2 ms·

I agree this is confusing. Pages 149-150 of the ruling explicitly conclude that it is not illegal for Apple to require developers to use IAP for purchases of in

I agree this is confusing. Pages 149-150 of the ruling explicitly conclude that it is not illegal for Apple to require developers to use IAP for purchases of in-app content. On the other hand, the injuction on page 168 says Apple cannot prohibit developers from linking to other purchasing mechanisms besides IAP. The way I would interpret this is: 1. If you want to make a purchase inside the app itself, you still have to use IAP. 2. But you are allowed to leave the app to make a payment that does not use the IAP system, and Apple cannot prevent developers from telling users about such alternative payment systems.

mbreese 5y ago
That’s exactly how I’d interpret it. Which is not what many people here have been arguing. If this is the case, it’s not what Epic ultimately wanted and still lets Apple avoid allowing alternative In-App purchasing mechanisms. But it makes a lot of sense… protect people inside the garden, but still let people buy their VBucks anywhere else they want to. This also mirrors what happens on other game platforms - if you buy vbucks on Xbox, it has to go through Microsoft. But you can also buy prepaid VBucks gift cards at Target. If this is the case, it’s a minor win for Epic, at best. And limits the collateral damage to other game platforms (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that also have the same in-app purchasing restrictions.
- nodamage 5y ago
  Well, I wouldn't even consider it much of a win for Epic considering: 1. The court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store which will have underlying consequences to their Unreal Engine business. 2. The court fully rejected Epic's monopolization claims which deals a huge blow to their goal of running their own app store. 3. It's not clear whether Apple is prohibited from charging commissions or licensing fees on purchases made outside of the IAP system. Everyone is assuming so, and the accounting would be much more complicated, but if you read through the ruling the judge repeatedly agrees that Apple is entitled to some sort of compensation for the use of their intellectual property. It may very well be that developers will be allowed to add external payment options but will still owe Apple some form of commission/licensing fee in exchange.

mbreese 5y ago

That’s exactly how I’d interpret it. Which is not what many people here have been arguing. If this is the case, it’s not what Epic ultimately wanted and still lets Apple avoid allowing alternative In-App purchasing mechanisms. But it makes a lot of sense… protect people inside the garden, but still let people buy their VBucks anywhere else they want to. This also mirrors what happens on other game platforms - if you buy vbucks on Xbox, it has to go through Microsoft. But you can also buy prepaid VBucks gift cards at Target. If this is the case, it’s a minor win for Epic, at best. And limits the collateral damage to other game platforms (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that also have the same in-app purchasing restrictions.

nodamage 5y ago
Well, I wouldn't even consider it much of a win for Epic considering: 1. The court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store which will have underlying consequences to their Unreal Engine business. 2. The court fully rejected Epic's monopolization claims which deals a huge blow to their goal of running their own app store. 3. It's not clear whether Apple is prohibited from charging commissions or licensing fees on purchases made outside of the IAP system. Everyone is assuming so, and the accounting would be much more complicated, but if you read through the ruling the judge repeatedly agrees that Apple is entitled to some sort of compensation for the use of their intellectual property. It may very well be that developers will be allowed to add external payment options but will still owe Apple some form of commission/licensing fee in exchange.