Apple Opens iPhone to Third-Party App Stores in EU, But at What Cost?

Apple, California, USA United States of America
Apple is finally opening the iPhone to third-party app stores in the European Union.
Smaller apps that go viral and don't charge users upfront can quickly burn cash if they don't generate enough subscriptions or purchases from the new store, which could be particularly problematic for developers already struggling financially due to Apple's strict app review process.
The new fee structure for apps that want to operate on these third-party stores is a 0.50 fee, with no cut of sales if they are distributed via a third-party store and a drop from traditional 30 percent down to 17 percent if still distributed via Apple's App Store.
Apple Opens iPhone to Third-Party App Stores in EU, But at What Cost?

Apple is finally opening the iPhone to third-party app stores in the European Union, kicking off a potentially vibrant, unwieldy, and eclectic new era for its app ecosystem. At least, it might, depending on how developers respond to a hurdle that is at once tiny and immense: a €0.50 fee.

Apple is introducing a new fee structure for apps that want to operate on these third-party stores. On the surface, it looks great: apps pay no cut of sales to Apple if they’re distributed via a third-party store. And if a developer still wants to be distributed via Apple’s App Store, too, the cut drops from the traditional 30 percent fee down to 17 percent.

However, smaller apps that go viral and don't charge users upfront can quickly burn a lot of cash if they don't generate enough subscriptions or purchases from the new store. This could be particularly problematic for developers who are already struggling financially due to Apple’s strict app review process.

Apple is also introducing changes that will allow sideloading apps directly onto iPhones, which has been a long-standing demand of iPhone users in Europe. However, this move comes with security risks and could potentially open up the platform to malicious actors who may exploit these new features for their own gain.

Overall, while Apple’s decision to allow third-party app stores on iPhones is a positive step towards increased competition and innovation in the tech industry, it remains to be seen how developers will respond to this change. It is important that they are aware of the potential risks associated with sideloading apps directly onto their devices.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • Is the 0.50 fee for third-party app store distribution fair to developers?

Sources

73%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Apple’s Plans for the DMA in the European Union

daringfireball.net Monday, 01 January 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • Apple announced new policies to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act.
    • The EU is anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results often do go hand-in-hand, but the DMA exposes the fissures.
    • Developers can escape Apple's steep cut and restrictive rules by paying a heavy fee upfront in exchange.
  • Accuracy
    • , Apple is once again solving no problems and making everything worse in tech according to Sebastiaan de With on Twitter/X.
    • Apple's priorities are consistent: Apple's own needs first, users second, developers third.
    • , The European Commission puts developers first, users second and gatekeepers a distant.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents their own opinions as facts without providing any evidence to support them. For example, they claim that the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) exposes fissures between anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results, but there is no evidence provided to support this statement. Secondly, the author uses emotional manipulation by stating that Apple's priorities are consistent and putting developers first while implying that the EU's priorities put gatekeepers first. This creates a false dichotomy between two positions without providing any context or evidence to support it.
    • The article presents opinions as facts, such as when the author claims that 'I love that I can't tell if you are talking about the EU or Apple in this case.'
    • The author uses emotional manipulation by stating that 'Apple's priorities put developers third,' implying a false dichotomy between two positions without providing any context or evidence to support it.
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of two individuals without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author commits a dichotomy fallacy when they describe Spotify as being written specifically for and targeting European tech companies while also stating that nothing in the DMA adversely affects or even annoys any European tech companies.
    • de With: The EU is once again solving absolutely no problems and making everything worse in tech. I gotta say, they are if anything highly consistent.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article contains examples of ideological bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the European Union and its policies by describing them as 'solving absolutely no problems' and making everything worse in tech. They also use a comparison between the EU and Apple to suggest that both are gatekeepers, which is not accurate or fair.
    • I love that I can’t tell if you are talking about the EU or Apple
      • The EU is once again solving absolutely no problems
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      81%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Here’s the new Apple tax every developer is going to hate

      The Verge Jacob Kastrenakes Friday, 26 January 2024 18:35
      • Unique Points
        • Apple is introducing a new fee structure for apps that want to operate on third-party app stores in the European Union.
        • The price could be worth it for big companies like Spotify to convert free users to paid ones via third-party stores with no revenue sharing, but they have to pay millions of dollars in download fees regardless.
        • Smaller apps that go viral and don't charge users upfront can quickly burn a lot of cash if they don't generate enough subscriptions or purchases from the new store.
      • Accuracy
        No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
      • Deception (80%)
        The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that apps pay no cut of sales to Apple if they are distributed via a third-party store. However, this statement is false as there is still a fee for every new installation over the first 1 million installs per year.
        • Apple introduces a new fee structure for apps that want to operate on these third-party stores.
      • Fallacies (85%)
        The article discusses the new fee structure for third-party app stores in the European Union. The author introduces a fallacy by stating that apps pay no cut of sales to Apple if they are distributed via a third-party store. This is false as developers still have to pay 17% or 10% depending on their qualification status, which is not mentioned in the article.
        • ]The real caveat comes into play only once apps are popular enough. Any app that sees more than 1 million installs per year must pay Apple a 50 euro cent fee (about 54 cents USD) for every new installation over that first 1 million — That fee is charged once per every user each year.
        • Facebook has 408 million monthly users in Europe across all platforms. iPhones make up about one-third of the mobile phone market in Europe. If one-third of those Facebook users have the iPhone app installed, Meta would be paying Apple €67.5 million (around $73.4 million) per year, just for Facebook.
        • Spotify has been waiting to get out from under the thumb of Apple’s 30 percent cut for years and, as such, has offered no way to subscribe in its iOS app or make in-app purchases of products like audiobooks. If Spotify were to convert a free user to a paying one via a third-party store with no revenue sharing, it would more than make up that 50 euro cents each year.
        • An app that’s gone viral can easily surpass 1 million installs, and since a great many apps don’t charge users upfront (or ever), they could quickly burn a lot of cash. That could be a devastating situation for briefly explosive social apps like Clubhouse or BeReal.
        • Developers that care enough to escape Apple’s fees will have to find a way to compel users to put in this effort.
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        Jacob Kastrenakes has a conflict of interest with Apple as he is reporting on the topic of third-party app stores and revenue cut. He also mentions Facebook, Spotify, Amazon and Epic Games which are competitors to Apple.
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Jacob Kastrenakes has a conflict of interest on the topics of Apple and third-party app stores as he is an employee of The Verge which is owned by Vox Media. He may have financial ties to these companies through his employment.

          78%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          iOS 17.4—Game-Changing New Move Will Transform Your iPhone Forever

          Forbes Magazine Kate O'Flaherty Friday, 26 January 2024 00:00
          • Unique Points
            • Apple's iOS 17.4 update will open up its app store and ecosystem to outside parties for the first time ever.
            • The Digital Markets Act aims to boost competition by preventing tech giants such as Apple from acting as gatekeepers dominating the marketplace.
            • From iOS 17.4, developers will be able to use browser engines other than WebKit for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing experiences.
          • Accuracy
            • Apple announced new policies to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act.
            • The EU is anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results often do go hand-in-hand, but the DMA exposes the fissures.
            • Developers can escape Apple’s steep cut and restrictive rules by paying a heavy fee upfront in exchange.
          • Deception (30%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that iOS 17.4 will see Apple open up its app store and ecosystem to outside parties for the first time ever when it actually has been doing so since iOS 9 with TestFlight. Secondly, the author states that sideloading opens up iPhone users to major security risks but fails to provide any evidence or examples of such risks. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalist language and exaggeration by stating that this is a game-changing move when it's not as significant as claimed.
            • The author claims that iOS 17.4 will see Apple open up its app store and ecosystem to outside parties for the first time ever, but TestFlight has been available since iOS 9.
          • Fallacies (75%)
            The article discusses Apple's iOS 17.4 update and the company's compliance with the EU Digital Markets Act by allowing app side-loading from March when iOS 17.4 launches. The author presents both positive and negative aspects of this change, including increased competition in the marketplace but also potential security risks for iPhone users in Europe.
            • Apple is adding new options for distributing iOS apps from alternative app marketplaces
            • Developers will be able to use browser engines other than WebKit, for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing experiences.
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          63%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Apple’s Proposed Changes Reject the Goals of the DMA — Spotify

          Spotify Technology S.A. Unknown Stacy.Goldrick@groupsjr.com Friday, 26 January 2024 20:58
          • Unique Points
            • ,1,782 days.
            • The EU is anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results often do go hand-in-hand, but the DMA exposes the fissures.
            • Developers can escape Apple's steep cut and restrictive rules by paying a heavy fee upfront in exchange.
            • From iOS 17.4, developers will be able to use browser engines other than WebKit for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing experiences.
          • Accuracy
            • Apple has been asked to take action against by the European Commission for five years.
          • Deception (50%)
            The article by Stacy.Goldrick@groupsjr.com from the site <https://newsroom.spotify.com/> contains deception through emotional manipulation and selective reporting.
            • Fallacies (80%)
              The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the European Commission passed a law and should enforce it. This is not enough evidence to support their claim as there may be other factors at play. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options for developers: either they comply with Apple's new demands or they leave the App Store altogether. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when it describes Apple's behavior as
              • Bias (85%)
                The article is biased towards Spotify and against Apple. The author uses language that dehumanizes Apple by calling their actions 'arrogance' and a 'complete farce'. They also use loaded words such as 'extortion', which implies criminality on the part of Apple. Additionally, the author presents only one side of the story, ignoring any counterarguments or evidence that might support Apple's position.
                • Apple is nothing if not consistent
                  • From our read of Apple’s proposal, a developer would have to pay this fee even if a user downloaded the app, never used it and forgot to delete it
                    • This takes the level of arrogance to an entirely new place
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Spotify as they are owned by Apple. The article also discusses competition and innovation in digital markets which could be affected by changes to regulations such as the DMA.
                      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                        The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of gatekeepers like Apple as they are an active participant in the digital market and have been criticized for their practices.

                        71%

                        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                        Apple and Google are losing power. Here’s how your apps could change.

                        The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Shira Ovide Friday, 26 January 2024 17:40
                        • Unique Points
                          • Apple and Google are losing power in the app market.
                          • The companies have control over what apps can do, but this is changing due to legal changes starting to bubble up for Europeans and Americans.
                          • In some cases, users may be able to download apps from places other than Apple or Google's official app store. This could lead to more options for digital purchases and features that were previously not possible.
                        • Accuracy
                          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                        • Deception (30%)
                          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that apps are so handy and Apple and Google demand so much silence that it's hard to know what money-saving deals or imaginative ideas you might be missing. However, this statement is misleading as there have been numerous instances where consumers have discovered cheaper alternatives to popular apps through third-party app stores. Secondly, the author states that Apple and Google say their control gives you one place to find apps while protecting you from bad apps that could steal your money or personal information. This statement is also deceptive as it implies that these companies are solely responsible for ensuring the safety of users' data when in reality, there are many other factors at play such as user behavior and app developers' compliance with security standards.
                          • The author claims that apps are so handy and Apple and Google demand so much silence. However, this statement is misleading as there have been numerous instances where consumers have discovered cheaper alternatives to popular apps through third-party app stores.
                        • Fallacies (75%)
                          The article discusses the limitations of Apple and Google's control over apps. The author mentions that these companies have been able to dictate what users can do with their apps through rules that are longer than the U.S. Constitution, which helps them steer the internet economy and generate revenue from app stores.
                          • Apple has never let you try an iPhone app like Xbox made
                          • You download and pay for each game app separately.
                        • Bias (85%)
                          The author Shira Ovide demonstrates bias by implying that Apple and Google's app store rules are only in place to protect their revenue streams. She does this by repeatedly mentioning the amount of money generated from app stores without providing any evidence or context for why these rules may be necessary.
                          • Apps are so handy, and Apple and Google demand so much silence
                            • It works this way because Apple said so 15 years ago, Google mostly followed and they stuck to it even as lines have blurred between the virtual and physical worlds.
                              • Their protections are good but imperfect
                                • Those rules also help Apple and Google steer the internet economy and generate more than $40 billion in yearly revenue from their app stores.
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  Shira Ovide has conflicts of interest on the topics of Apple and Google as she is an employee at The Washington Post which competes with these companies for advertising revenue. Additionally, her article discusses digital subscription services which may be a topic that The Washington Post also covers.