3 ms·

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

by 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
- gpm 5y ago
  > Apple could still charge a commission on developers. Note the could not the does, Apple can make the contract say this, but the court is not saying the current contract does (the question wasn't before the court). I doubt the current contract does because it didn't need to, and because historically that's how Apple has worked (you weren't allowed to link to payments off of Apple, but if someone found your website and paid for things there you didn't have to give Apple a commission).

by jjcon 5y ago

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

gpm 5y ago
> Apple could still charge a commission on developers. Note the could not the does, Apple can make the contract say this, but the court is not saying the current contract does (the question wasn't before the court). I doubt the current contract does because it didn't need to, and because historically that's how Apple has worked (you weren't allowed to link to payments off of Apple, but if someone found your website and paid for things there you didn't have to give Apple a commission).