Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules
Apple’s attempt to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act while preserving its tightly controlled App Store and 30% revenue cut has reignited anger among developers and regulators. Commenters debate whether Apple is abusing gatekeeper power over iPhone owners and third‑party apps or simply exercising legitimate control over a platform it created, with flashpoints including per‑install fees, bans on alternative payment links, and the apparent hobbling of web apps in the EU. Underneath are deeper arguments about property rights, user security, and whether critical, general‑purpose devices like smartphones should function more like open computers or locked‑down game consoles.
Apple’s DMA “compliance” and new fees
- Many see Apple’s EU changes as “malicious compliance”: preserving rent-seeking while technically following DMA rules.
- The per-install / per-user store fees and mandatory Apple-controlled APIs are viewed as anti‑competitive and likely to trigger enforcement.
- Others argue regulators wrote a vague law (words like “fair” and “reasonable”), so interpretation fights were inevitable and Apple is rationally testing boundaries.
Letter vs spirit of the law
- Some argue EU regulators care about “spirit” more than US-style literalism and will punish legalistic workarounds.
- Others counter that EU administrative law is in fact very text‑centric; any correction will come via the Commission’s broad enforcement powers, not vibes.
- There’s debate over whether the DMA should have been more explicit (e.g., like USB‑C rules) vs accepting that laws can’t enumerate every case.
Monopoly, gatekeeping, and who “owns” the customer
- One camp: iOS users are primarily “Apple’s customers”; access to them is a privilege, so Apple can charge whatever the market will bear.
- Opponents say users also have direct relationships with apps (Netflix, Spotify, etc.), and Apple acts as gatekeeper/hostage‑taker rather than neutral landlord.
- Several point out that antitrust isn’t about size alone but about abuse of gatekeeper power even without classic monopoly share.
Security, sideloading, and user protection
- Pro‑Apple posters emphasize real-world harm from sideloaded Android malware and want the “walled garden” preserved, especially for non‑technical users.
- Critics respond that security concerns are being used to justify locking out competing stores and payment systems; app review has already missed bad apps.
- Some suggest advanced users could opt into sideloading without changing defaults for everyone else.
PWAs, browsers, and web openness
- Removal/crippling of PWAs in EU betas is seen by many as an intentional move to blunt web‑app competition once alternative browser engines are allowed.
- Others think it may be an incomplete implementation under time pressure, though skepticism is high given Apple’s history.
Developer economics and the 30% cut
- Complaints center on a flat percentage on revenue rather than profits, which crushes low‑margin businesses and content with heavy licensing/server costs.
- Defenders say developers voluntarily enter a lucrative ecosystem and can go elsewhere (Android, web) if the deal is bad.
- There’s debate over whether lower commissions would ever reach users as lower prices.
Device ownership and property rights
- Several argue Apple’s locked boot chain violates basic property rights: buyers can’t exercise the “right to exclude” Apple’s software or run their own.
- Others reply that software is licensed, not sold; as long as iOS is essential to the device, Apple will retain powerful control.
Proposed remedies and outcomes
- Ideas raised: stronger DMA enforcement, antitrust actions, mandated unbundling of store vs APIs vs payments, open‑source or “iPhone compatible” projects, or even forcing Apple to allow alternative OSes.
- Some think Apple is deliberately stalling to extract a few more years of current rents, expecting eventual partial concessions but no existential change.