A key difference is that Apple is making the new install fee "optional" in the sense that you can stay with existing Developer TOS (no install fee) -- or -- switch to the newer EU TOS (with install fees)[0]. Unity didn't have the "keep existing license with no changes" option so the outrage level is going to be different for Apple. Unity did eventually relent after a week and reversed their install fees decision. Apple doesn't have to do a Unity-style policy reversal because they already have the existing TOS that don't have the fees.
That said, there's no doubt that Apple carefully crafted the financial terms of the new EU developer TOS to make it economically unattractive.
[0] [...] Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. [...] -- excerpt from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang....
Is it actually a key difference? The whole point of the DMA is that the EU wants to encourage competition on platform marketplaces, so that the platform owner does not have a say in which apps can go on the platform. Here, Apple is saying that "As the platform owner, if you choose not to adopt our app store with the existing terms, we will levy very large fees on you for the simple use of our platform." It's doing exactly what the DMA was created to prevent it from doing.
The DMA has very broad anti-circumvention provisions (i.e. "If you comply with the letter but not the spirit of this law, expect to see us in court anyway"), so I'm expecting a protracted legal battle between Apple and EU authorities. Plus this smells an awful lot like leveraging a monopoly, and Apple is appealing the whole law itself anyway, so this is gonna keep the lawyers busy for years.
Because another commenter[0] also wondered the same thing, I will answer "Yes" and "No" because it depends on what type of discussion is happening.
- If it's a "big picture" discussion about freedom from Apple's App Store and avoiding their commissions, then the answer is "no difference" because the overall desirable outcome that developers wanted didn't happen.
- If it's a specific discussion about Tim Sweeney & Ashley Gullen's tweet equating the Unity "disastrous" fees with Apple's new optional EU TOS, then the answer is "yes there is a key difference"
In response to TS & AS tweet, Unity's new fee rollout was a public relations disaster because (1) it was retroactive (2) had no option to stay with existing license to avoid the fee. Developers felt "betrayed" by the change and Unity eventually backtracked the changes. Apple will not suffer the same embarrassment that Unity did because devs can just continue "business as usual" by staying with Apple's old TOS (even while EU and Apple continue to fight it out in courts.)
Yeah, it's 100% a poison pill. They clearly tried to craft an alternate TOS that would look reasonable at a glance to regulators and/or judges but that almost no serious companies would accept.
Even if you are just a small indie developer that's far too much risk for anyone offering free apps (or that might want to in the future). Imagine being the next flappy bird (over 50 million downloads before it got pulled) and suddenly being on the hook for $25,000,000.
Comments
A key difference is that Apple is making the new install fee "optional" in the sense that you can stay with existing Developer TOS (no install fee) -- or -- switch to the newer EU TOS (with install fees)[0]. Unity didn't have the "keep existing license with no changes" option so the outrage level is going to be different for Apple. Unity did eventually relent after a week and reversed their install fees decision. Apple doesn't have to do a Unity-style policy reversal because they already have the existing TOS that don't have the fees.
That said, there's no doubt that Apple carefully crafted the financial terms of the new EU developer TOS to make it economically unattractive.
[0] [...] Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. [...] -- excerpt from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang....
Is it actually a key difference? The whole point of the DMA is that the EU wants to encourage competition on platform marketplaces, so that the platform owner does not have a say in which apps can go on the platform. Here, Apple is saying that "As the platform owner, if you choose not to adopt our app store with the existing terms, we will levy very large fees on you for the simple use of our platform." It's doing exactly what the DMA was created to prevent it from doing.
The DMA has very broad anti-circumvention provisions (i.e. "If you comply with the letter but not the spirit of this law, expect to see us in court anyway"), so I'm expecting a protracted legal battle between Apple and EU authorities. Plus this smells an awful lot like leveraging a monopoly, and Apple is appealing the whole law itself anyway, so this is gonna keep the lawyers busy for years.
>Is it actually a key difference?
Because another commenter[0] also wondered the same thing, I will answer "Yes" and "No" because it depends on what type of discussion is happening.
- If it's a "big picture" discussion about freedom from Apple's App Store and avoiding their commissions, then the answer is "no difference" because the overall desirable outcome that developers wanted didn't happen.
- If it's a specific discussion about Tim Sweeney & Ashley Gullen's tweet equating the Unity "disastrous" fees with Apple's new optional EU TOS, then the answer is "yes there is a key difference"
In response to TS & AS tweet, Unity's new fee rollout was a public relations disaster because (1) it was retroactive (2) had no option to stay with existing license to avoid the fee. Developers felt "betrayed" by the change and Unity eventually backtracked the changes. Apple will not suffer the same embarrassment that Unity did because devs can just continue "business as usual" by staying with Apple's old TOS (even while EU and Apple continue to fight it out in courts.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147211
Yeah, it's 100% a poison pill. They clearly tried to craft an alternate TOS that would look reasonable at a glance to regulators and/or judges but that almost no serious companies would accept.
Even if you are just a small indie developer that's far too much risk for anyone offering free apps (or that might want to in the future). Imagine being the next flappy bird (over 50 million downloads before it got pulled) and suddenly being on the hook for $25,000,000.