11 ms·

It seems the initial media reporting on this decision was way off the mark and the feedback from actual lawyers [1] is that Epic got crushed in court: 1. The j

• BeefWellington 5y ago
  Yeah the media ran with one narrative but the court decision basically says Apple can't stop you from linking outside your app for payment stuff but that they can still require users be able to use IAP. Very confusing that so many of the media outlets covering this trial got the results wrong. I miss the days of Groklaw.
  • bialpio 5y ago
    I think I'm missing something. Are the developers forced to offer the in-app purchases right now? My understanding was "no" based on how Netflix does not offer purchasing subscription through the app specifically to avoid having to pay the commission. Can Netflix now link (from within the app) to a website where the users can purchase the subscription?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • BeefWellington 5y ago
      My understanding is that certain specific services and types of apps are exempted from in-app purchases, such as those that use a subscription model (Netflix, Disney+ et. al.) or apps that are for real world purchases (think Amazon, DoorDash, etc.). Games and similar apps are not exempted in this way and thus are required per Apple's license agreement / developer agreement to use Apple's in-app purchases mechanism.
  • belltaco 5y ago
    I don't miss groklaw, it was a heavily biased site whose whole analysis was dependent on only the accusations/defense of one side of the court cases and assuming all of those were true and totally ignoring the other side, even if they had valid arguments. It slowly swallowed itself into its own black hole and went more and extreme, just like BoycottNovell/Techrights.
    • BeefWellington 5y ago
      Are you thinking of another site? Groklaw, to my knowledge (and a quick check of various sources agrees) largely wound down after the SCO trial was done and dusted and was only temporarily handed over to another editor after the fact, finally shutting down in 2013. The site appears to still be up, if you have specifics you're thinking of you'd point at.
      • belltaco 5y ago
        It's Groklaw I am talking about. Initially they had decent coverage of the SCO case. But as time went on the analysis became too ideological and partisan. The analysis basically turned into covering all the documents filed by one side, and assuming that everything in them were all true, and not covering the defense arguments at all. I am too sleepy to look it up right now, but one case where I remember the abject partisanship was either about Corel or Word Perfect.
• cma 5y ago
  They still at least were able to rip the mask off Apple (like when Apple revoked their Apple ID sign in in retribution, and went after their desktop business, signed keys were promised by Apple to only to be for security, for a non-security related iOS business dispute). Things Apple framed as pure safety and privacy features turned out to be used within just a few years of introduction for cartel-like extraction.
• bcrosby95 5y ago
  > 4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself. I have a friend whose company had to remove any mention of any store, no matter how little, from their application. In his eyes this was a big win. Epic obviously thinks differently because they had bigger ideas in mind.
  • nodamage 5y ago
    That is of course of some benefit to some developers (with products on other platforms), but very different from the headlines suggesting developers could now dodge the 30% commission by taking payments outside the app.
    • simondotau 5y ago
      It's as absurd as thinking you could dodge the commission for Unreal Engine by taking payments outside the Epic Games Store.
      • danShumway 5y ago
        But you could, couldn't you? As far as I know, Epic has no restrictions on apps in their store linking to other purchasing methods for in-app purchases, and they don't collect commissions for games that do so. Itch.io has a client app on the Epic games store, but I don't think they pay Epic a cut every time someone buys a game on the Itch.io website. It feels oddly like two things are getting conflated here, and I'm trying to figure out if they actually are the same thing, or if people are just kind of assuming that they're the same. The Epic engine takes a cut of revenue in general. The stores take a cut of purchases. As far as I know, no app store that I'm familiar with on PC/mobile (Steam, Epic, iOS, Google Play, etc) currently tries to take a cut of purchases made outside of that store. Is that going to change in the future?
        • simondotau 5y ago
• kelnos 5y ago
  Right, it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods, including being able to link to external sources in order to give that information. Which is still a win, I suppose, but it's a very, very small win, and not that useful to Epic. I think it's potentially useful for services that have a large non-iOS presence, where buying a thing for use outside of the iOS ecosystem coincidentally allows you to use it inside the iOS ecosystem. Like, say, Netflix or HBO Max. Or maybe buying Kindle books. Because I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut if someone saw the Netflix signup screen in the iOS app, went to the Netflix website on their laptop (or even on their phone?), subscribed there, and then went back to the iOS app and signed in. (At any rate, I think Apple is already changing this particular rule due to a ruling that happened in Japan, so maybe this is is all moot anyway.)
  • simondotau 5y ago
    > it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods They won that for other developers but not for themselves. Epic failed to win an injunction that would see Fortnite return to the App Store; their singular victory is of no use to them.
  • AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
    > I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut Very simple. Apple adds such language to the developer agreement. "We get a 30% cut of revenue for any services used on iOS devices." Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%" "iOS device XYZ paid via IAP, we don't owe you" etc etc etc etc down the line. Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books. Apple adds provisions whereby being off by more than X% results in penalties. Apple adds provisions whereby they can request an independent audit of the companies books (quite reasonable with a "you're honest, we paid, you lied, you pay" provision). If all else fails Apple obviously retains the right to sue to enforce and a court can require a company to provide apple financials as part of discovery. It's really not HARD per-se. I imagine the only reason apple doesn't do this as that it's just so much complicated than the IAP route. Probably the thorniest issue here is that it would create some perverse incentives. Netflix might chose to remove their app from the app store in favor of telling you to just go to the website again avoiding the 30% cut. Furthermore, what would entitle apple to their 30%? I just bought and installed a card control badge access system at our office. I downloaded/installed the app on my phone. Should apple get 30%? If so, 30% of what? 30% of the total system cost including install? 30% of what I paid for the hardware? 30% of just the controller hardware cost? 30% of the annual support maintenance cost? I don't even KNOW most of those costs because they aren't even enumerated to me. I just paid a big lump sump. Super messy.
• danShumway 5y ago
  > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. This is one of the big ones I didn't realize in my initial reading of the situation. How far does this go? Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? I still feel like I'm misunderstanding something here, I guess I need to go through some of the linked videos/articles. Linking to alternative purchase methods would be a big thing, regardless of whether they're IAP or not -- it's obviously not everything or even most of what Epic wants, but it would be a huge step over existing app store rules (across both iOS and Google Play) where developers were getting in trouble for linking to their own websites within the app or even just telling users that alternatives existed. That inability to even tell consumers that Apple collects a 30% fee in the first place, basically forcing developers to pretend to users that the restrictions don't exist -- that's a really big issue with large market implications, and a restriction on that is honestly on the upper edges of what I thought Epic could possibly get in an initial ruling. If Epic got that, then I understand why they're unhappy because obviously they wanted way more, but it's still not a minor inconsequential ruling. Apple has been extremely protective of that restriction. They do not want apps telling users about how the payment methods work, where they are, or about what iOS fees are. But this seems to imply that if an app linked to their website in their app, and a user clicked on that link, opened it in a web browser, then bought something through the browser, that Apple could then collect a 30% commission on that. I'm misunderstanding that, right? > would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155) On any purchase made within apps applies to links that take you out of the app?
  • gpm 5y ago
    > This is one of the big ones I didn't realize in my initial reading of the situation. How far does this go? Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? If they decided to write it into the contract, I see no reason why not. Generally you're free to make up whatever contracts you want. If there is a reason why not, I'm certain that it's complex enough that you would need to make a new lawsuit over it and get a new injunction, since it wasn't argued in either direction in this case at all. Whether or not app developers would agree to "30% of profit from everywhere" is an entirely different conversations. I imagine a variety of important app developers like banks would be rethinking their decision to publish apple apps if that was the TOS.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Crushed? Everyone assumed Epic would get nothing. The fact they got something is a victory though not a total victory.
  • simondotau 5y ago
    Epic got nothing of use to them. The judge upheld Apple's ban of Epic from the App Store so they won't be able to reap any theoretical benefits from the crumbs they did win.
    • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "Epic got nothing of use to them." Allies got nothing of use to them from D-day! It's just a beach full of sand! What are they gonna do with it, eat it?
  • pwinnski 5y ago
    Epic owes Apple 30% of what they collected via their own in-app purchases. While Apple will have to eliminate their anti-steering rules, they don't even have to let Epic themselves back into the app store. So Epic got nothing. Less than nothing. They have less today than they would have had they never updated their app in violation of their contract. Apple did lose something, a small thing, but that's not a win for Epic.
  • nodamage 5y ago
    Other developers might benefit from the changes to the anti-steering provision, but not Epic, as they will still be banned from the App Store.
• rvz 5y ago
  Precisely. As I and many others already highlighted it is not over yet and they are both likely going to appeal this. The media outright jumped into conclusions with their headlines and caused this hype of misinformation to spread very quickly and now we have to cut thought it and correct the wrongs they reported. I also recommend those interested to watch the first 4 minutes of the Hoeg Law video and even the whole video for an in depth look into the trial. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E
• ec109685 5y ago
  That fourth bullet point says within apps distributed in on the App store. So a link off would stay clear of that.
• thayne 5y ago
  > If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself Not quite. If I understand correctly (IANAL), now you can link to your website if your website has an alternative way to pay, whereas before that could lead to your app getting rejected (although apple was inconsistent about it). I'm also unclear on if this changes anything about Apple's rules that you can't charge more for IAP than the same product purchased through a different mechanism. It doesn't sound like it does, which would limit how useful linking to alternative prices is.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• Aeolun 5y ago
  As I read it this means you get to put a link in your app that says ‘you can also buy your stuff on our website, which is 30% cheaper than through IAP’. That seems like a major win compared to before.
  • makeitdouble 5y ago
    > "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." (page 67) It seems you still can’t make it 30% cheaper. Sure, making a different offer and skirting around the rules might be possible, but the judgment gives Apple the right to go after what it feels is cheating.
    • Aeolun 5y ago
      Someone using their general purpose browser to make a purchase on a general purpose website is hardly cheating though. Especially if you can use your v-bucks outside of iOS.
      • makeitdouble 5y ago
        There's so many clauses in Apple's contract that make no sense outside of allowing Apple to make more money, that the very definition of "cheating" is way off what should be expected. I mean, preventing devs from linking to their own sites to create an account to their own existing, pre-app service was forbidden. Common sense has long gone down the drain.