3 ms·

IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing. > ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from pr

IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing. > ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) 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 ... To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able to link out to an external purchasing mechanism. So, for example a link to the Epic Store web page must be allowed, but a different in-app purchasing mechanism could still be limited. Which, I think that was the main complaint for many other developers -- you couldn't accept payments outside of the App Store (like on your website). So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves. This seems to be a pretty common-sense written injunction, meaning that developers are allowed to communicate with users and accept payment outside of the Apple garden. This seems pretty straightforward and would cover many (most?) of the developer complaints for dealing with their customers. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i...

cptskippy 5y ago
This is how I read it: permanently restrained and enjoined from 1) prohibiting developers from a) including in their apps and their metadata: i) buttons, ii) external links, or iii) other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, b) in addition to In-App Purchasing and c) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
- mbreese 5y ago
  But that's not how the clauses are written grammatically, which is why I'm unsure. There are two clauses: one about purchases and the second about communication. The second clause is easiest to deal with. It is: communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app This means that the developer can communicate with the user -- using information the user gave them, not information that Apple has to give them. I think we can agree on that one. The first clause is tougher, and I think there are multiple ways to read it (at least for a non-lawyer... lawyers might read this only one way). prohibiting developers from (i) 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 The way that I read it is: developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, in addition to the existing Apple In-App purchasing. The other way to read that is (which is how I assume you read it): developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, as well as allowing non-Apple mechanisms for purchasing inside the app. Without knowing how the judge has defined In-App purchasing, I'm not sure you can tell which is the right interpretation. The capitalization of it is curious to me, but maybe that's just how they referred to all purchases that happen inside an App, or maybe that's how the Apple App Store managed purchases were referred to. I'm sure there will be some kind of better legal analysis appearing soon enough (I hope).
sangnoir 5y ago
> So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves How do you foresee Apple disallowing that in the apps without violating the injunction? The injunction gives apps free-reign on UI elements that direct customers to non-Apple payment systems.
- mbreese 5y ago
  The way I read it (which might be wrong) was that the developers could put links to external websites in the app, but not necessarily require that the transaction be allowed to occur in the app itself. In the case of Fortnite, Epic could include a link to their online store where you could buy V-Bucks that would be linked to your Fortnite account. This link would open in Safari, but could also be done on any other computer. Under the old rules, Epic couldn't do this. Nor could Netflix send you a link to their webpage, or Kindle a link to the Amazon web site to buy a book. Maybe it's the legalese, but the phase "direct customers to purchasing mechanisms" makes me think that the judge is referring to these external methods. But as I mentioned on a sibling comment, I'm really unsure as to what is meant by "In-App purchasing". Is this Apple's mechanism, or any mechanism? It isn't clear to me, without more context. There may be a couple of interpretations.
  - Drew_ 5y ago
    There's no such reference to "external websites" in the ruling. I'm not sure why so many people are taking this logical leap. The injunction simply references "directing to purchasing mechanisms". There's no such qualifier that the purchasing mechanism must be an HTML document displayed from web browser.
    - mbreese 5y ago
      I think the reason is the phrase “direct to purchasing mechanisms”. The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external (otherwise you wouldn’t direct them to it, you’d just let them purchase it). It could be a website, a phone number, mail order, whatever. Also, the sentence specifically includes “external links” as part of the App Store metadata/description, so that’s a logical step. If there is a reference to allowing in-app purchases, it would be the next clause, but it isn’t clear to me what the proper interpretation is. It could be allowing a purchasing mechanism in addition to the existing Apple In App purchasing pipeline, or that Apple can’t disallow In App purchasing. I bet it’s the former, but I’m sure it will be part of the appeal.

cptskippy 5y ago

This is how I read it: permanently restrained and enjoined from 1) prohibiting developers from a) including in their apps and their metadata: i) buttons, ii) external links, or iii) other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, b) in addition to In-App Purchasing and c) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

mbreese 5y ago
But that's not how the clauses are written grammatically, which is why I'm unsure. There are two clauses: one about purchases and the second about communication. The second clause is easiest to deal with. It is: communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app This means that the developer can communicate with the user -- using information the user gave them, not information that Apple has to give them. I think we can agree on that one. The first clause is tougher, and I think there are multiple ways to read it (at least for a non-lawyer... lawyers might read this only one way). prohibiting developers from (i) 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 The way that I read it is: developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, in addition to the existing Apple In-App purchasing. The other way to read that is (which is how I assume you read it): developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, as well as allowing non-Apple mechanisms for purchasing inside the app. Without knowing how the judge has defined In-App purchasing, I'm not sure you can tell which is the right interpretation. The capitalization of it is curious to me, but maybe that's just how they referred to all purchases that happen inside an App, or maybe that's how the Apple App Store managed purchases were referred to. I'm sure there will be some kind of better legal analysis appearing soon enough (I hope).

sangnoir 5y ago

> So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves How do you foresee Apple disallowing that in the apps without violating the injunction? The injunction gives apps free-reign on UI elements that direct customers to non-Apple payment systems.

mbreese 5y ago
The way I read it (which might be wrong) was that the developers could put links to external websites in the app, but not necessarily require that the transaction be allowed to occur in the app itself. In the case of Fortnite, Epic could include a link to their online store where you could buy V-Bucks that would be linked to your Fortnite account. This link would open in Safari, but could also be done on any other computer. Under the old rules, Epic couldn't do this. Nor could Netflix send you a link to their webpage, or Kindle a link to the Amazon web site to buy a book. Maybe it's the legalese, but the phase "direct customers to purchasing mechanisms" makes me think that the judge is referring to these external methods. But as I mentioned on a sibling comment, I'm really unsure as to what is meant by "In-App purchasing". Is this Apple's mechanism, or any mechanism? It isn't clear to me, without more context. There may be a couple of interpretations.
- Drew_ 5y ago
  There's no such reference to "external websites" in the ruling. I'm not sure why so many people are taking this logical leap. The injunction simply references "directing to purchasing mechanisms". There's no such qualifier that the purchasing mechanism must be an HTML document displayed from web browser.
  - mbreese 5y ago
    I think the reason is the phrase “direct to purchasing mechanisms”. The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external (otherwise you wouldn’t direct them to it, you’d just let them purchase it). It could be a website, a phone number, mail order, whatever. Also, the sentence specifically includes “external links” as part of the App Store metadata/description, so that’s a logical step. If there is a reference to allowing in-app purchases, it would be the next clause, but it isn’t clear to me what the proper interpretation is. It could be allowing a purchasing mechanism in addition to the existing Apple In App purchasing pipeline, or that Apple can’t disallow In App purchasing. I bet it’s the former, but I’m sure it will be part of the appeal.