Apple announces ability to download apps directly from websites in EU

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s plan to let EU users download iOS apps directly from developers’ websites comes with tight conditions, including notarization, a requirement that developers have at least one million annual installs, and a €0.50 “Core Technology Fee” per user above that threshold. Commenters debate whether this satisfies the EU’s Digital Markets Act or is “malicious compliance” that preserves Apple’s control and revenue while technically opening new channels. The exchange also weighs security and parental-safety arguments against device ownership, developer freedom, and the risk that meaningful competition in app distribution remains effectively blocked.

Apple’s EU Web Distribution Rules

  • Apple will allow iOS apps in the EU to be installed from developer websites, but only if:
    • The developer has been in the Apple Developer Program for 2+ years and is “in good standing”.
    • They already have an iOS app with >1M first annual installs in the EU in the prior year.
  • Apps must be notarized by Apple and can only be installed from domains registered in App Store Connect.
  • Many see this as effectively limited to large companies and useless for indie devs or new entrants.

Core Technology Fee (CTF) Controversy

  • Under the new EU terms, developers pay €0.50 per “first annual install” over 1M per year, across all distribution channels (including web, alternative stores, TestFlight, etc.).
  • Alternative app marketplaces pay the fee from the first install; individual apps get the first 1M free, but only if they’re on the new terms.
  • Critics argue this makes free or ad‑supported apps and many freemium models uneconomical and is designed to keep big apps on Apple’s store.
  • Others note that for high-priced paid apps, €0.50 can be cheaper than a 15–30% revenue cut.

DMA Compliance vs. “Malicious Compliance”

  • Many commenters call this “malicious compliance”: Apple follows the letter (arguably) while preserving gatekeeping and rent extraction.
  • Heavy debate around the EU Digital Markets Act, especially Article 6(7)’s “free of charge” interoperability requirement:
    • One side reads this as banning per‑install platform access fees like the CTF.
    • The other side argues the DMA allows access fees if they’re “fair” and applied equally, and “free of charge” only covers use of specific OS features/APIs once installed.
  • Several point out EU courts use intent (“spirit of the law”), not just wording, and expect investigations and large fines; others stress this will take years.

Security vs. Freedom

  • Pro‑Apple side: single store + notarization significantly reduce malware and scams, especially for non‑technical users and families; they explicitly want a locked-down phone.
  • Pro‑openness side: safety should come from sandboxing and permissions, not platform censorship or mandatory fees; Android’s sideloading is cited as workable, if imperfect.
  • Some suggest strong parental controls / MDM profiles for vulnerable users instead of restricting everyone.

Impact on Developers and Users

  • Indie developers:
    • Web distribution threshold (1M+ installs) excludes them; “good standing” is seen as a vague, abusable veto.
    • Many say staying on the old App Store terms is still their least-bad option; the CTF mainly hits already-successful apps.
  • Users:
    • Some EU users welcome more choice and hope for real alternative stores and web installs.
    • Others fear big platforms (e.g., social networks, game publishers) will move to their own stores, forcing users outside Apple’s ecosystem protections.