4 ms·

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 d

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
    Yes, you could breach a legally binding contract, a contract tested in court and effectively confirmed as legal by a federal judge. And then Apple will remove your app from the App Store. It is also very normal in a situation like this for a contract to include clauses that would allow the licensor to review the licensee's books if there's any suspicion of misreporting. Also, the Epic Games Store is currently being run at a loss, so it isn't (yet) a poster child for a sustainable business model.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > you could breach a legally binding contract But nobody has that contract right now. Not Epic, not Apple, not Valve, not Microsoft, not Google. No PC or mobile store that I'm aware of has clauses that try to take a portion of 3rd-party purchases. It's not just Epic Store "being run at a loss", nobody does this. So again, you're talking about this like it's the norm and developers are pulling sneaky tricks to avoid it, but as far as I can tell nobody including Apple is trying to collect commissions on individual purchases that happen on other platforms, and it's not clear to me as a non-lawyer that it should be treated as the same category of contract as a general revenue contract. I can't find any current store contract that tells me that the company is entitled to percentages of purchases that happen on a website that they're not interacting with. And given Apple's extreme distaste for linking to other platforms, it seems like they're at least a little hesitant to just put this language in their contract themselves. Outside of specific revenue contracts, it doesn't seem to be the norm to me. So sure, Apple could start doing this, but it would be a new thing that would seem to be relatively unique among PC/mobile stores, and that goes back to the original question of whether or not a judge would view that as anti-competitive -- is it just a standard extension of a revenue agreement, or is it something else.

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
  Yes, you could breach a legally binding contract, a contract tested in court and effectively confirmed as legal by a federal judge. And then Apple will remove your app from the App Store. It is also very normal in a situation like this for a contract to include clauses that would allow the licensor to review the licensee's books if there's any suspicion of misreporting. Also, the Epic Games Store is currently being run at a loss, so it isn't (yet) a poster child for a sustainable business model.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > you could breach a legally binding contract But nobody has that contract right now. Not Epic, not Apple, not Valve, not Microsoft, not Google. No PC or mobile store that I'm aware of has clauses that try to take a portion of 3rd-party purchases. It's not just Epic Store "being run at a loss", nobody does this. So again, you're talking about this like it's the norm and developers are pulling sneaky tricks to avoid it, but as far as I can tell nobody including Apple is trying to collect commissions on individual purchases that happen on other platforms, and it's not clear to me as a non-lawyer that it should be treated as the same category of contract as a general revenue contract. I can't find any current store contract that tells me that the company is entitled to percentages of purchases that happen on a website that they're not interacting with. And given Apple's extreme distaste for linking to other platforms, it seems like they're at least a little hesitant to just put this language in their contract themselves. Outside of specific revenue contracts, it doesn't seem to be the norm to me. So sure, Apple could start doing this, but it would be a new thing that would seem to be relatively unique among PC/mobile stores, and that goes back to the original question of whether or not a judge would view that as anti-competitive -- is it just a standard extension of a revenue agreement, or is it something else.