secret effort to create iOS, with a new and inventive Apple smartphone being an afterthought. 
    edited August 9 ctt_zh
  • Reply 19 of 35
    XedXed Posts: 2,887member
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
    Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify. 
    Maybe Gatorguy hasn't seen this quote before...

    Steve Jobs Quoting Alan Kay
    Apple's goal from the beginning was inventing consumer hardware devices.
    ... to run SW.
    williamlondonwatto_cobrastompy
  • Reply 20 of 35
    nubusnubus Posts: 622member
    Xed said:
    Do you really think you should be charged tens-f-thousands of dollars just to put an app on the App Store when you will have so little revenue and cost so little in effort and traffic from Apple?
    Why should Spotify pay 25% when handling payment on their own while gov. agencies and banks pay nothing? The effort required by Apple is the same.
    Apple can only do this as a gatekeeper. DMA is all about making sure it doesn't happen.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.