10 ms·

I thought this was pretty clear? That verge article that was on here the other day (which apparently said the opposite in the title/headline(I ignore those)) h

I thought this was pretty clear? 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."

gjsman-1000 5y ago
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.
- jjcon 5y ago
  > 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”
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    >Even if that were accurate It's literally the text of the ruling. However, yes, it looks like Hollywood math will soon apply to online gaming transactions.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      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.
      - wokwokwok 5y ago
        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.
        jjcon 5y ago
        I’m speaking hypothetically, I’m no apple app developer I have no skin in this game
      - GeekyBear 5y ago
        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
- simondotau 5y ago
  More precisely Epic won nothing, as they have no prospect of getting any future revenue from the iOS ecosystem, save for winning on appeal.
  - MattRix 5y ago
    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.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      That is true and I stand corrected. I had discounted that as a potential option due to Tim Sweeney's prior and current statements on the matter.
    - gpm 5y ago
      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. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436370846545809410 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143637084654580941... > 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. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436340363720118277 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143634036372011827...
      - MattRix 5y ago
        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”. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea-fortnite-developer-account-rules-response https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...
dylan604 5y ago
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.
- kelnos 5y ago
  The injunction doesn't take effect for 90 days, so I expect we won't see any updates related to this for 3 months. But if I were an iOS dev, I would definitely wait and see much longer than that. It wouldn't be worth risking my apps or my developer account.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    What are you risking? You're just doing what is no longer disallowed by courts.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      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.
    - misnome 5y ago
      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.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

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.

jjcon 5y ago
> 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”
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >Even if that were accurate It's literally the text of the ruling. However, yes, it looks like Hollywood math will soon apply to online gaming transactions.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    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.
    - wokwokwok 5y ago
      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.
      - jjcon 5y ago
        I’m speaking hypothetically, I’m no apple app developer I have no skin in this game
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      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
simondotau 5y ago
More precisely Epic won nothing, as they have no prospect of getting any future revenue from the iOS ecosystem, save for winning on appeal.
- MattRix 5y ago
  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.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    That is true and I stand corrected. I had discounted that as a potential option due to Tim Sweeney's prior and current statements on the matter.
  - gpm 5y ago
    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. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436370846545809410 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143637084654580941... > 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. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436340363720118277 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143634036372011827...
    - MattRix 5y ago
      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”. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea-fortnite-developer-account-rules-response https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...

dylan604 5y ago

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.

kelnos 5y ago
The injunction doesn't take effect for 90 days, so I expect we won't see any updates related to this for 3 months. But if I were an iOS dev, I would definitely wait and see much longer than that. It wouldn't be worth risking my apps or my developer account.
- dylan604 5y ago
  What are you risking? You're just doing what is no longer disallowed by courts.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    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.
  - misnome 5y ago
    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.