8 ms·

> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution." [...] > "The Core Technology Fee, a per-

> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution." [...] > "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee." [...] > "In order to keep EU users as safe as possible, Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization — a baseline review focused on basic functionality and protection from serious threats." This is bonkers, I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users. The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple. The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them. Of course, Xcode and the SDK overall aren't paid for by users, so Apple can charge devs for it, but so far there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived. Not that it would be enough anyway, since even having to interact with Apple in any capacity to be an iOS dev is the main problem.

tiahura 29d ago
[flagged]
- EMIRELADERO 29d ago
  The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.
dannyw 29d ago
The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so. Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution
- xp84 29d ago
  yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.
  - ahartmetz 29d ago
    Whatever censorship exists in the EU is really inconsequential. What bothers me is the spying.
    - x3ro 29d ago
      Do you mean “censorship by the EU” or “censorship within the EU”, or both? Because I see a lot of the latter, and I don’t find it inconsequential at all.
      - ahartmetz 29d ago
        By the EU and in Germany, really... What is censored in other member states isn't in the news, but for all I know it's also not much and not important. Which censorship do you consider problematic?
        Certhas 29d ago
        The whole EU censorship rhetoric is almost always devoid of facts and examples. I feel like it is mainly sustained because US people like the narrative that theytl are the free(TM).
        ahartmetz 29d ago
        Asking innocent questions often works better than confrontation, but yeah, this elevated importance of utmost free speech doesn't survive the Atlantic crossing and can be used to maliciously pooh-pooh Europe to an American audience.
lapcat 29d ago
> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK How do you not use their SDK?
- EMIRELADERO 29d ago
  Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
  - lapcat 29d ago
    > Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
    - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
      I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
      - lapcat 29d ago
        > I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
        EMIRELADERO 29d ago
        What would be so outlandish about that?
mnewme 29d ago
Well I think this it at least improvement to the status quo
ben_w 29d ago
> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. That argument would assume no cost for upgrades. I remember having to buy new operating systems. That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free. > Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them. Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests. That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other. That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".
- noja 29d ago
  I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.
  - ben_w 29d ago
    I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.
    - idichejcjd 29d ago
      [flagged]
  - xp84 29d ago
    Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!
gumby271 29d ago
That feels like a crazy definition of Notarization there Apple.
chrisjj 29d ago
> I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.
- Gareth321 29d ago
  Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true: > [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commercial-terms-apple-is-changing-its-rules-to-comply-with-eu-regulations/ https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
SiempreViernes 29d ago
> In a statement, a Commission spokesperson welcomed Apple’s changes to its business terms, which it said “follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple”. > “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added. There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive. I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open
carlosjobim 29d ago
> Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users. The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them. Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.
- EMIRELADERO 29d ago
  > Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
  - carlosjobim 29d ago
    An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though. > Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here. Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
    - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
      > An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something. The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution. > Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist. > Who was forced to develop for Apple devices? Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
zombot 29d ago
SO Apple just got granted that there effectively is no "outside the AppStore" when it comes to iOS. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they've attained it, they won't give it up voluntarily. You have to force them.

tiahura 29d ago

[flagged]

EMIRELADERO 29d ago
The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.

dannyw 29d ago

The EU likes the power to delist apps by compelling two companies (Apple and Google) to do so. Android is moving to the same, KYC (credit or debit card; no prepaid cards) with play store required for APK distribution

xp84 29d ago
yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.
- ahartmetz 29d ago
  Whatever censorship exists in the EU is really inconsequential. What bothers me is the spying.
  - x3ro 29d ago
    Do you mean “censorship by the EU” or “censorship within the EU”, or both? Because I see a lot of the latter, and I don’t find it inconsequential at all.
    - ahartmetz 29d ago
      By the EU and in Germany, really... What is censored in other member states isn't in the news, but for all I know it's also not much and not important. Which censorship do you consider problematic?
      - Certhas 29d ago
        The whole EU censorship rhetoric is almost always devoid of facts and examples. I feel like it is mainly sustained because US people like the narrative that theytl are the free(TM).
        ahartmetz 29d ago
        Asking innocent questions often works better than confrontation, but yeah, this elevated importance of utmost free speech doesn't survive the Atlantic crossing and can be used to maliciously pooh-pooh Europe to an American audience.

lapcat 29d ago

> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK How do you not use their SDK?

EMIRELADERO 29d ago
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
- lapcat 29d ago
  > Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
  - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
    I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
    - lapcat 29d ago
      > I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
      - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
        What would be so outlandish about that?

mnewme 29d ago

Well I think this it at least improvement to the status quo

ben_w 29d ago

> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device. That argument would assume no cost for upgrades. I remember having to buy new operating systems. That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free. > Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them. Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests. That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other. That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".

noja 29d ago
I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.
- ben_w 29d ago
  I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.
  - idichejcjd 29d ago
    [flagged]
- xp84 29d ago
  Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!

gumby271 29d ago

That feels like a crazy definition of Notarization there Apple.

chrisjj 29d ago

> I can't believe the EU Commission agreed to it. This press release conspicuously lacks any suggestion that it did agree.

Gareth321 29d ago
Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true: > [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commercial-terms-apple-is-changing-its-rules-to-comply-with-eu-regulations/ https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)

SiempreViernes 29d ago

> In a statement, a Commission spokesperson welcomed Apple’s changes to its business terms, which it said “follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple”. > “Following today’s announcement, the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new terms,” it added. There's nothing on the commission webpage, all I could find is the above comments from a spokesperson which aren't hugely definitive. I think we can take the mention of dialogue to mean the commission thinks the new rules are a step forward enough that wider civil society can have a look and maybe kick up a stink, and the absence of press release coordinated with Apple as evidence the procedure is still open

carlosjobim 29d ago

> Apple retains ultimate control over app developers' dealings with users. The app developers can offer their own line of devices on the market. Users are free to choose a different manufacturer. Apple doesn't hold anybody in chains, it is people and developers who are coming to them. Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? Honestly, I think that most hackers and EU bureaucrats think that it would be a splendid idea.

EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.
- carlosjobim 29d ago
  An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though. > Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here. Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
  - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
    > An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something. The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution. > Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist. > Who was forced to develop for Apple devices? Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)

zombot 29d ago

SO Apple just got granted that there effectively is no "outside the AppStore" when it comes to iOS. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they've attained it, they won't give it up voluntarily. You have to force them.