daring-rss

USA Today columnist Rex Huppke, on Donald Trump’s high-profile return to Twitter/X:

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a
multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or
laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be
accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the
interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour,
the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview
was able to proceed. He was rambling, babbling on about crowd
sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else
seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his
words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to
knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Here’s Donald Trump, back in May 2023, when Ron DeSantis launched his primary campaign the same way, in a Twitter Space interview with Musk:

Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole
campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!

 ★ 

USA Today columnist Rex Huppke, on Donald Trump’s high-profile return to Twitter/X:

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a
multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or
laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be
accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the
interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour,
the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview
was able to proceed. He was rambling, babbling on about crowd
sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else
seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his
words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to
knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Here’s Donald Trump, back in May 2023, when Ron DeSantis launched his primary campaign the same way, in a Twitter Space interview with Musk:

Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole
campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!

Read More 

I neglected to call this paragraph out yesterday in my first link to this announcement from Patreon:

Patreon is home to an incredible range of creators, all with
unique circumstances and billing needs. Apple’s in-app purchase
system, on the other hand, only supports Patreon’s subscription
billing model. Apple has also made clear that if creators on
Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable
transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the
entire app removed from their App Store.

Right now Patreon is offering its creators two options for dealing with the upcoming changes in its iOS app:

Raise prices for users who subscribe through the app by 30 percent to accommodate Apple’s cut of the transactions. (This is the default.)
Keep prices the same and pay Apple’s fees out of the creator’s share of the transaction.

What Patreon seems to be suggesting above is that if they offered a third option — not to allow subscriptions within the iOS app, controlled by each creator for their own subscriptions — that Apple has threatened to remove the Patreon app from the App Store.

I humbly suggest Patreon go ahead with that anyway. Let’s see how many of Patreon’s creators tell Apple to bugger off. And if Apple were to respond by removing Patreon from the App Store for offering this choice, how would that not backfire spectacularly in Apple’s face? I believe it would be a positive publicity bonanza for Patreon, and for high-visibility creators on their platform, as well. And this example would be a disaster for Apple publicity-wise and in the face of growing regulatory and antitrust scrutiny, especially right here in the U.S.

From the perspective of creators, this clearly ought to be an option. They don’t want to charge their fans 30 percent extra just to pad Apple’s bottom line. They don’t want to earn less money themselves. Thus, they might not want to participate in App Store in-app payments at all. How is that not a perfectly reasonable choice for Patreon to offer and for some of its creators to make? And then just put right there in the app that this creator’s subscriptions are only available on the web. Dare Apple to strike that down on the anti-steering grounds that are in the bullseye of regulators around the world.

Patreon, with an army of devoted creator fans on its side, should call Apple on this bluff. I don’t think they could lose.

 ★ 

I neglected to call this paragraph out yesterday in my first link to this announcement from Patreon:

Patreon is home to an incredible range of creators, all with
unique circumstances and billing needs. Apple’s in-app purchase
system, on the other hand, only supports Patreon’s subscription
billing model. Apple has also made clear that if creators on
Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable
transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the
entire app removed from their App Store.

Right now Patreon is offering its creators two options for dealing with the upcoming changes in its iOS app:

Raise prices for users who subscribe through the app by 30 percent to accommodate Apple’s cut of the transactions. (This is the default.)
Keep prices the same and pay Apple’s fees out of the creator’s share of the transaction.

What Patreon seems to be suggesting above is that if they offered a third option — not to allow subscriptions within the iOS app, controlled by each creator for their own subscriptions — that Apple has threatened to remove the Patreon app from the App Store.

I humbly suggest Patreon go ahead with that anyway. Let’s see how many of Patreon’s creators tell Apple to bugger off. And if Apple were to respond by removing Patreon from the App Store for offering this choice, how would that not backfire spectacularly in Apple’s face? I believe it would be a positive publicity bonanza for Patreon, and for high-visibility creators on their platform, as well. And this example would be a disaster for Apple publicity-wise and in the face of growing regulatory and antitrust scrutiny, especially right here in the U.S.

From the perspective of creators, this clearly ought to be an option. They don’t want to charge their fans 30 percent extra just to pad Apple’s bottom line. They don’t want to earn less money themselves. Thus, they might not want to participate in App Store in-app payments at all. How is that not a perfectly reasonable choice for Patreon to offer and for some of its creators to make? And then just put right there in the app that this creator’s subscriptions are only available on the web. Dare Apple to strike that down on the anti-steering grounds that are in the bullseye of regulators around the world.

Patreon, with an army of devoted creator fans on its side, should call Apple on this bluff. I don’t think they could lose.

Read More 

Substack cofounder Hamish McKenzie, on Patreon being required by Apple to offer in-app subscriptions through their iOS app:

But we also don’t think that Apple should be wholly blamed. This
unfortunate situation, in which creators ultimately bear the
biggest costs, is a structural issue rooted in how the
commercial internet has evolved (or not) over the past couple of
decades. […]

But creators aren’t Apple’s traditional customers. They’re
not app makers or game developers. They don’t actually have a
piece of real estate in the App Store. They instead find their
distribution through media platforms, including the likes of
Patreon and Substack. It might feel weird for someone who
publishes a podcast through Patreon, or a publication through
Substack, to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix.

The emergence of the creator economy presents an interesting
challenge and opportunity for Apple, and some delicate questions
for Patreon and Substack. We want creators and subscribers to
benefit from the power of Apple’s in-app purchases. In fact, at
Substack we have been working with Apple to bring in-app purchases
into our app, because we believe that anything that reduces the
friction of a subscription is great for creators. We’re doing
everything in our power to make the implementation of in-app
purchases as creator-friendly as possible.

First, a correction: Yesterday I wrote that Substack didn’t offer in-app purchases in its iOS app. I was wrong. They do. How I got it wrong is that I checked, in the app, by looking at a publication to which I was already subscribed at the free tier, to upgrade to a paid account. That showed me a panel that read “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” But that’s because I started the subscription on Substack’s website. For Substack subscriptions made on the web, you must continue to manage them on the web. This probably isn’t merely about avoiding Apple’s payment fees, but a practical requirement. I don’t think there’s any way, technically, that an individual subscription you started paying for on the web could be migrated on-the-fly to Apple’s payments, or vice-versa. For a Substack publication you aren’t already subscribed to, even at the free tier, you can subscribe via IAP in the Substack iOS app.

What I should have done is look at Substack’s listing on the App Store itself, which clearly shows that it offers in-app purchases. Each Substack publication offers a distinct SKU for each paid subscription it offers, so the Substack app’s listing shows the most popular ones.

Second: McKenzie’s observation that it’s weird for individual creators “to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix” is interesting, because Netflix doesn’t receive the same treatment as most apps. Netflix is a “reader app”, a special category Apple carved out in the App Store for “apps that provide one or more of the following digital content types — magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video — as the primary functionality of the app”.

It seems obvious to me that creator-platform apps like Substack and Patreon ought to be in a new category of their own, the basic idea of which would be for Apple to take some sort of smaller cut of these transactions.

 ★ 

Substack cofounder Hamish McKenzie, on Patreon being required by Apple to offer in-app subscriptions through their iOS app:

But we also don’t think that Apple should be wholly blamed. This
unfortunate situation, in which creators ultimately bear the
biggest costs, is a structural issue rooted in how the
commercial internet has evolved (or not) over the past couple of
decades. […]

But creators aren’t Apple’s traditional customers. They’re
not app makers or game developers. They don’t actually have a
piece of real estate in the App Store. They instead find their
distribution through media platforms, including the likes of
Patreon and Substack. It might feel weird for someone who
publishes a podcast through Patreon, or a publication through
Substack, to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix.

The emergence of the creator economy presents an interesting
challenge and opportunity for Apple, and some delicate questions
for Patreon and Substack. We want creators and subscribers to
benefit from the power of Apple’s in-app purchases. In fact, at
Substack we have been working with Apple to bring in-app purchases
into our app, because we believe that anything that reduces the
friction of a subscription is great for creators. We’re doing
everything in our power to make the implementation of in-app
purchases as creator-friendly as possible.

First, a correction: Yesterday I wrote that Substack didn’t offer in-app purchases in its iOS app. I was wrong. They do. How I got it wrong is that I checked, in the app, by looking at a publication to which I was already subscribed at the free tier, to upgrade to a paid account. That showed me a panel that read “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” But that’s because I started the subscription on Substack’s website. For Substack subscriptions made on the web, you must continue to manage them on the web. This probably isn’t merely about avoiding Apple’s payment fees, but a practical requirement. I don’t think there’s any way, technically, that an individual subscription you started paying for on the web could be migrated on-the-fly to Apple’s payments, or vice-versa. For a Substack publication you aren’t already subscribed to, even at the free tier, you can subscribe via IAP in the Substack iOS app.

What I should have done is look at Substack’s listing on the App Store itself, which clearly shows that it offers in-app purchases. Each Substack publication offers a distinct SKU for each paid subscription it offers, so the Substack app’s listing shows the most popular ones.

Second: McKenzie’s observation that it’s weird for individual creators “to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix” is interesting, because Netflix doesn’t receive the same treatment as most apps. Netflix is a “reader app”, a special category Apple carved out in the App Store for “apps that provide one or more of the following digital content types — magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video — as the primary functionality of the app”.

It seems obvious to me that creator-platform apps like Substack and Patreon ought to be in a new category of their own, the basic idea of which would be for Apple to take some sort of smaller cut of these transactions.

Read More 

Nick Heer, writing at Pixel Envy:

The 30% fee is also notable. As far as I can tell, only a
handful of Patreon users would exceed the million-dollar
annual threshold for Apple’s Small Business Program. That
is, everyone who earns less than a million dollars per year
through iOS Patreon pledges should, in theory, fork over a 15%
commission rate to Apple. But it appears it is Patreon itself
which is subject to the 30% rate. Whether that decision was made
by Apple or Patreon, of if it is something which is a consequence
of how App Store billing works, is unclear to me. But one thing is
true regardless: Apple’s 30% commission is at least double
the rate charged by Patreon itself, and only the latter has any
material effect on the relationship between a creative
professional and their supporters.

The problem here reminds me of e-books. There’s really only room for one middleman in a relationship between a creator and their audience, and in this case that middleman has been Patreon. But now Apple is saying they’re required to be involved too. But the Patreon app doesn’t qualify for the Small Business Program, so in-app subscriptions through the Patreon app are split 70/30 with Apple for the first year. But the vast majority of Patreon creators would, if they were app developers, qualify for the Small Business Program and the in-app subscription split would be 85/15 instead. But nobody wants each and every Patreon creator to build their own apps. The whole point of Patreon is that it’s a centralized platform.

The whole notion of a platform like Patreon just doesn’t fit with the App Store’s model of taking a fee out of every single transaction for digital goods or services. It could, perhaps, if Apple were willing to only accept a commission from Patreon’s own share — a commission on a commission — but they’re not.

Lastly, I suppose it’s implicit here that a lot Patreon users go through the iOS app. But I can’t help but think they should do what Substack does and just not allow paid subscriptions through the app. I just double-checked this was still true, and it seems to be. Substack’s iOS app lets you subscribe only to free subscriptions in-app. If you tap “Manage Subscription” in the app, you’re presented with a sheet that says, unhelpfully, “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” (It’s Apple’s odious anti-steering rules that disallow apps like Substack from explaining where you can manage your subscription, which, of course, is on the web.)

 ★ 

Nick Heer, writing at Pixel Envy:

The 30% fee is also notable. As far as I can tell, only a
handful of Patreon users would exceed the million-dollar
annual threshold for Apple’s Small Business Program. That
is, everyone who earns less than a million dollars per year
through iOS Patreon pledges should, in theory, fork over a 15%
commission rate to Apple. But it appears it is Patreon itself
which is subject to the 30% rate. Whether that decision was made
by Apple or Patreon, of if it is something which is a consequence
of how App Store billing works, is unclear to me. But one thing is
true regardless: Apple’s 30% commission is at least double
the rate charged by Patreon itself, and only the latter has any
material effect on the relationship between a creative
professional and their supporters.

The problem here reminds me of e-books. There’s really only room for one middleman in a relationship between a creator and their audience, and in this case that middleman has been Patreon. But now Apple is saying they’re required to be involved too. But the Patreon app doesn’t qualify for the Small Business Program, so in-app subscriptions through the Patreon app are split 70/30 with Apple for the first year. But the vast majority of Patreon creators would, if they were app developers, qualify for the Small Business Program and the in-app subscription split would be 85/15 instead. But nobody wants each and every Patreon creator to build their own apps. The whole point of Patreon is that it’s a centralized platform.

The whole notion of a platform like Patreon just doesn’t fit with the App Store’s model of taking a fee out of every single transaction for digital goods or services. It could, perhaps, if Apple were willing to only accept a commission from Patreon’s own share — a commission on a commission — but they’re not.

Lastly, I suppose it’s implicit here that a lot Patreon users go through the iOS app. But I can’t help but think they should do what Substack does and just not allow paid subscriptions through the app. I just double-checked this was still true, and it seems to be. Substack’s iOS app lets you subscribe only to free subscriptions in-app. If you tap “Manage Subscription” in the app, you’re presented with a sheet that says, unhelpfully, “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” (It’s Apple’s odious anti-steering rules that disallow apps like Substack from explaining where you can manage your subscription, which, of course, is on the web.)

Read More 

Sarah Perez, writing for TechCrunch:

Despite Apple’s rules and policies, Patreon had existed in an odd
sort of gray area, as some of its subscription-based offerings
could be consumed in its app while others could not. Another
possible reason for the Patreon exception was due to the fact that
many users didn’t come to Patreon itself to discover creators and
content, Patreon CEO Jack Conte told tech news site The
Verge in 2021. Instead, the discovery took place through
other channels. Though the company admitted it didn’t have any
sort of special contract with Apple to avoid the App Store fees,
the app had been able to skirt Apple’s in-app billing requirements
for some time.

It wasn’t good that Patreon existed in an unofficial gray zone. But it’s hard to see how this is better for anyone, including Apple.

 ★ 

Sarah Perez, writing for TechCrunch:

Despite Apple’s rules and policies, Patreon had existed in an odd
sort of gray area, as some of its subscription-based offerings
could be consumed in its app while others could not. Another
possible reason for the Patreon exception was due to the fact that
many users didn’t come to Patreon itself to discover creators and
content, Patreon CEO Jack Conte told tech news site The
Verge in 2021. Instead, the discovery took place through
other channels. Though the company admitted it didn’t have any
sort of special contract with Apple to avoid the App Store fees,
the app had been able to skirt Apple’s in-app billing requirements
for some time.

It wasn’t good that Patreon existed in an unofficial gray zone. But it’s hard to see how this is better for anyone, including Apple.

Read More 

New from the Steve Jobs Archive: an hourlong video of young Steve Jobs delivering a talk on design in 1983. Jony Ive wrote a splendid introduction:

The revolution Steve described over 40 years ago did of course
happen, partly because of his profound commitment to a kind of
civic responsibility. He cared, way beyond any sort of functional
imperative. His was a victory for beauty, for purity and, as he
would say, for giving a damn. He truly believed that by making
something useful, empowering and beautiful, we express our love
for humanity.

 ★ 

New from the Steve Jobs Archive: an hourlong video of young Steve Jobs delivering a talk on design in 1983. Jony Ive wrote a splendid introduction:

The revolution Steve described over 40 years ago did of course
happen, partly because of his profound commitment to a kind of
civic responsibility. He cared, way beyond any sort of functional
imperative. His was a victory for beauty, for purity and, as he
would say, for giving a damn. He truly believed that by making
something useful, empowering and beautiful, we express our love
for humanity.

Read More 

The Mac is a platform where you need to be able to shoot yourself in foot.

Back in the day, on classic Mac OS, there were no “privileges” for software. If you launched an app, or installed a system extension, that software just did what it wanted. Something as (seemingly) innocuous as a game or as necessarily powerful as a disk formatting utility just … ran. If that disk utility had a bug that overwrote every byte of your startup disk with zeroes, well, tough luck. If you were unfortunate enough to install malicious software that spread like a virus, well, even tougher luck. That sounds awful, but in practice, it was fine. I’ve been using a Mac since 1991 and I don’t recall ever once — not once — having a problem with malware or scamware.1

That was a long time ago.

Such a laissez-faire approach to software privileges obviously wouldn’t fly today. I want most applications on my Mac to run within a sandbox. I want applications to require explicit permission to access the camera and microphone, or to capture the content of my display. I want applications to be cryptographically signed by known developers and notarized by Apple by default. But I also want to be able to grant trusted applications non-sandboxed access to my entire file system, access to cameras and microphones, and the ability to capture my screen.

I posted a spate of links this week about how the anti-malware/anti-scamware protections in MacOS are increasingly crossing the line from “this is a reasonable balance” to “this is infuriating”. It really is turning into exactly what Apple once mocked.

The Mac is a platform where you need to be able to shoot yourself in foot. Increased protections that make it less likely that you’ll shoot yourself in the foot are, obviously, a good idea. Many of them are downright necessary. But such protections are only undeniably good ideas when they don’t get in the way of sophisticated users using software that requires a high level of system privileges. Then they become a trade-off. There are some power users who’ve been annoyed every step of the way as Apple has increased such protections in MacOS, but I think, until recently, Apple has managed this balance well. MacOS, on the whole, has been welcoming and safe for unsophisticated users while remaining powerful and efficient for experts. But in recent years MacOS has clearly started slipping down the slippery slope of being too protective.

It’s good to be reminded of the software you have installed that requests, or outright requires, access to private data and sensitive hardware APIs. It’s very good to be alerted to any software you might have installed that has acquired such permissions without your knowledge or recollection. (Like, say, if an abusive partner has installed some sort of monitoring software unbeknownst to you.) But it’s infuriating to play whack-a-mole to dismiss a barrage of permission prompts to confirm the same permissions you’ve previously granted to the same software, and it’s even worse when you need to dig three or four levels deep into System Settings to do it.

Consider real-world power tools. No one wants to get hurt. For sure, no one wants to lose a finger. But serious tool users still have holes to drill, wood to cut, and nails to hammer. There’s a fascinating saga around the company SawStop, which invented a technology for table saws that uses capacitive sensors to prevent saws from slicing through fingers (or, say, for demo purposes, hot dogs). As of a decade ago, in the U.S. alone, over 4,000 fingers were sliced off in table saw accidents annually. That’s a lot of fingers. SawStop’s technology prevents almost all such accidents. But also: it doesn’t make tables saws worse for cutting wood. The company has a FAQ about cutting wet or “green” wood:

SawStop saws cut most wet wood without a problem. However, if the
wood is very green or wet (for example, wet enough to spray a mist
when cutting), or if the wood is both wet and pressure treated,
then the wood may be sufficiently conductive to activate the
brake. If you are unsure whether the material you need to cut is
conductive, you can make test cuts using Bypass Mode to determine
if it will activate the safety system’s brake. The red light on
the control box will flash to indicate conductivity. If the
material is conductive, you can choose to operate the saw in
Bypass Mode which will disengage the saw’s safety system’s brake
feature and allow you to continue cutting the material.

This sounds like exactly the right balance for MacOS — a balance MacOS until recently had achieved. Safety by default, but don’t get in the way of power users doing their jobs. And when the user needs an override for the safety features, there is an override, and the situation will make clear to the user that needing to use the override is justified by the safety concerns. MacOS is veering into the territory of power users needing to flip override switches all the time.

At the two extremes of the Mac’s user base are gullible technically unsophisticated naifs, and skeptical expert power users. It’s fair for Apple to present some protections that aren’t necessary for expert power users, in the name of bolstering the guardrails for the technically unsophisticated. But at a certain point, a hammer needs to hammer whatever it strikes, and sometimes, alas, that’s the user’s thumb. That’s the Mac. It’s a Unix workstation that’s friendly enough to be used by the mass market. It is not an appliance intended to prevent any possible malware or scamware from running.

Apple makes such appliances. They run iOS. I’d go so far as to say that one problem facing the Mac has nothing to do with the Mac itself but instead is a downstream effect of the iPad’s weaknesses. I believe in the 1984 slogan that the Mac is “the computer for the rest of us”, where “rest of us” is very much inclusive of non-expert users. But there’s a certain point of unsophistication and okey-doke gullibility where the Mac becomes an inappropriate platform for some users. There are many construction-professional power tools that shouldn’t be used by non-expert users, too.

Computers are such an essential part of the modern world — and almost everyone’s daily lives — that computers-that-work-like-computers aren’t for everyone. The world needs locked-down can’t-cut-your-fingers-off-no-matter-what-you-do platforms like the iPad. And Apple sells significantly more iPad units than Macs. But any Mac user who isn’t sufficiently served by the anti-malware/scamware protections already in MacOS shouldn’t be using a Mac at all. They should be using iPads, or something else similarly locked-down, instead. Some of these users are using Macs instead of iPads out of ignorance. Their technical needs could be met by an iPad but they don’t know it. (They are, by definition, technically unsophisticated.) But surely some of them know they’d prefer to be using an iPad instead of a Mac but can’t, because an iPad can’t do one or more things they need to do, or run software they need to run.

Power tools and user-safety features aren’t mutually exclusive. But they need to be in balance. Apple is clearly losing that balance with MacOS, and I think a big part of that is the iPad’s weaknesses tipping the scale.

Read More 

Sundar Pichai, on X:

Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend Susan Wojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.

 ★ 

Sundar Pichai, on X:

Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend Susan Wojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.

Read More 

Academic paper from over 100 researchers at Apple:

We present foundation language models developed to power Apple
Intelligence features, including a ~3 billion parameter model
designed to run efficiently on devices and a large server-based
language model designed for Private Cloud Compute. These models
are designed to perform a wide range of tasks efficiently,
accurately, and responsibly. This report describes the model
architecture, the data used to train the model, the training
process, how the models are optimized for inference, and the
evaluation results. We highlight our focus on Responsible AI and
how the principles are applied throughout the model development.

Available here as a PDF.

 ★ 

Academic paper from over 100 researchers at Apple:

We present foundation language models developed to power Apple
Intelligence features, including a ~3 billion parameter model
designed to run efficiently on devices and a large server-based
language model designed for Private Cloud Compute. These models
are designed to perform a wide range of tasks efficiently,
accurately, and responsibly. This report describes the model
architecture, the data used to train the model, the training
process, how the models are optimized for inference, and the
evaluation results. We highlight our focus on Responsible AI and
how the principles are applied throughout the model development.

Available here as a PDF.

Read More 

Benjamin Mayo, writing at 9to5Mac:

Following the EU ruling in June that said Apple’s App
Store anti-steering policies are officially in breach of the
Digital Markets Act, Apple is announcing changes. Specifically,
these changes address the rules around app developers linking
out to the web to inform users about alternative payment
methods. […]

If you are operating under the EU alternative business terms, the
Core Technology Fee still applies on installs. Additionally, the
fees are charged as follows:

Initial Acquisition Fee: 5%
Store Services Fee: 10% (reduced to 5% for members of the App
Store Small Business Program, or a qualifying renewal of a
subscription after one year)

If you are continuing to offer your app inside the App Store under
the standard business terms, the Core Technology Fee does not
apply (as it never did). But the associated link out commission
fee rates are increased:

Initial Acquisition Fee: 5%
Store Services Fee: 20% (reduced to 7% for members of the App
Store Small Business Program, or a qualifying renewal of a
subscription after one year)

This results in a complicated matrix of eligibility and fee costs,
that developers will need to carefully evaluate. The new terms are
available now to review on Apple’s developer website, including an
updated fee calculator.

“Complicated matrix of eligibility and fee costs” is an understatement. Understanding all of this seems like it requires a CPA. I’ve looked across social media and read a slew of posts about this news, and I haven’t found a single person saying anything other than this is a convoluted mess. I think that’s as much on the DMA as it is on Apple: a convoluted mess of a compliance plan for a convoluted mess of a law.

What many people want is for Apple just give in, concede, and allow iOS apps in the EU to just collect payments however they want, in-app or through links to the web, freely. Where by freely I mean free-of-charge freely. No CTF for downloads, no tracking up purchases made after users tap a link in the app to the web. What Apple wants is to continue making bank from every purchase on digital good from an iOS app. We’re left with a mess where no one is happy with the result.

See also:

Techmeme’s roundup of news coverage.
Michael Tsai’s roundup of commentary.

 ★ 

Benjamin Mayo, writing at 9to5Mac:

Following the EU ruling in June that said Apple’s App
Store anti-steering policies are officially in breach of the
Digital Markets Act, Apple is announcing changes. Specifically,
these changes address the rules around app developers linking
out to the web to inform users about alternative payment
methods. […]

If you are operating under the EU alternative business terms, the
Core Technology Fee still applies on installs. Additionally, the
fees are charged as follows:

Initial Acquisition Fee: 5%
Store Services Fee: 10% (reduced to 5% for members of the App
Store Small Business Program, or a qualifying renewal of a
subscription after one year)

If you are continuing to offer your app inside the App Store under
the standard business terms, the Core Technology Fee does not
apply (as it never did). But the associated link out commission
fee rates are increased:

Initial Acquisition Fee: 5%
Store Services Fee: 20% (reduced to 7% for members of the App
Store Small Business Program, or a qualifying renewal of a
subscription after one year)

This results in a complicated matrix of eligibility and fee costs,
that developers will need to carefully evaluate. The new terms are
available now to review on Apple’s developer website, including an
updated fee calculator.

“Complicated matrix of eligibility and fee costs” is an understatement. Understanding all of this seems like it requires a CPA. I’ve looked across social media and read a slew of posts about this news, and I haven’t found a single person saying anything other than this is a convoluted mess. I think that’s as much on the DMA as it is on Apple: a convoluted mess of a compliance plan for a convoluted mess of a law.

What many people want is for Apple just give in, concede, and allow iOS apps in the EU to just collect payments however they want, in-app or through links to the web, freely. Where by freely I mean free-of-charge freely. No CTF for downloads, no tracking up purchases made after users tap a link in the app to the web. What Apple wants is to continue making bank from every purchase on digital good from an iOS app. We’re left with a mess where no one is happy with the result.

See also:

Techmeme’s roundup of news coverage.
Michael Tsai’s roundup of commentary.

Read More