A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE
Alternative App Stores Are a Hornets Nest for Apple, Developers, and You
There is much more to this than you might think

Apple has been forced to allow alternative app stores in Europe for all of its apps. This has been welcomed by some and seen as dangerous by others. I will discuss both of those views, but there is more to it than that.
What is happening?
This only applies in Europe presently. If you live elsewhere, you will still only be able to download non-Mac Apple apps from Apple’s App Store.
However, I imagine that other countries will pass similiar laws sooner or later.
Why is it happening?
The European Union thinks that Apple’s tight control of apps violates their Digital Markets Act (DMA) law which went unti effect in November of 2022. This law is intended to create fairness for app developers and users of devices from all major tech companies.
Why do some developers welcome this change?
Larger developers feel that Apple’s fees for distributing through the App Store are too high. Others may find the review process burdensomne. Apple also will not allow certain types of apps such as pornography, controlled or intoxicating substances, and more ¹.
Note on Apple fees:
The thirty percent fee is a common misconception, but that’s only true for one time app payments. Most apps today are subscriptions, which are 30% the first year, and then 15% for subsequent years.
Small developers making less than $1 million per year can pay 15% for in-app purchase and non-subscription sales by applying for Apple’s Small Business Program².
There are also apps exempt from any fee.
The fees cover hosting, billing and collecting subscriptions, fraud prevention, currency conversions, advertising, free development systems and SDK’s, free training, and a tremendous amount of technical support.
Why do some developers not like this change?
Multiple app stores could bring confusion about where to obtain apps, especially when similarly named. Placing apps in multiple app stores to avoid this could be onerous as different stores may have different requirements and rules. This could be very annoying when updates are issued.
Developers may not have the same level of trust as they have with Apple. They might fear piracy of their apps in a careless store.
A third party store charging lower fees may be unwilling or unable to provide the level of support that Apple offers.
These concerns would apply mostly to smaller developers where providing their own store would be more expensive than Apple’s fees.
Why do some users welcome this change?
Users may be able to find the apps they want at a lower cost. They also may want apps that Apple prohibits globally or regionally.
Why do some users not like this change?
Like developers, users may not trust alternative stores or the developers who use them. Apple enforces quality control that might not be as important to a third party store. Apple observes local laws and may refuse to sell some apps in some regions, while a fly-by-night store might not.
Users expect Apple to handle cancellations of subscriptions; another store might leave that and returns up to the developer who may not attend to those actions quickly or at all.
Most of all, users fear malware. Apple will require Notarization³ for all apps, no matter where they are sold, but that is not as thorough a review as is done for their App Store.
Banks and other businesses may be worried that less thoroughly vetted software could pose security and privacy concerns for their customers.
What is Apple’s concern?
Obviously Apple could lose revenue from App Store fees. Some of that will be offset by reduced expenses, but likely not much.
Another problem for Apple might be malware, privacy, and security lapses. Currently, Apple tackles both of these with Notarization and manual reviews at submission and again at the operating system and hardware level.
If any apps distributed outside of the app store do cause major malware, privacy, or security concerns, Apple’s reputation will be tarnished. I’d expect they will want to make a larger effort to prevent such incidents, but I wonder if doing that might open them up to legal liability.
Footnote references: