Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s response to the EU’s Digital Markets Act introduces alternative app marketplaces, third‑party browser engines, and new payment options on iOS, but wraps them in strict controls such as mandatory notarization and a €0.50 “Core Technology Fee” per annual install above 1 million. Commenters see this as classic “malicious compliance”: technically meeting the letter of the law while making it economically or practically unattractive to move off the App Store, especially for large or popular free apps. The changes spark wider debate over security vs. user freedom, potential browser engine fragmentation limited to the EU, and whether regulators will accept Apple’s model or push back harder.

Tone of Apple’s announcement

  • Many see the press release as unusually salty, petty, or “tantrum-like” for corporate PR, repeatedly framing DMA-driven changes as harms to users.
  • Others think Apple is simply stating real risks and is within its rights to criticize regulation while complying.
  • Several commenters say the tone makes Apple less attractive to independent developers and looks like clear “malicious compliance.”

Alternative browser engines & web features

  • Apple will allow non‑WebKit engines on iOS, but only in the EU and only for apps limited to the EU.
  • Enthusiasts are excited about potential for Gecko/Blink, proper Firefox with extensions (e.g., uBlock Origin), and improved web capabilities (WebBluetooth, WebGPU, WASM).
  • Some fear this accelerates Chromium dominance and reduces incentive to test against Safari/WebKit; others think most users won’t switch and impact will be modest.

Alternative app marketplaces and sideloading

  • Third‑party stores are possible but heavily constrained: authorization by Apple, €1M standby letter of credit, notarization for all apps, and EU‑only availability.
  • Notarization is described as an automated + human malware/platform‑integrity check, not full App Store review, but it remains mandatory and central to control and fee enforcement.
  • This is widely viewed as “not real sideloading” since Apple keeps veto power over what can run.

Core Technology Fee (CTF) and business terms

  • New optional EU terms: lower commission (17%/10%), separate 3% payment processing fee, plus €0.50 per “first annual install” over 1M per year, counting installs, reinstalls, and some updates.
  • Free apps and those distributed outside the App Store are not exempt; nonprofits/education/government are.
  • Developers can stay on existing terms (no CTF, but no new capabilities). Switching is one‑way.
  • Many see CTF as Unity‑style per‑install pricing and a deterrent to large free or low‑margin apps and to using alternative stores. Some defend it as a transparent way to fund platform/SDK costs.

Security, privacy, and user freedom

  • Apple frames DMA changes as introducing “new risks”: malware, scams, tracking, enterprise/spyware stores, etc.
  • Critics argue DMA doesn’t force anyone off the App Store; risks rise only if users opt in, and OS‑level permissions and sandboxes can manage most threats.
  • Others acknowledge real social‑engineering risk for less technical users, but still consider the trade‑off for competition and freedom worthwhile.

Regulatory reaction and broader impact

  • Many expect the EU to challenge the CTF and marketplace barriers as contrary to the DMA’s spirit and possibly illegal “malicious compliance,” but note this will take years.
  • Some predict little near‑term change: big apps will stay on Apple’s terms; niche or banned categories (emulators, adult content, some PWAs) may benefit most from new channels.