I don't understand the situation.
If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app?
Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?
> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple.
(It’s per year, not per month.)
Honestly, part the issue is the DMA does little about the infringement of personal property rights of device owners.
Just going to repost this comment I made a few days ago to explain:
Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that.
Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain.
Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here.
In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own.
For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]
in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"
For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise:
I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.
> 1_000_000$
The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions.
As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a personal choice. I agree with the author that only allowing third-party browser engines in certain locales would create an undue burden on companies like Mozilla, or really anyone who wants to compete without WebKit, and seems mean-spirited in that it follows the letter of the regulation without following the spirit.
I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
Apple's clear intent is to make it extremely unattractive to use alternative stores (unless you've got an app with a very high ARPU). You can argue about ambiguities in the legal text, but this is absolutely contrary to the intent of the DMA, which is to foster competition.
I would be pretty surprised if the EU has no objections to this policy.