2,000,000 installs acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees, even if you don't make any money
That's up from $0 USD.
So what are we left with? Apps where users are the product, like Facebook, and freemium apps where you end up paying to get anything useful done with it anyway. Apps where the parent company is making millions if not billions. Is anybody upset that those guys have to chip in for iOS development?
I personally think Apples approach is the lesser of two evils. We don’t pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway. I’d rather it be through fees on apps than more insidious approaches.
And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones. And we know that’s a real issue. As long as we pay through app fees the phone makers are incentivised to keep releasing OS updates for old phones.
For instance I didn't even have an idea of what's required in my place to get recognized as non-profit. And it turns out it's specific to each region, and I need to go ask for the paperwork in the first place.
If the requirement is really a non profit legal status, Apple just raised the bar from "apps that just make no money" to "apps that registered to their local governing bodies that they have a goal of not making money", and that's a huge leap with a crazy high barrier for a random dev (imagine a kid in uni) to push a free app.
Gaming apps. A huge majority of Apple's revenue (from IAP) came from gaming purchases. This would continue to be the case. A gaming app would have ads + options for purchases (none can survive without it) and Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs. Many games cross the 1M threshold once they are popular enough. Gaming apps have low retention, and a power curve in paying users.
I'm not sure why I have to mention this, but you could be paying for something and get screwed over at the same time. The issue isn't that Google/Microsoft/etc NEED to make money this way, but that this is legal to do.
Also, Windows isn't exactly cheap and I personally couldn't fathom paying more than 100 bucks for an OS and still get treated like crap. I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their users with their current model throughout the device's entire lifetime.
I give Apple credit for making this clear rule: Having fewer than 1 million users on iOS in the EU means no fee, and you don't need to worry about status at all.
But if you have more installs, I don't think you'll get an easy to get a pass by just by sending Apple a note like "I'm just developing my app for fun" or "My app is open source". Maybe that works, but I wouldn't assume it without testing.
If your app has 1 million+ users, it's not at all convincing to say you made it just for fun, even if that's the truth. And we all know some open source apps are written with intent to make a profit, or given away free to promote related commercial activities or reputation, so saying it's open source isn't convincing either.
Anecdote: I ran a non-profit org, a hackerspace. Not only was it truly a non-profit organisation, it was legally constituted as such. The members had no legal rights to take any of its funds and resources out, those resources came from members and could only be used for the organisations's stated purpose, and because of this structure no tax was due when its funds grew, as they were primarily from member fees and donations. However, it was not a registered charity. It could have been but we decided the administrative overheads were too high.
Unfortunately, we were unable to convince Paypal we were a non-profit despite providing all the organisational documents Paypal requested to prove it (about 10 documents IIRC). This meant we weren't able to use Paypal for significant quantities of funding, i.e. to take membership payments. We could do a tiny amount for a couple of people, but it was capped at a very low limit.
If it's impossible to convince Paypal that a formally constituted non-profit qualifies as such, I wouldn't assume it's easy to convince Apple with casual claims, for an app with 1M+ users.
MS, you pay one time for the OS. Android you technically don't need to pay at all if you go AOSP. Both still require hardware to support the OS, though.
>And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones.
They do that anyway. mobile support is much lower than desktop which tends to guarantee a decade or so. And it's not like IOS is licensing out to other OEMs anyway.
Microsoft updates Windows OS for longer than Apple updates MacOS or iOS, despite charging a one-time fee that most end-users don't pay themselves.
And is backwards compatible.
And works with 99.999999% of the computer hardware ever made.
It seems like with Apple, you're just paying for a lot of nothing.
Huh? That is Apple’s model, and iOS supports old hardware much longer than Android does.
The new EU stuff is opt-in.
I thought that's what barred many open source programs from getting into the AppStore, and this would be a different but still PITA hurdle.
That’s quite absurd, no? "You can pick which terms you want, the ones where we follow the law, or the ones where we don’t. If you pick the ones where we don’t, it’s cheaper for you."
If you want to continue to distribute your app for free in Apple's app store, literally nothing changes.
To comply with the regulation they've introduced even more egregious pricing.
Apple did not do this because consumers do not value malware and fraud protection nearly as much as Apple would like everyone to believe.
I don’t want every other game dev/streaming service pushing me to install their own “store” like they do on the other platforms. That’s why I keep choosing Apple.
No way they can do that, because the second something malware or fraud happens, you can imagine the headlines. Apple advertises the iPhone as a secure and private device. By notarizing third-party store apps, they still have the ability to remove malicious apps.
In general I agree. But the support burden/cost goes up enormously. Ask Microsoft.
1. Developers can continue to use the existing terms.
2. If a smaller developer elects to use the new terms, they pay less commission (10%) and a 3% transaction fee. That’s 2% less.
3. If they have more than 1 million users download their app, then there is an additional €0.50 Core Technology fee. If the developer is a commercial entity, then yes, they have to pay but in reality, it’s the end user that will have to pay.
3. If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.
4. If the app is offered by a not for profit, then they don’t pay the CTF.
So, the new terms seem better for developers and users in the EU.
https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
Enter "No" to digital goods selling (you are making OpenFlappyBird as a personal project, and are not charging for it!)
Enter 10,000,000 Annual installs.
Check "New Capabilities and Terms" (you are putting it on OpenMarketPlace).
----
Where did I go wrong? This is a genuine question: I am not an iOS developer, maybe I am not applying this calculator correctly to my hypothetical?
The first million is free. If they reach 1,000,001 installs, they owe Apple €0.50.
1. You made a one time paid app. If in the first year you got 2M installs and sold app for 5$ you are profitable, but next year if those users who already paid will make an app update then you will own ~$1M to apple for those app updates even if you didn't make any new money from those users. You would be forced to change your business model to subscriptions.
2. If user has iPhone, iPad, apple watch and your app support all those platforms then probably this will be counted as 3 installs.
3. By default app store updates app automatically - if user has still some old iphone/ipad that uses from time to time this is getting even worse.
I think that "growth first, revenue later" is actually a fairly popular business model, and I can imagine a lot of my own app ideas reaching 1M downloads with <$500k revenue (in an ideal world, but still)
Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.
So, now there is the option for alternative marketplaces, the costs have been shifted to those marketplaces.
Makes complete sense.
It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.
The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc.
But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking.
The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack.
>It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.
except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.
But if I distribute that exact same app on an M1 powered iPad outside of the App Store, I'll be subjected to a fee if my app goes viral, unless I agree not to profit from it and set up a non-profit organization?
As far as Apple is concerned, this is a huge oversight, and will be rectified in the coming years. The idea of computing devices as uncontrollable platforms is a mistake to them. It's only a matter of time.
If I have an app that makes $20,000 annually and all of the sudden there's a huge influx of new downloads (with no guarantee of converting to paid), then I am bankrupt. Apple will charge $4,500 to me PER MONTH for 100k downloads above 1 million. If I have 2 million downloads, I now owe Apple $45,000 per month.
This means the new structure is incredibly regressive. This will destroy small businesses.
I actually could not believe the fee calculator was correct, so I found the section in the terms[0] section 4.1 (A) lays out the fee, which is 0.5 EUR per app install above 1 million installs.
This could, in theory, be used as a way for groups of people to target and take down small businesses. These downloads include "redownloads" where a user may delete and then download the application again. I can already see the lawsuits if Apple does not implement mitigations for these types of attacks.
0: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...
Why? Because if you affect one aspect of Apple’s carefully crafted business model, you touch many more.
For instance, the fact that there’s no good free calculator on the iPad is bonkers. Why is it bonkers? Did Apple go “oopsie, we never got around to finishing the iPad calculator app.” for years? No. It’s a calculated decision.
Another example, why did Apple never have a weather app for the iPad UNTIL they bought out their best competition, which happened to be web-based?
Apple factors in everything. Will X push more sales of Y product or Z service? Will the fact that this feature is randomly not present in this set of devices help sell more mac/iPad/iPhone?
Apple loses more than the face-value (which is a lot) of their App store control. They lose a portion of control over their less-tangible business model.
If this wasn’t the case, they’d still be selling iPods.
I see what you did there.
Could you elaborate? I don't get this part -- are you saying they don't include a calc app on the iPad to push iPhone sales?
2,000,000 updates acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees per month!
I hope the EU fines them for blatantly trying to circumvent the law, and makes it a reoccurring monthly fine until they properly comply with the DMA.
[0] "A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, ..." https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
How are they even justifying these fees if the app is being distributed entirely outside of the app store? So weird.
A real option, mind you, not one that's tilted so far in Apple's favor that any competition looks hopeless from day 1.
> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review.
...well, except porn and sex-work apps, I guess. Will nobody think of the poor, penniless OnlyFans CEO? /s
> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang...
> Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative payment processing.
So you either choose US/Global Business Model (what we know today), or EU Business Model (what was announced today, with flexibility but high fees). You can distribute on the App Store either way.
And there are also free apps that might want to be distributed through Apple's store alongside an alternative store, which would require them to accept the new terms, as far as I can tell.
> will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold
EDIT: I misread, I thought they were arguing that the 50c was per month, not the total number at the end of the calculation.
