4 ms·

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% commissio

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.

jbverschoor 5y ago
I think Wall Street missed that part
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  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.
  - arbirk 5y ago
    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.
    - ec109685 5y ago
      within apps distributed on the App Store.
enos_feedler 5y ago
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.
- wpietri 5y ago
  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.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    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.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      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.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        > 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?
        5y ago
greysphere 5y ago
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...
- Spivak 5y ago
  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.

jbverschoor 5y ago

I think Wall Street missed that part

gjsman-1000 5y ago
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.
- arbirk 5y ago
  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.
  - ec109685 5y ago
    within apps distributed on the App Store.

enos_feedler 5y ago

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.

wpietri 5y ago
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.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  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.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    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.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > 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?
      - 5y ago

greysphere 5y ago

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...

Spivak 5y ago
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.