Apple announces App Store changes in the EU

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s new two-tier App Store model for the EU, introduced to comply with Digital Markets Act rules, is being criticized as “malicious compliance” that preserves Apple’s control while nominally opening the platform. Tier 1 offers lower commissions but with limits such as no automatic updates, constrained search visibility, and fewer store services, raising fears that non-paying or alternative-channel apps will be disadvantaged. Commenters also debate broader issues of platform lock‑in, notification infrastructure, user freedom vs. safety, and the role of EU regulation, with some welcoming Brussels’ tougher stance and others resenting new compliance burdens like mandatory public contact details for paid app developers.

App Store Tier Changes and Capabilities

  • Tier 1 gives distribution, basic safety and management, but no automatic updates, no ratings/reviews, and only exact-match search.
  • Several developers say they would gladly choose Tier 1 for lower fees and to avoid reviews, accepting weaker App Store discovery.
  • Others argue lack of reviews and search exposure is Apple’s way of punishing non‑paying or lower‑paying developers.

Push Notifications and Technical Lock-In

  • Initial confusion over whether Tier 1 apps lose push notifications; consensus is that APNS is an OS service, not an App Store service, so tiers likely don’t affect it.
  • Broader criticism that Apple’s single notification gateway and lack of alternatives hurt open-source and federated apps, since app authors must also run notification infrastructure.

Perceptions of Apple’s Motives and EU Enforcement

  • Many see this as “malicious compliance” designed to make alternative options unattractive, similar to earlier US payment-link changes.
  • Some are confident the EU will reject Apple’s structure; others note EU decision-making is opaque and politically constrained.
  • There is strong support in the thread for the EU “having teeth” against large US tech companies, with some emotional anti‑Apple rhetoric.

Closed Ecosystem vs User Freedom

  • One camp wants regulation because “it’s my device” and they should be able to run any software, without Apple’s gatekeeping.
  • Another camp explicitly values the closed ecosystem and feels EU rules are degrading products they intentionally bought for tight control and integration.
  • This leads into a philosophical argument: markets vs democratic limits on “antisocial” corporate behavior.

Developer Economics and Discovery

  • Several developers claim most installs come from external channels (blogs, YouTube, word-of-mouth), not App Store search, so losing Apple-driven discovery is acceptable.
  • Others counter that ratings/reviews and search ranking cost Apple real money (spam control, infra), so it’s reasonable to reserve them for higher-fee tiers.
  • Apple’s search ads are criticized as already degrading search quality, undermining the “protecting quality” argument.

EU Regulatory Side Effects for Small Developers

  • Independent devs in the EU complain they must publish a physical, serviceable address (often their home) and phone number to sell paid apps.
  • Some avoid serving Germany or use free apps only to dodge “trader” obligations.
  • There’s debate over whether PO boxes, virtual offices, or lawyer addresses are legally acceptable; answers differ by country and remain somewhat unclear.

Sideloading, DIY Apps, and Liability

  • Users want the ability to compile and permanently deploy their own apps without periodic re-signing, especially for niche/hobby or medical tools.
  • Others argue Apple will never relax this due to piracy and liability, particularly for DIY medical apps like open-source insulin loop systems.
  • One view: these medical projects are life-saving but legally radioactive; no large vendor or regulator will cite them as a reason to open platforms.

Automatic Updates and Fragmentation Concerns

  • Lack of automatic updates in Tier 1 is seen as a major UX and security flaw likely to cause version fragmentation and user churn.
  • Proposed workaround: apps can block usage until updated and deep-link users into the store, but that adds friction, especially on mobile data.
  • Some note many apps already enforce minimum versions on launch; others think automatic updates should be included in all tiers for safety.

Debate over Apple’s Broader Role and Innovation

  • Some say Apple is “destroying its image,” turning from playful to petty and extractive; others insist it won’t matter because users want iPhones and the ecosystem.
  • Apple Silicon is cited as a genuine innovation; critics respond that its lead relies heavily on ARM licensing, TSMC capacity, and targeted optimizations, and may narrow as competitors catch up.