> 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.
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.