I wouldn't trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong.
I think there's a chance he's happens to be on the right side of the law this time (a stopped clock is right twice a day). At the same time he's good at his job at making believable bullshit. I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis and would suggest that reading his posts is more likely to deceive you than inform you.
"The photo, taken from the lawn inside Apple Park, was posted at 4:55 PM Pacific Time, and the color of the sky as well as the length of the shadows cast by the trees suggest that the picture had been taken at just about that time of day."
My cofounder tweeted the photo because Twitter had just launched new photo sizes, and the photo looked good with the changes.
And Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are the epitome of unbiased coverage and analysis? How about we read everything with a grain of salt rather than just ad hominem? Why not just cite what is wrong with the analysis in the article, if anything? I see numerous citations, maybe submit analysis that differs from a different lawyer?
Florian Mueller has a long history of paid lying and clearly has skin in this game. I think that is important information to have presented. Importantly I also think his analysis is hardly convincing and one only needs to look to NYTimes, The Verge, NPR, CNN and the AP to see the exact opposite case presented.
Exactly. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for the rest of the commenters to understand that Apple winning 9/10 counts vs Epic winning 1/10 means that this is a huge win for Apple and a huge loss for Epic.
Apple is still entitled to some form of commission even if Epic or anyone else doesn't directly use IAP in their apps. Given that Epic admitted to violating the App Store guidelines, Apple is still barring them from the App Store.
Because it's really not a huge win for Apple, it's more of a huge loss because of what they lost on, and it's not really a huge loss for Epic, because iOS market revenue is meaningless in their operations.
Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP. Apple also has to figure our how to collect the "commission", which could lead to devs not working with Apple in the future. Apple will have a hard time appealing because the appeals court could rule against them on the counts they already won on. That's why it's not seen as a huge win for Apple.
Epic has to pay a meaningless amount of money (a few million dollars they'll make back up in a few days) and is barred from a platform they didn't care about in the first place. Non-US regulators are also looking into Apple's handling of the AppStore, which means Apple could still be forced to make changes in line with what Epic was arguing. This is why it isn't a huge loss for Epic.
It is a huge win for Apple. They lost nothing and regardless if companies use IAP or not, Apple is still legally entitled to take the commission from the developers.
> Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP.
Again, even if they charge a higher price on the IAP and lower on the website, Apple is still entitled to charge the commission regardless if they use IAP or not. The judgement clearly states that 'Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional' [0] (p68)
On Epic's side they lost the antitrust argument which was the whole point of filing this lawsuit. Apple already made the changes to mentioning links for paying outside of the App Store before this ruling was made.
Nothing has changed on the commission side for Apple and Epic still cannot allow their own billing system in Fortnite, thus they are still banned on the App Store even after admitting being in breach of the App Store rules and must pay for those damages. Meaningless or not.
So actually, Apple still wins and it is a huge win.
Both Epic and Apple have the right to appeal. And your point is?
As it stands, Epic lost and Apple is still entitled to the commission even if you use IAP or not and regardless if you change the pricing on the website to be cheaper than the IAP.
Apple was not found to have broken anti-trust laws which was the basis of Epic's argument and Apple already addressed the anti-steering count before the decision of this lawsuit.
Either way, Apple is still getting paid and Apple still wins.
EDIT: Why did you delete your comment? Care to explain what was wrong with it?
> You seem to be really invested in this in an unhealthy way.
That is the reality of the result of the lawsuit and it was a clear win for Apple, assuming you read the judgement on (p68).
The reality is that when you're trying to consume the firehose of information that is the internet, reading reliable sources that won't lie to you is very useful. Especially on subjects like law where there are a lot of subtleties and things that are outright wrong can sound very plausible.
I have no real opinion on the journalistic integrity of techrights, I do have opinions on groklaw being pretty close to the epitome of unbiased coverage (and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill...).
Even if your vague insinuations about techrights and groklaw did have foundation, it would still just be a "whataboutism" argument. Someone intentionally producing misinformation is wrong no matter how reliable other people are. The fact that foss patents was paid was literally in court, and is an admitted fact (I'm loathe to links to fosspatents blog directly, so here's a link to a news article reporting on it with direct quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailyt...)
If you think Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are not very slanted coverage then you're within the bubble and cannot see outside it. Also, one can be very slanted and biased without getting paid (rather no one can prove or disprove they got paid no one even knows the identify of the person(s) behind Groklaw).
Groklaw certainly had a variety of sincerely held opinions (so does everyone), and advocated for them. That's different from being paid to take a position that you don't believe in or making bad faith arguments.
The identity of who wrote Groklaw is known (Pamela Jones), and the accusations that they were a paid was disproven in court in the Oracle case.
Ironically, this was the reason they gave the reason for hiding their identity under PJ and then later expanding it to a generic Pamela Jones since there are a lot of people under that name:
>In other words, I was hoping people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular.
Maybe we should follow PJ's advice while reading the posted article.
Anyway, we are rehashing a discussion from the past.
And the other link is an assertion by an anonymous person that they're totally on the up and up. What would you expect if they were not, a confession? Would Florian Muller make a confession if he were anonymously posting as FM (Frank Matthew) while getting paid as a consultant? No one would ever know he was getting paid if we didn't know his real identity.
What's more likely? IBM lied to the court for no good reason (paying for shills is not illegal, just strange), the author of groklaw made up a name and later in life violated federal law by filing comments to UPTSO under it, other named lawyers worked with her on that. Or she really is named what she claims to be named?
You're inventing wild conspiracies that don't even have a good reason to exist.
> The wholesale undermining of the processes of government earned fines of $3.7 million, $550,000 and $150,000 for Fluent Inc., React2Media and Opt-Intelligence, respectively. There are also “comprehensive reforms” imposed on them, though it may be best not to expect much from those.
I would suggest that just about no individual is interested in millions of dollars of fines...
If I read this properly, it also doesn't prohibit the possibility of criminal charges in that case either.
That case also didn't exist at the time, so didn't exist as precedent for believe that you might get off "lightly".
Those fines were all for faking millions of comments. You're talking about one. Where is the precedent in the FTC case for going after someone for one fake comment, and that too for putting an alias and not for other misrepresentation?
>and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill..
The court didn't determine who paid for hosting and dev. They didn't examine her tax returns. They don't know her employer(s). Didn't examine her bank accounts. She could be the daughter or wife of an IBM lawyer and IBMs assertion in court would still be true.
Neither truthful statements, nor opinion based on disclosed fact are defamation. I believe my statements here qualify as both. I am pretty careful when I'm intentionally attacking a person instead of an opinion.
I'm criticizing the person and not the analysis for several reasons.
The primary one is that the purpose of my post is to caution people about reading fosspatents as a reliable law blog, not to discuss this case.
An equally important reason is that I think there's a chance that he happens to be right this time (as I indicate in my original post) so there's probably not much in his analysis for me to criticize (though I did not read it in detail).
Finally it takes substantially more time and expertise to disprove disinformation (especially in a fashion convincing to lay people in a comment short enough to post on hn) than it does to make it. Debating misinformation every time it comes up is not something I have the time or expertise to do. Warning people about a known bad actor however is something I do have the time to do, and is in my opinion more likely to improve the world.
> the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person
True statements are not defamatory as a matter of the meaning of the word in common language.
Calling out bad actors is not a "cheap shot", it's a useful social service. On HN we should demand better sources that do not come from known bad actors.
A cheap shot would be some sort of unfair attack on his character, e.g. calling out random cases where he called the outcome wrong (which inevitably happens if you comment on enough cases).
If you want to read well written and thorough criticisms of some of his older posts, you can, for example, pull up old groklaw posts about them (which did take the time to disassemble the arguments step by step and criticize them).
We're not in a court... legal definitions are not the relevant ones.
Edit: Though now that you mention it, here is blacks law dictionaries definition, emphasis added
> What is DEFAMATION?
> The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander.
I believe the payment by microsoft was partially over the SCO case. I don't recall seeing any evidence that he was paid directly by SCO (but I could have missed it)
You can read the document in which microsoft discusses paying shills in this form (directly on page 53) and make up your own mind...
It seems the initial media reporting on this decision was way off the mark and the feedback from actual lawyers [1] is that Epic got crushed in court:
1. The judge affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer accounts for violation of the developer agreement and ban them from the App Store, including all developer accounts related to their Unreal Engine business.
2. The judge fully rejected Epic's entire monopolization claim based on the theory that Apple held a single-brand "monopoly" over the distribution of apps on its own devices, killing any hope they had of running their own app store.
3. The judge repeatedly made it clear that Apple was still entitled to a commission for the use of its intellectual property, even if developers did not use IAP to process payments:
> "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." (page 67)
> "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." (page 150)
> "The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155)
4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself.
[1] The Hoeg Law video linked elsewhere in this thread is good place to start.
Right, it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods, including being able to link to external sources in order to give that information.
Which is still a win, I suppose, but it's a very, very small win, and not that useful to Epic. I think it's potentially useful for services that have a large non-iOS presence, where buying a thing for use outside of the iOS ecosystem coincidentally allows you to use it inside the iOS ecosystem. Like, say, Netflix or HBO Max. Or maybe buying Kindle books.
Because I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut if someone saw the Netflix signup screen in the iOS app, went to the Netflix website on their laptop (or even on their phone?), subscribed there, and then went back to the iOS app and signed in.
(At any rate, I think Apple is already changing this particular rule due to a ruling that happened in Japan, so maybe this is is all moot anyway.)
> it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods
They won that for other developers but not for themselves. Epic failed to win an injunction that would see Fortnite return to the App Store; their singular victory is of no use to them.
>it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods, including being able to link to external sources in order to give that information.
I don't see even that as a clear win. It would be quite straightforward for Apple to require devs to mark all such notifications or links under an 'external promotions' category, and then give users the choice to disable promotional notifications. All users will disable them.
> I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut
Very simple. Apple adds such language to the developer agreement. "We get a 30% cut of revenue for any services used on iOS devices." Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%" "iOS device XYZ paid via IAP, we don't owe you" etc etc etc etc down the line.
Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books. Apple adds provisions whereby being off by more than X% results in penalties. Apple adds provisions whereby they can request an independent audit of the companies books (quite reasonable with a "you're honest, we paid, you lied, you pay" provision). If all else fails Apple obviously retains the right to sue to enforce and a court can require a company to provide apple financials as part of discovery.
It's really not HARD per-se. I imagine the only reason apple doesn't do this as that it's just so much complicated than the IAP route.
Probably the thorniest issue here is that it would create some perverse incentives. Netflix might chose to remove their app from the app store in favor of telling you to just go to the website again avoiding the 30% cut.
Furthermore, what would entitle apple to their 30%?
I just bought and installed a card control badge access system at our office. I downloaded/installed the app on my phone. Should apple get 30%? If so, 30% of what? 30% of the total system cost including install? 30% of what I paid for the hardware? 30% of just the controller hardware cost? 30% of the annual support maintenance cost? I don't even KNOW most of those costs because they aren't even enumerated to me. I just paid a big lump sump. Super messy.
> Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%"
A company could just, y'know, not do that. Or vastly under-report. Apple has no way of knowing, especially if the developer has apps and/or customers on other platforms. Because:
> Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books.
I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court. Especially for any company that has any significant non-Apple-related business. That information is proprietary and confidential.
I think it is hard to enforce. And agree on your card control system example, though I think the 30% cut is already not in play when it comes to physical goods... consider that otherwise Amazon couldn't have an iOS app: a 30% cut would bankrupt them, and raising prices by 30% would mean no one would buy from them.
> I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court.
See footnote 617 on page 150 of the ruling where the judge suggests exactly that:
"In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers."
It's not really about having the balls to do this, but more about having the budget and name to be able to get your income without it.
Netflix will still have the potential subscribers signing up because the name will simply bring ppl in.
MyNiceService that has 0 budget and benefits from every subscriber, even if I have to bring 30% (which is 15% in the beginning until I get big) to apple is simply not able to do that.
> Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
This is one of the big ones I didn't realize in my initial reading of the situation. How far does this go? Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website?
I still feel like I'm misunderstanding something here, I guess I need to go through some of the linked videos/articles.
Linking to alternative purchase methods would be a big thing, regardless of whether they're IAP or not -- it's obviously not everything or even most of what Epic wants, but it would be a huge step over existing app store rules (across both iOS and Google Play) where developers were getting in trouble for linking to their own websites within the app or even just telling users that alternatives existed. That inability to even tell consumers that Apple collects a 30% fee in the first place, basically forcing developers to pretend to users that the restrictions don't exist -- that's a really big issue with large market implications, and a restriction on that is honestly on the upper edges of what I thought Epic could possibly get in an initial ruling.
If Epic got that, then I understand why they're unhappy because obviously they wanted way more, but it's still not a minor inconsequential ruling. Apple has been extremely protective of that restriction. They do not want apps telling users about how the payment methods work, where they are, or about what iOS fees are.
But this seems to imply that if an app linked to their website in their app, and a user clicked on that link, opened it in a web browser, then bought something through the browser, that Apple could then collect a 30% commission on that. I'm misunderstanding that, right?
> would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155)
On any purchase made within apps applies to links that take you out of the app?
I mean, that's how contracts work? If these companies wanted to do that they could, but they don't see it as a good business decision. Apparently Apple feels its moat is big enough.
example: Qualcomm likes to charge 5% of the device price for the use of their patents.[1]
Ultimately the Apple App Store isn’t a commons and Apple has no obligation to host your app there. Likewise iOS is their product and they have no obligation to grant any third party access to it.
Whether they should be reclassified as some sort of public utility is another discussion.
Woah, classifying the store as a commons or turning it into a public utility is a pretty big leap over any interpretation of this ruling I had seen from any news outlet.
The question I have is whether or not this ruling opens the door for collecting commissions made on other platforms outside of iOS, or whether we think that's likely to be something Apple can get away with if apps like Netflix or Gacha games start linking to their websites. Currently, Apple does not attempt to do anything like that.
There is a pretty big gulf between a judge saying "anti-steering is anti-competitive" and a judge saying, "you can't decide what apps go in your store." I haven't seen any interpretation of this ruling that says the latter happened.
Okay, but I don't think that's really the current discussion? It feels to me like a lot of people are talking about separate things here and trying to kind of mash them together.
I'm interested in this ruling. I'm not saying that the ruling means that Apple isn't anti-competitive in general or in other ways, I'm not saying that an anti-steering ban would solve the entire situation, I'm not telling activists to go home, I'm not advocating for a specific solution. I'm asking about what the current implications are of this case.
The parent poster was not saying that they wanted the App Store to be turned into a public utility, they were pointing out that this ruling didn't turn it into a public utility. Which... correct, but I don't think anybody anywhere was claiming that it did. A judge restricting anti-steering rules or ruling that a specific business practice is anti-competitive is not even remotely equivalent to turning the App Store into a commons.
It's not totally clear and we're in uncharted territory as Apple has never tried to collect commissions on payments that were not made with IAP. However, it is worth noting that the actual text of the developer agreement (quoted on page 32 of the ruling) says the following:
"For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those countries listed in Exhibit B, Section 1 of this Schedule 2 as updated from time to time via the App Store Connect site, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User."
Note that it just says "all prices payable by each End-User", there is no distinction in the contract between purchases made internally in the app and payments made externally via a website.
To the extent that the court has found that this contract is indeed enforceable (minus the anti-steering provision), that would suggest to me that taking you outside of the app to pay via a website might not make a difference to the commission owed. But I suspect this is the kind of thing that very expensive lawyers are going to have to litigate before we get a definitive answer.
That doesn’t really make sense though. Someone that’s had Netflix for years but now downloads the mobile app is not suddenly giving 30% of their subscription fee to Apple.
In that specific case there was already an exception for "reader apps" where the user was already subscribed elsewhere and is merely using the app to access content they've previously purchased.
Where I suspect this would apply is apps like Fortnite, where if you were previously selling V-bucks directly via IAP, then popping up a web view to process the payment and returning you to the app to claim your V-bucks might not actually be the loophole people seem to think it is.
It is if you can tell people they can use v-bucks purchased on a browser.
As far as I read it you can even link to it, but maybe you can’t link directly to your payment page? Just like ‘you can also buy v-bucks on our [link](website)?
> This is one of the big ones I didn't realize in my initial reading of the situation. How far does this go? Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website?
If they decided to write it into the contract, I see no reason why not. Generally you're free to make up whatever contracts you want.
If there is a reason why not, I'm certain that it's complex enough that you would need to make a new lawsuit over it and get a new injunction, since it wasn't argued in either direction in this case at all.
Whether or not app developers would agree to "30% of profit from everywhere" is an entirely different conversations. I imagine a variety of important app developers like banks would be rethinking their decision to publish apple apps if that was the TOS.
> Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website?
I've read all 180 pages of the ruling, so will give my opinion.
IMO this claim about still owing commission comes from statements that the judge said, regarding a separate hypothetical of if alternative payment systems were included in the app itself, then those alternative payment systems would still owe a commission.
I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website.
Yes, some lawyers have suggested maybe that would be the case. But I do not know of any explicit statement where the judge said this clearly.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't see that explicitly from the judge. It is only hypothosized.
>I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website.
Here you are, taken from the ruling text:
>Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
>Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that comission.
>Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.
>While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property.
>To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law
I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear.
Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things.
In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this.
If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling.
But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling.
IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?
Seems that Apple could obligate the use of affiliate links when directing users from the app to an external site for purchases. I'm sure they'd be willing to add a required api for just such a thing.
> 4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself.
I have a friend whose company had to remove any mention of any store, no matter how little, from their application. In his eyes this was a big win. Epic obviously thinks differently because they had bigger ideas in mind.
Apple had already changed the anti-steering rule last week, to settle a Japanese antitrust investigation.
>SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges.
Apple changed rules for reader apps, which was a limited category Apple exclusively defined. This changes rules for all apps.
I am cautious about making a claim now, because I'm worried that I just don't understand the ruling at all.
But forcing Apple to remove anti-steering restrictions for all apps and allowing those apps to link to websites in order to connect payments dodging Apple's fees would be a pretty big deal, and their previous concession did not do that as far as I can see. Of course getting rid of anti-steering rules wouldn't be enough that people are going to suddenly stop talking about antitrust, but it would still be a big deal.
Doing it just for a tiny subset of Apps that Apple defines? Not so much of a big deal.
The HoagLaw video mentions that the judge left the section of Apple's developer rules stating that you are required to use IAP for the apps themselves and for in app digital goods in place, while striking the portion on anti-steering.
To me, it sounds like the only applicable change is the same one already conceded to settle the Japanese antitrust investigation.
At least if my reading that you are allowed to communicate with users without interference, but you are still required to use in-app purchases for digital goods consumed in the app is correct.
> is the same one already conceded to settle the Japanese antitrust investigation.
Again, not making a hard claim here, because I'm not sure what the full range of the ruling is, but if what you're saying is true then it seems to me that this is a huge deal and I have no idea why people are minimizing its potential impact.
The only reason why the Japanese antitrust concession wasn't a bigger deal was because it was narrowly applied to a small subset of apps and because Apple retained the exclusive ability to decide what those apps were.
Just taking that earlier concession with no other changes and widening it to apply to the entire app store seems like a pretty impactful ruling to me.
Everyone gained the right to communicate with users, but the contract that developers signed says that you are required to use IAP for buying apps and buying digital goods inside of apps, and the judge left that section of the contract intact.
So the extent of the (effective) change for those not selling reader apps seems limited.
At least that's my interpretation. I'm willing to assert that I got closer to the truth than the vast majority of the tech media outlets did yesterday.
That is of course of some benefit to some developers (with products on other platforms), but very different from the headlines suggesting developers could now dodge the 30% commission by taking payments outside the app.
As far as I know, Epic has no restrictions on apps in their store linking to other purchasing methods for in-app purchases, and they don't collect commissions for games that do so. Itch.io has a client app on the Epic games store, but I don't think they pay Epic a cut every time someone buys a game on the Itch.io website.
It feels oddly like two things are getting conflated here, and I'm trying to figure out if they actually are the same thing, or if people are just kind of assuming that they're the same. The Epic engine takes a cut of revenue in general. The stores take a cut of purchases. As far as I know, no app store that I'm familiar with on PC/mobile (Steam, Epic, iOS, Google Play, etc) currently tries to take a cut of purchases made outside of that store. Is that going to change in the future?
Yes, you could breach a legally binding contract, a contract tested in court and effectively confirmed as legal by a federal judge. And then Apple will remove your app from the App Store. It is also very normal in a situation like this for a contract to include clauses that would allow the licensor to review the licensee's books if there's any suspicion of misreporting.
Also, the Epic Games Store is currently being run at a loss, so it isn't (yet) a poster child for a sustainable business model.
But nobody has that contract right now. Not Epic, not Apple, not Valve, not Microsoft, not Google. No PC or mobile store that I'm aware of has clauses that try to take a portion of 3rd-party purchases. It's not just Epic Store "being run at a loss", nobody does this.
So again, you're talking about this like it's the norm and developers are pulling sneaky tricks to avoid it, but as far as I can tell nobody including Apple is trying to collect commissions on individual purchases that happen on other platforms, and it's not clear to me as a non-lawyer that it should be treated as the same category of contract as a general revenue contract. I can't find any current store contract that tells me that the company is entitled to percentages of purchases that happen on a website that they're not interacting with. And given Apple's extreme distaste for linking to other platforms, it seems like they're at least a little hesitant to just put this language in their contract themselves.
Outside of specific revenue contracts, it doesn't seem to be the norm to me. So sure, Apple could start doing this, but it would be a new thing that would seem to be relatively unique among PC/mobile stores, and that goes back to the original question of whether or not a judge would view that as anti-competitive -- is it just a standard extension of a revenue agreement, or is it something else.
Yeah the media ran with one narrative but the court decision basically says Apple can't stop you from linking outside your app for payment stuff but that they can still require users be able to use IAP.
Very confusing that so many of the media outlets covering this trial got the results wrong.
I miss the days of Groklaw.
I think I'm missing something. Are the developers forced to offer the in-app purchases right now? My understanding was "no" based on how Netflix does not offer purchasing subscription through the app specifically to avoid having to pay the commission. Can Netflix now link (from within the app) to a website where the users can purchase the subscription?
My understanding is that certain specific services and types of apps are exempted from in-app purchases, such as those that use a subscription model (Netflix, Disney+ et. al.) or apps that are for real world purchases (think Amazon, DoorDash, etc.).
Games and similar apps are not exempted in this way and thus are required per Apple's license agreement / developer agreement to use Apple's in-app purchases mechanism.
I don't miss groklaw, it was a heavily biased site whose whole analysis was dependent on only the accusations/defense of one side of the court cases and assuming all of those were true and totally ignoring the other side, even if they had valid arguments. It slowly swallowed itself into its own black hole and went more and extreme, just like BoycottNovell/Techrights.
Groklaw, to my knowledge (and a quick check of various sources agrees) largely wound down after the SCO trial was done and dusted and was only temporarily handed over to another editor after the fact, finally shutting down in 2013.
The site appears to still be up, if you have specifics you're thinking of you'd point at.
It's Groklaw I am talking about. Initially they had decent coverage of the SCO case. But as time went on the analysis became too ideological and partisan. The analysis basically turned into covering all the documents filed by one side, and assuming that everything in them were all true, and not covering the defense arguments at all. I am too sleepy to look it up right now, but one case where I remember the abject partisanship was either about Corel or Word Perfect.
> If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself
Not quite. If I understand correctly (IANAL), now you can link to your website if your website has an alternative way to pay, whereas before that could lead to your app getting rejected (although apple was inconsistent about it).
I'm also unclear on if this changes anything about Apple's rules that you can't charge more for IAP than the same product purchased through a different mechanism. It doesn't sound like it does, which would limit how useful linking to alternative prices is.
They still at least were able to rip the mask off Apple (like when Apple revoked their Apple ID sign in in retribution, and went after their desktop business, signed keys were promised by Apple to only to be for security, for a non-security related iOS business dispute).
Things Apple framed as pure safety and privacy features turned out to be used within just a few years of introduction for cartel-like extraction.
As I read it this means you get to put a link in your app that says ‘you can also buy your stuff on our website, which is 30% cheaper than through IAP’.
> "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." (page 67)
It seems you still can’t make it 30% cheaper. Sure, making a different offer and skirting around the rules might be possible, but the judgment gives Apple the right to go after what it feels is cheating.
Someone using their general purpose browser to make a purchase on a general purpose website is hardly cheating though. Especially if you can use your v-bucks outside of iOS.
There's so many clauses in Apple's contract that make no sense outside of allowing Apple to make more money, that the very definition of "cheating" is way off what should be expected.
I mean, preventing devs from linking to their own sites to create an account to their own existing, pre-app service was forbidden. Common sense has long gone down the drain.
Epic got nothing of use to them. The judge upheld Apple's ban of Epic from the App Store so they won't be able to reap any theoretical benefits from the crumbs they did win.
Epic owes Apple 30% of what they collected via their own in-app purchases. While Apple will have to eliminate their anti-steering rules, they don't even have to let Epic themselves back into the app store.
So Epic got nothing. Less than nothing. They have less today than they would have had they never updated their app in violation of their contract.
Apple did lose something, a small thing, but that's not a win for Epic.
Precisely. As I and many others already highlighted it is not over yet and they are both likely going to appeal this.
The media outright jumped into conclusions with their headlines and caused this hype of misinformation to spread very quickly and now we have to cut thought it and correct the wrongs they reported.
I also recommend those interested to watch the first 4 minutes of the Hoeg Law video and even the whole video for an in depth look into the trial. [0]
That verge article that was on here the other day (which apparently said the opposite in the title/headline(I ignore those)) had relevant text right at the top. Shortened for brevity, emphasis mine, I'm not a lawyer.
"Apple is: 'permanently restrained . . . from prohibiting developers from including in their apps . . . calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms'"
I was kinda baffled by all the talk about APIs for IAPs and what have you. I feel kinda dumb for not realizing the headline was off.
Question, is my reading here off?
for reference the full quote was:
Under the new order, Apple is: "permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app."
The Verge and the rest of the media was incorrect, because the injunction goes with a 185-page ruling the media didn’t read that explained it in greater detail how to interpret the injunction.
You cannot use your own IAP system. You can link to a webpage, but Apple is still entitled to the 30% cut and can bill the developer after the fact each month or so for the commission that would have been paid.
And for this reason, Epic owes 30% of their unpaid iOS IAP revenue to Apple (about $4 million) for breach of contract and Apple does not need to let Fortnite back on the store.
Epic won almost nothing. 9/10 counts lost, and the remaining count they won still owes 30% but it would be collected through a different method. Super shallow victory that.
> but Apple is still entitled to the 30% cut and can bill the developer after the fact each month or so for the commission that would have been paid.
Even if that were accurate (which it isn’t really), there is no way Apple would be able to actually collect that commission. People can now link to their websites, patreons, Venmo links etc. this pushes the doors wide open.
The Judge here was speaking to the use of alternative in-app payment processors (which the parent article is wrong about) which apple would be entitled to cuts of. If people link out to the web no such agreement exists. Here is the actual text, see for yourself:
“The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store”
This is absolutely false. As evidence of this, Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.
It would require honesty by app developers and Apple to build new infrastructure to account for and receive commission payments from developers, but there’s no impediment. Only inconvenience.
> Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.
This has nothing to do with honesty. If I link to my website and someone donates, there is no way for me to know they were referred from the app.
Furthermore the actual quote being referenced reads, “The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store”
Which seems to be at odds with the parent article. If someone uses an alternative IN APP payment method (which would be traceable) then yes, Apple would be entitled. If they link their website and are taken out of the app, no such agreement exists.
> "Apple is: 'permanently restrained . . . from prohibiting developers from including in their apps . . . calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms'"
> "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." (page 150)
My reading of these two statements is that you could link to your website but you'd be contractually obligated to make it possible to tell that visit came from your app so you could give Apple their cut.
And it's a contractually obligated requirement - that means Apple can suspend your developer account, remove you from the App Store, and potentially sue you for breach of contract, if they suspect you are fudging the numbers or not paying.
"Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.'
If I am a developer using Unreal Engine, I pay for actually using the engine. Apple collects money from music, movie and book sales. There is no chance they will be able to demand that money.
If you think Apple will be entitled to get a 30% cut for non-app items you bought, then by extension apple would be entitled to demand a cut from you buying a washing machine or paying your bill. I don't think the intention of this judgement is to enable Apple to become a universal parasite.
It’s literally not in the text, no need to get snarky without even providing a quote. Here is the text which by my reading speaks to the falsehood of the parent article:
“The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store.”
Note ‘made within apps’. This suggests alternative IN APP purchases, which again is at odds with the parent article. If you are kicked to safari this would not apply.
The point is covered multiple times in the ruling:
>Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
>Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that comission.
>Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.
>While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property.
>To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law
> Apple could still charge a commission on developers.
Note the could not the does, Apple can make the contract say this, but the court is not saying the current contract does (the question wasn't before the court). I doubt the current contract does because it didn't need to, and because historically that's how Apple has worked (you weren't allowed to link to payments off of Apple, but if someone found your website and paid for things there you didn't have to give Apple a commission).
Respectfully, you’re (I presume) not a lawyer and neither am I; a layman’s reading of a legal ruling is a Bad Idea.
Do what you want with your app, but I urge anyone who does to seek legal advise first, rather than relying on their own interpretation of parts of the ruling.
And risk permanent bans from releasing on the App Store. This model of collecting outside of your walled garden isn’t even remotely new; hell, it’s how Epic’s own Unreal Engine operated for the majority of its lifetime.
Apple has said that they will reinstate Epic’s account if they agree to follow the rules, so Epic can earn future revenue on iOS if they want to… but so far they’ve said they don’t plan to change their stance.
Have they said this recently (i.e. do we know if that offer still exists?)
The latest from Tim Sweeney sounds like they're trying to get the account back for Mac OS, though they're not interested in iOS at this time. I assume that means they're willing to follow the rules by simply not publishing iOS apps (but that is an assumption)
(All tweets from Sept 10 2021)
> Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers.
> Like Apple’s attempt to retaliate against all Unreal Engine customers, their refusal to restore Epic’s Fortnite developer account is vindicative and nonsensical. We’re fighting Apple over their iOS terms, but this ban blocks Fortnite from Mac too. Nobody’s arguing about Mac.
Yup, Apple just said this to The Verge: “As we’ve said all along, we would welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else”.
It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero.
It's like if you get banned from every restaurant/grocery store in the world, your only chance to not starve is to purchase land and grow your own food. Except, there are only 2 grocery stores in the world.
Without Apple and Google's permission, it's impossible to make money selling mobile apps. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI).
Sounds like a healthy environment for innovation /s
It's scary to think that the entire political speech industry controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever sharing your opinion ever again are basically zero.
It's like if you get banned from every town square in the world, your only chance to get the word out is to purchase posters and put them on lampposts.
Without YouTube and Facebook's permission, it's impossible to make money sharing your opinion on how the world should be. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI).
Sounds like a healthy environment for democracy /s
The sentiment you state is common FUD on HN but that's not how the world works. In fact, the software industry probably has fewer gatekeepers than most industries, by way of being relatively immature. That's if you count actual gatekeepers like regulatory bodies. As for competiton and business decisions, those are not gatekeepers*, that is competition and business decisions.
* I'm making a distinction here between "gatekeeping", which anyone may participate in (e.g. people who rally against or challenge women gamers), and "gatekeepers", entities with the power and authority to decisively determine what is and isn't allowed (like the bouncer at a club). Not everyone who is "gatekeeping" is a "gatekeeper".
"It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero."
I mean that same argument can be said for doing business within any ecosystem. It's really not that scary and is the reality of life.
If you pissed off X then your chances of Y again are basically 0.
(x, y) = Amazon, selling books
(x, y) = Google, selling apps
(x, y) = SEC, trading stocks
(x, y) = U.S., having fair tariffs
What would the opposing choice be? Should we have the freedom to break the rules set by the governing body while participating in their ecosystem? Certainly, we should be able to challenge them hence this case.
Notice how your examples are monopolies and the government.
The government is a different beast from provate organizations (even monopolies). Governments can legally take away your freedoms, your livelihood, your life, etc. They’re there for those kinds of difficult decisions for the good of society.
But when a private company can effectively do the same thing at their own discretion? That’s not right. They’re too big for anyone’s benefit.
…at least, in my opinion. I’m sure some people disagree, and see a benefit to having unregulated megacorps with that much power.
Eh, if Epic manages to find a way to continue to develop unreal engine for iOS, they won an increased revenue stream from unreal engine royalties.
Epic is also 50% owned by tencent, who in turns owns numerous mobile app companies, who will profit from this. So in the sense that Epic lives to help out there share holders... they didn't do so bad a job.
I think if it was as clear cut as you're suggesting that we would see a rash of app updates. However, it is unclear, and the devs are probably biding their time to see how appeals and what not play out. This is far from over.
However, if I was an app dev that has been bitching&moaning about this prohibition, I'd be jumping all over pushing updates.
I just think it's the safe play. If I'm a small developer without any clout with Apple or the media, and I've already built a good-enough business model around accepting Apple's 30% cut, it shouldn't hurt much to wait until things shake out.
Regardless of what the court says, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple drags their feet approving app updates that add information about other payment options, and I expect they'll be interpreting things as narrowly as possible.
If the injunction doesn’t take hold for 90 days, then it isn’t _now_ disallowed by courts. And if Apple wins an appeal against it you are screwed if you jumped now (assuming it passed review).
Edit: I thought both sides were appealing. That is apparently not the case. Still, If there is a chance that you interpret the rule differently from Apple - it’s still safer to wait and see what happens.
Fortunately his clear and articulate voice lends well to higher speed playback. A useful tip for YouTube (on a desktop computer) are the keyboard shortcuts shift-period and shift-comma for speeding up and slowing down playback, respectively.
More crazy, in the actual ruling, the judge states that even if developers use a different payment system than IAP, Apple is still entitled to the 30% commission and can bill the developer later. Not using IAP saves you not a penny.
This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing. If developers are using a different payment flow, then Apple has a right to collect those platform fees in a different way. What is crazy to me is that people believe those 15/30% cuts that Apple takes are for usage of the IAP system. IAP is a mere small part of that.
What right exactly do you believe is in play here? I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. But I don't see any moral right to the money.
Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.
>Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.
You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis.
Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days.
Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies.
MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.
Brilliant comment. You summarized the agitation I’ve felt about how biases and narratives play such a large part in all this. You gave some good examples like Chromebook advocacy which is completely hypocritical in many cases.
I’m all in on the Apple ecosystem. I likely contribute to this mess with some narrative bias of my own. Though I would be on webOS or Windows Phone right now if either were still alive :p
I kind of hope Microsoft finally goes all-in on Windows 11 and just locks that down like iOS/Android. Maybe then people will finally realize how absurd all those arguments defending Apple are.
Then, to be fully honest, we need a new law. The judicial system (at least in theory) isn’t supposed to make new laws as they please but rule on existing ones.
Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning.
From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.
For sure. I don't know the law well enough to comment on the legal ruling. But I do think that if the ruling is correct, we need different laws. I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Whether we see Apple's App Store as a natural monopoly or an artificially maintained one, there's no arguing that the normal market correction mechanism, competition, is ineffective here.
Why is this a moral right? The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money so they agree to the terms. What is immoral about that?
Do you do business in a different country, make money, and then criticize the government for "siphoning off a share of the money flowing through their platform"? I'm referring to taxes.
> The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money
Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them.
> I'm referring to taxes.
Are Apple's shareholders going to provide people with education and healthcare? What a complete non-sequitur.
> Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them.
I think you are talking about something different. This is in regards what is allowed on the app store. In this case, Epic didn't want to pay the app store fees. That's different from what a user wants. This is a ruling on the relationship between the company and Apple, not the user.
> I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform.
Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games.
Consoles also have the benefit of standardization, plus major companies with consumer relationships. And console-makers would still be well placed to act like studios. So consoles would still probably be consoles, but the economics would be different. The economies of scale for manufacturing and game development would still apply, though, so it definitely wouldn't be just like PCs.
The interesting thing is that, as much as I agree that I don't think Apple should have the ability to demand this, it's not like Apple is "innovating" here when it comes to fees. Back in the days of feature phones, manufacturers and carriers would happily take over 50% of revenue from an app developer. That was just an accepted way of how business was done. You want to be on a phone, you pay out the nose for the privilege.
Apple (and Google) charge much lower fees in comparison. But I do agree that the current situation isn't great. In the days of feature phones, the defining feature (heh) was making calls and perhaps texting. Most people didn't buy them for the (paltry few) apps that were available on some (paltry few) models. The manufacturers and carriers didn't need the apps, really.
But that's not the case anymore. Most people's phones are entertainment platforms primarily, and the "phone" aspects are pretty secondary. While the app-poor iPhone of 2007 was revolutionary for its time, if Apple or Google killed all third-party apps on iOS or Android, phone sales would drop like a rock. Yes, the app developers need the phone platform, but the phone platform really needs the app developers too.
I think it's fine for Apple to get some cut of apps sold through the App Store. I think it's fine for them to get a cut of in-app purchases made through Apple's own IAP system. Those things were not free for Apple to build, and they are not free for Apple to operate, so it's only fair that Apple should charge something for use of them. I think 30% happens to be too much (opinions differ, of course), but I think the "correct" amount is certainly greater than zero.
But I don't think Apple should have a monopoly on iOS app stores, or on iOS in-app payment methods. Customers should be allowed to install things on the phone however they want, and if they install something they bought from some random developer's website, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of that. And if an app allows you to purchase things through the app, I don't think Apple should be allowed to require use of their IAP system, or be allowed to take a cut if a developer chooses to use their own system. I know they have a legal right to do so, but I don't believe it's good for consumers that they can demand this[0].
Until this changes, I'll never own an iPhone (I'm sure Apple doesn't care). As much as Android has its own problems, I'm happy that I can install things from the F-Droid repository, and in the past I've even run alternate ROMs on my phone. Giving up the ability to do all that is a non-starter for me.
[0] On the flip side, I do think that Apple's IAP system, as designed, is actually great for consumers, since it makes sure nothing shady goes on with these purchases, and makes it easy to manage subscriptions without dark patterns confusing people. But I think they should be required to make it the best system for app developers as well, which means much more reasonable pricing, and possibly giving app developers a little more ownership over the customer relationship. If they don't want to do that, that's fine, but then I think they should be required to allow competitors to enter the "in-app payments system" market to give both developers and customers more choice. I'll even concede that Apple should be able to require that apps offer the option of Apple's IAP system if another system is available, but users should be able to decide to use the other system if it offers better prices and they're happy with whatever trade off that entails.
Yup. I think Apple's app store should compete with other app stores on the merits. That would drive the fees down to something closer to the level where Apple is rewarded in proportion to the value they create.
I agree they got away with it with the XBox. My question is whether that's morally right.
People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
Also I wonder where the line should be drawn if Microsoft did it? Could they take 30% of let's say revenue done on Amazon? Or if we expand to other platforms could they take 30% of stock trading? Loan repayments?
So if you paid $5/mo for facebook but then facebook went and sold some ads to businesses would you say “fuck no” to that because as a consumer you are already paying $5/mo for facebook? This kind of diversification in revenue happens all the time.
> What right exactly do you believe is in play here?
It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.
Using one's intellectual property gives the moral right to demand payment? In that case, my quoting fee is $1000 per sentence. Please Paypal me immediately.
The difference is that Apple has always been up front about the usage of their IP and the payments that follow. They have never increased the revenue share, only lowered it. What you are doing here is changing the terms to your advantage after the usage of the IP
I am talking about them. As are plenty of others. Our collective moral choices are what underlies the law. So when most people talk about whether this is the "right" outcome it's not a technical question about the law as written, it's about that plus whether we have the right laws in the first place.
Note that “moral rights” (also called “author’s rights” in some jurisdictions) are an actual thing in IP law.
I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.
Where do you draw the line then… if I use an app from my bank, should Apple get 30% from any interest I earn the bank? If I use a real estate app to find and buy a house, should they get 30% of the seller’s commission?
Or even further, if I make a business deal using an email app on iOS, are they entitled to 30% of that? It’s absurd.
The line is clear. It specifically is ruling on the companies agreeing to Apple's terms for creating their app in the Apple ecosytem. It's not ruling against the end-consumer which is what you are referring to. You're conflating the creator of the app with the users of the app.
Apple doesn't charge platform fees (well other than the annual developer fee) to zero monetary cost, ad supported apps, and they don't force you to use their ad system either.
I don't understand how this would work. If I sell a product on my website for 10$, that works on multiple platforms, would each platform be able to take 30%? At that percent and 4 platforms this would be net negative, so that seems wrong...
Conversely I could say the product costs 10$ for the PC platform (which does't have the commission), and you get a 'free' version for iOS and pay 30% of 0$. That seems wrong...
Or maybe I would have have to track users installs and use time? That seems wrong...
No, the only company that gets a commission is the one that directed the user to your site before the actual purchase. It works like ad attribution and affiliate links.
It was in a footnote in the ruling which is only starting to get attention.
Apparently the 30% rule in a different contract than the one that requires IAP. So it still stands.
So… you can’t use your own system, and if you link to a website instead, Apple can knock at the door each month and grab what you would have paid. Shallow victory there.
Found the footnote on page 155:
621 - The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store.
The HoagLaw video covers this in the first ten minutes.
From the Judge's ruling:
>Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
Possibly. Though it's basically the same math that game developers have used since forever to calculate Epic's royalties for Unreal Engine. Or to calculate license fees for physical copies of PlayStation video games.
If I understand this correctly, this basically gives Apple the control over what goes "inside" the browsers on their platform, which is super disturbing.
Isn't that how Epic essentially did it when they server side added their own payment option in the Fortnite app? That is what led to them being removed.
Since the ruling concludes that Apple would still be entitled to a 30% cut in that case (just it's harder for Apple to collect), I imagine Apple could reject that app update on the grounds that the developer hasn't added provisions to track purchases made in that manner so they can later pony up to Apple.
The author makes quite a few leaps in logic that I am unable to follow. Maybe they are right but their reading of the judgement is contrary to how most in and out of the media are reading it and I’d expect a clearer explanation than this.
The media is likely reporting incorrectly here. Apple has come out and stated that they view the judgement as a major win for their side and Epic has come out and said they intend to appeal. The cliff notes I've seen on why are that Apple is legally not a monopoly, does not have to provide an alternative payment processor 'in-app' and may still legally charge a commission fee on each purchase, even if completed through an external payment processor.
It seems like the media outlets are reporting solely on the one-page injunction, and have ignored the 185-page post-trial order that appears to clearly spell out how wrong the media is here.
It's also telling that Apple's official stance on this is that they've won[0], and Epic's is that they're disappointed and will appeal. Apple would not be so happy about this if they had to allow other in-app payment systems and forego their 30% cut. And if they did, Epic would be a lot happier about this ruling, and might even just call it a win right here.
[0] The one concession that Apple must make under this injunction -- allowing app developers to link to information about alternative payment methods on other platforms -- is a concession they are already making due to a recent ruling in a Japanese antitrust case[1].
It is that 1/10 that is in question by this article. My point is, if everyone else has it wrong they at least need to explain their reasoning, this article didn’t logically flow at least in my mind.
Which part specifically are you not understanding? I had some issues understanding it all as well but by the 3rd time I read through it - I think I got the logic.
The only part of the ruling that Apple lost is over a point they had previously conceded to settle the Japanese antitrust investigation.
>SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges.
They might want to challenge the notion that a California law can be used to force a change in the way you do business in other states, but that's about it.
(Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
(Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
(Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-...
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
I think there's a chance he's happens to be on the right side of the law this time (a stopped clock is right twice a day). At the same time he's good at his job at making believable bullshit. I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis and would suggest that reading his posts is more likely to deceive you than inform you.