I keep seeing it floated that 'if you have a million users, and you don't have a way to make money, what are you even doing?’, which is incredibly toxic. Screw everybody who provides free software/tools, I guess?
I guarantee you every single one of you relies on software that has more than a million users and makes $0, somewhere in your tech stack.
Having a single app like that in your portfolio, even if you have robust paid apps, could be enough to bankrupt you under Apple's CTF proposal
I don't know the numbers for the official Mastodon app, but Mastodon had ~2.5M users at some point last year. Let's say all those users downloaded the app at least once on iPhone, in Europe.
Mastodon would now have a monthly fee of €62,500 under Apple's new Core Technology Fee.
@stroughtonsmith I see the new rules for those apps who want to monetize all the way, why would Mastodon choose them if they can’t even reach the 1.000.000$ a year limit of the Small Business Program?
@stroughtonsmith I’m not a developer so maybe I don’t understand the issue. Isn’t it reasonable that Apple gets a return for providing access to a platform that people can make money off? 30% is way way too high but, to me, 10% sounds OK?
@pasavito 10% on revenue is fine; I pay 15% currently. But the CTF isn't a % on revenue. It's a flat fee per user per year, which disproportionately affects free apps.
Like Mastodon here, which earns €0 on the App Store, but would face a fee of tens of thousands of € per month with the new rules
@stroughtonsmith Do you think Apple will go back to an Apple Developer Connection kind of model where access to the tools will cost 4000$ a year instead of 99$ for all European developers?
@simonbs well there are a bunch of asterisks on that too. A sole proprietor cannot be a nonprofit, an enterprise account cannot be a nonprofit, and you cannot otherwise sell digital goods or services
@stroughtonsmith Apple had one clear goal: maintain the status quo. The CTF is designed to make sure it is maintained while having all the infrastructure / APIs already up-and-running for a controlled “open” world. This way they can easily adapt the CTF / Notarization policy if regulators step in.
@stroughtonsmith Then they would be better off staying in the App Store under the current existing terms, which is exactly what Apple wants. I get what you are trying to say, but a law-abiding and non-controversial app like mastodon perhaps doesn’t illustrate your case that well.
@stroughtonsmith if the app is free and there’s no monetization (no ads or IAP) they should be added to the exemption along with education, government etc. I guess Apple just wants them to stay on the App Store, because if they get the exemption what benefits do they get that’s not offered by the current terms? I can’t think of anything besides review rejecting emulators, porn and IP
@stroughtonsmith why would the mastodon app have switched to the CTF-carrying agreements though? They can remain on the current policy, and no cost.
I’d understand the quandary if there was a IAP component? Or maybe you’re suggesting that mastodon would benefit from being able to direct ppl to the patreon?
@stroughtonsmith this just sounds like the original scheme of monetizing the platform through a percentage of paid digital goods is a good one, though?
@sdw@stroughtonsmith I’d favour paying for access to the tools or “core technology”. There’s no reason the fee should scale with users if you’re not touching Apple’s infrastructure.
@stroughtonsmith Playing devil’s advocate here, not trying to troll you, but have you considered that this is entirely the EC‘s fault? The DMA is entirely concerned about payments only. Not having exclusive payments through Apple system, reducing Apple‘s commission on payments. Payments payments payments. The DMA says nothing about free software.
@gruber we'll soon see what they're concerned about! I think Apple's first fine might immediately negate all the potential revenue they would have made from any CTF
EU: The DMA explicitly prevents Apple from doing X. We know they won't be happy, but we look forward to them doing Y (the right thing) now.
Apple: <replaces X with Z>
EU: Errr. Shit. The DMA doesn't say anywhere they're not allowed to do Z.
I'm being facetious, of course, but I suspect there are many rounds of proposal, rejection, proposal, court (??), refine DMA (??), etc., to come.
@leoncowle@stroughtonsmith Basically, I think you have nailed it. Apple is doing Z, and the DMA only says X is illegal and Y isn't the only alternative to X.
This cat and mouse game won‘t lead anywhere. It‘s completely childish. In the end, Apple must either comply with EU law and the will of the European people or they must stop selling their products here.
@makzr@leoncowle@stroughtonsmith You seem to discount the possibility that their DMA proposals are compliant and that what they announced is how it’s going to be.
@gruber@leoncowle@stroughtonsmith No no. Personally, I find most changes fine. If the EC agrees, these changes will go live (ofc). It’s just that some of the statements of Thierry Breton and other officials sounded like this is not the solution they had in mind …
In this case, it‘s the fault of the EC (unprecise laws). But that doesn‘t prevent them from adjusting the law…
@gruber@stroughtonsmith It's possible that the legal language is poorly tailored, but I think it's equally possible that Apple is using the most obtuse possible reading in pursuit of their goals. It feels a little bit like they're saying "Sure the DMA requires us to allow alternative marketplaces, but any marketplace that operates on a day ending in 'y' owes us all the monies.” Not saying that's an incorrect legal strategy, but it's a pretty bad look.
@gruber@stroughtonsmith Not at all. In fact I suspect they do comply, legally speaking - I’m sure Apple’s lawyers were careful in that regard. My argument is that Apple is avoiding the spirit of the law by sticking as closely as possible to its letter. (They’re clearly entitled to do that!) I think it’s at least a little icky, and arguably an unwise strategy in the long run.
@thomholwerda@stroughtonsmith But what I'm saying is, don't complain that Apple -- which has been up front all along that it thinks all iOS apps should come from the App Store -- has created policies to comply with the DMA that clearly steer all truly free-of-charge apps to remain exclusively in the App Store.
Apple has to comply, end of story, and all indications are that this proposal does not comply. All it does is anger the very people who will consider this proposal, which I'm sure will work out great for Apple.
@thomholwerda@stroughtonsmith Again, I ask, what actual text from the DMA do you think Apple’s proposal doesn't comply with? Honest question. I don't see it.
"The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design."
On top of that, the DMA is not set in stone. It has entire articles dedicated to combat exactly the kind of childish, petty behaviour Apple is displaying by giving the EC the power to amend the DMA as needed to remedy such behaviour in case such behaviour defeats the purpose of the DMA.
The authors of the DMA and the European Parliament are not a bunch of drooling, bribed idiots like US Congress, and the DMA is far smarter and more flexible than you give it credit for. Of course they knew these megacorps were going to try and slither their way out of taking any responsibilities, and the DMA seems to contain more than enough leeway for the EC to prevent that from happening.
First, I think I could be wrong, and the EC is going to lay a smackdown on Apple — big fines, back to the drawing board. I don’t know, but I think that’s on the table. I actually kind of appreciate how the EC plays its cards close to its vest.
@thomholwerda@stroughtonsmith But, what I would bet will happen is that the EC is going to approve Apple’s proposals with no more than minor adjustments, and take this whole thing as a win: “Look, we made Apple lower commissions, offer alternative payment systems, and create a whole system for alt app stores. We did that. We won. We accept your thanks and congratulations.”
@gruber@thomholwerda@stroughtonsmith If the EC does that they can expect a lot of complaints from EU citizens & companies. Apple may have complied with the DMA on paper, but effectively their new terms just force the status quo for 99% of developers. Only the wealthiest 1% would take on the risk of the new terms (the CTF) and Apple will make billions off them. This is a “Kobayashi Maru” for consumers and indie developers. EC may have been naive, but Apple is taking advantage.
@thomholwerda@stroughtonsmith And again, having tried to read the whole thing, I don't think the DMA gives a single shit about non-commercial free apps.
@stroughtonsmith but also “a million users” isn’t quite accurate, have a release cadence of 1 per quarter and you’ve reduced that down to 250k, update once a month and you’re down to 83k. And that’s assuming that people don’t upgrade or break and replace devices within that 12 month period
@stroughtonsmith I’m concerned that (i) indy apps will the (understandably?) move to a separate App Store and (ii) my IT department would block non-Apple app stores. For the first time since the BlackBerry days, that would make me buy a personal phone in addition to my work phone. On the upside: I would then go for a pro phone and enjoy the camera zoom. Or does the CTF also apply to non-Apple app stores? 📸
@stroughtonsmith It’s really interesting to me that we literally just had Unity try the same shit in the games industry and they lost a CEO, had a huge share price drop, and had to massively back track before sacking a large part of their workforce. The entire mobile app industry was built on free installation and this is just not viable. Apple already monetised developers with “there’s an app for that” adding huge value to the iPhone and this is just a way to not comply with the EU’s demands.
@stroughtonsmith So what you’re saying is that since some people do work for free, Apple should do so as well? Essentially being another $0 software lying somewhere in the tech stack? 🙃
@stroughtonsmith I keep thinking of my free list-making app (Mind Magnets, v.3 coming) which ADHD folks and visual thinkers seem to really like. I’d like to add a one-time paid feature upgrade in future.
My model then: useful for free, better for a one-time purchase. My app does need new features currently, but not endless bloat: it works in its own simple, clean, flexible way. So subscriptions won’t make sense. And I hate ads.
If only a fraction of users pay, I’ll still want the app to exist!
@stroughtonsmith If you’re already above 1million users and make 0$ with your app, what’s your incentive to move to a different distribution model than the one you are using? By this time you should have passed through all Apple hoops, right? I’m probably missing something but I can’t see what.
@ricardobonis who's talking about moving anywhere? What if you are starting on the new terms? What if you're developing a novel browser app, or building software that doesn't fit Apple's App Store rules? Or Apple just decides to blanket ban your category of app, as has happened in the past to game streaming, torrent clients, etc
@stroughtonsmith thanks, that’s clear. I was under the assumption that the current model is still an option. It seems clear that not choosing the default involves a very real risk
Add comment