Apple announces changes for apps in the European Union
Apple’s newly announced terms for apps in the EU replace its per‑install Core Technology Fee with a 5% commission on digital transactions for apps distributed outside the App Store, while still requiring all such apps to pass Apple’s notarization review. Commenters argue this keeps Apple in de facto control of iOS software distribution and may conflict with the spirit or letter of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which was meant to allow developers to deal with users without going through Apple. Some see modest gains for consumers and “reader” apps, but many view the outcome as the European Commission effectively caving, entrenching Apple’s rent‑seeking business model rather than restoring general‑purpose control over personal devices.
Overall reaction: who “won” the standoff?
- Many see this as Apple effectively winning: they keep tight control and still take a cut on almost all distribution paths.
- Others argue it’s at least a modest improvement for EU users and far better than the US status quo.
- Several commenters are shocked the European Commission appears to have welcomed the deal, reading it as the EU “caving.”
New fee structure and “Core Technology Commission”
- The per‑install Core Technology Fee is replaced by a 5% commission on digital transactions for apps distributed outside the App Store.
- App Store apps that link users out to web purchases owe 15% (or 10% for certain programs), even if the transaction is completed off‑platform.
- Many call this rent‑seeking or “racketeering”: Apple takes 5–15% despite not processing the payment infrastructure.
- A minority defends Apple’s right to monetize its IP and distribution, comparing it to store shelf space or console platforms.
Distribution, notarization, and eligibility
- All alternatively distributed apps (web or marketplaces) must be notarized by Apple.
- Alternative marketplaces must meet strict financial/organizational criteria (public, VC‑backed, audited, etc.), which critics see as a deterrent to indie stores.
- Web distribution is EU‑only; some question how Apple will track and enforce the 5% fee (self‑reporting vs device “phone home”).
Security vs user freedom
- Pro‑Apple side emphasizes protection of “grandma/kids,” arguing locked‑down phones reduce malware and scams, and that many customers value curation.
- Opponents point out widespread scammy apps already in the App Store and argue sandboxing/permissions, not store control, should provide security.
- Strong sentiment that a phone is a general‑purpose computer and owners should be able to install arbitrary code, as on macOS or Linux.
Legal and antitrust angles
- Some cite specific DMA articles (5(4), 6(4)) and say link‑out commissions and the 5% fee contradict explicit “free of charge” and “no disincentive” requirements.
- Debate over whether this is monopoly abuse, “dominant position” abuse, or just hardball business within a duopoly (iOS/Android).
Impact on developers and consumers
- Many stress this is primarily anti‑developer (barriers, fees, eligibility), which indirectly harms consumers via less competition and higher prices.
- Others reply that developers choose to target iOS for its lucrative user base and can always stick to Android or the web.