5 ms·

> 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 init

> 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.
savant_penguin 5y ago
I'm wondering the implications of this. Is Microsoft entitled to a percentage of everything that is run on windows? Is Google entitled to a cut of anything that runs on chrome (do products running on aws and azure count?) Is Intel entitled to anything running on their silicon?
- amelius 5y ago
  And further up the supply chain: Is TSMC entitled to some part of Apple's and Intel's profits? Is ASML entitled to some part of TSMC's profits? I'd be ok with this if sweatshop worker is entitled to a significant part of Nike's profits. Perhaps we can make the economy fair after all.
  - taneq 5y ago
    I’m sure it’s not on the same scale but I wonder what percentage of their profits go to payroll?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 3836293648 5y ago
  Answer to the middle one: Absolutely not, Chromium is BSD3
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    Most users aren't running Chromium, though; they're running Chrome, which decidedly is not BSD3.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Absolutely yes, Chromebooks are DRM'ed up the wazoo, much more than any Windows PC.
- taneq 5y ago
  If Microsoft wanted to lock down Windows 11 so it could only run software from the MS Store, they could. It’d be platform suicide… but they could.
taneq 5y ago
Ultimately the Apple App Store isn’t a commons and Apple has no obligation to host your app there. Likewise iOS is their product and they have no obligation to grant any third party access to it. Whether they should be reclassified as some sort of public utility is another discussion.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Woah, classifying the store as a commons or turning it into a public utility is a pretty big leap over any interpretation of this ruling I had seen from any news outlet. The question I have is whether or not this ruling opens the door for collecting commissions made on other platforms outside of iOS, or whether we think that's likely to be something Apple can get away with if apps like Netflix or Gacha games start linking to their websites. Currently, Apple does not attempt to do anything like that. There is a pretty big gulf between a judge saying "anti-steering is anti-competitive" and a judge saying, "you can't decide what apps go in your store." I haven't seen any interpretation of this ruling that says the latter happened.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Judges just apply the law as it is. We want to change the law.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      Okay, but I don't think that's really the current discussion? It feels to me like a lot of people are talking about separate things here and trying to kind of mash them together. I'm interested in this ruling. I'm not saying that the ruling means that Apple isn't anti-competitive in general or in other ways, I'm not saying that an anti-steering ban would solve the entire situation, I'm not telling activists to go home, I'm not advocating for a specific solution. I'm asking about what the current implications are of this case. The parent poster was not saying that they wanted the App Store to be turned into a public utility, they were pointing out that this ruling didn't turn it into a public utility. Which... correct, but I don't think anybody anywhere was claiming that it did. A judge restricting anti-steering rules or ruling that a specific business practice is anti-competitive is not even remotely equivalent to turning the App Store into a commons.
stale2002 5y ago
> Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? I've read all 180 pages of the ruling, so will give my opinion. IMO this claim about still owing commission comes from statements that the judge said, regarding a separate hypothetical of if alternative payment systems were included in the app itself, then those alternative payment systems would still owe a commission. I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Yes, some lawyers have suggested maybe that would be the case. But I do not know of any explicit statement where the judge said this clearly. Happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't see that explicitly from the judge. It is only hypothosized.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Here you are, taken from the ruling text: >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
  - stale2002 5y ago
    I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things. In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this. If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling. But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling. IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?
uberduper 5y ago
Seems that Apple could obligate the use of affiliate links when directing users from the app to an external site for purchases. I'm sure they'd be willing to add a required api for just such a thing.
nodamage 5y ago
It's not totally clear and we're in uncharted territory as Apple has never tried to collect commissions on payments that were not made with IAP. However, it is worth noting that the actual text of the developer agreement (quoted on page 32 of the ruling) says the following: "For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those countries listed in Exhibit B, Section 1 of this Schedule 2 as updated from time to time via the App Store Connect site, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User." Note that it just says "all prices payable by each End-User", there is no distinction in the contract between purchases made internally in the app and payments made externally via a website. To the extent that the court has found that this contract is indeed enforceable (minus the anti-steering provision), that would suggest to me that taking you outside of the app to pay via a website might not make a difference to the commission owed. But I suspect this is the kind of thing that very expensive lawyers are going to have to litigate before we get a definitive answer.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  That doesn’t really make sense though. Someone that’s had Netflix for years but now downloads the mobile app is not suddenly giving 30% of their subscription fee to Apple.
  - nodamage 5y ago
    In that specific case there was already an exception for "reader apps" where the user was already subscribed elsewhere and is merely using the app to access content they've previously purchased. Where I suspect this would apply is apps like Fortnite, where if you were previously selling V-bucks directly via IAP, then popping up a web view to process the payment and returning you to the app to claim your V-bucks might not actually be the loophole people seem to think it is.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      It is if you can tell people they can use v-bucks purchased on a browser. As far as I read it you can even link to it, but maybe you can’t link directly to your payment page? Just like ‘you can also buy v-bucks on our [link](website)?

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.

savant_penguin 5y ago

I'm wondering the implications of this. Is Microsoft entitled to a percentage of everything that is run on windows? Is Google entitled to a cut of anything that runs on chrome (do products running on aws and azure count?) Is Intel entitled to anything running on their silicon?

amelius 5y ago
And further up the supply chain: Is TSMC entitled to some part of Apple's and Intel's profits? Is ASML entitled to some part of TSMC's profits? I'd be ok with this if sweatshop worker is entitled to a significant part of Nike's profits. Perhaps we can make the economy fair after all.
- taneq 5y ago
  I’m sure it’s not on the same scale but I wonder what percentage of their profits go to payroll?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
3836293648 5y ago
Answer to the middle one: Absolutely not, Chromium is BSD3
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  Most users aren't running Chromium, though; they're running Chrome, which decidedly is not BSD3.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Absolutely yes, Chromebooks are DRM'ed up the wazoo, much more than any Windows PC.
taneq 5y ago
If Microsoft wanted to lock down Windows 11 so it could only run software from the MS Store, they could. It’d be platform suicide… but they could.

taneq 5y ago

Ultimately the Apple App Store isn’t a commons and Apple has no obligation to host your app there. Likewise iOS is their product and they have no obligation to grant any third party access to it. Whether they should be reclassified as some sort of public utility is another discussion.

danShumway 5y ago
Woah, classifying the store as a commons or turning it into a public utility is a pretty big leap over any interpretation of this ruling I had seen from any news outlet. The question I have is whether or not this ruling opens the door for collecting commissions made on other platforms outside of iOS, or whether we think that's likely to be something Apple can get away with if apps like Netflix or Gacha games start linking to their websites. Currently, Apple does not attempt to do anything like that. There is a pretty big gulf between a judge saying "anti-steering is anti-competitive" and a judge saying, "you can't decide what apps go in your store." I haven't seen any interpretation of this ruling that says the latter happened.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Judges just apply the law as it is. We want to change the law.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Okay, but I don't think that's really the current discussion? It feels to me like a lot of people are talking about separate things here and trying to kind of mash them together. I'm interested in this ruling. I'm not saying that the ruling means that Apple isn't anti-competitive in general or in other ways, I'm not saying that an anti-steering ban would solve the entire situation, I'm not telling activists to go home, I'm not advocating for a specific solution. I'm asking about what the current implications are of this case. The parent poster was not saying that they wanted the App Store to be turned into a public utility, they were pointing out that this ruling didn't turn it into a public utility. Which... correct, but I don't think anybody anywhere was claiming that it did. A judge restricting anti-steering rules or ruling that a specific business practice is anti-competitive is not even remotely equivalent to turning the App Store into a commons.

stale2002 5y ago

> Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? I've read all 180 pages of the ruling, so will give my opinion. IMO this claim about still owing commission comes from statements that the judge said, regarding a separate hypothetical of if alternative payment systems were included in the app itself, then those alternative payment systems would still owe a commission. I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Yes, some lawyers have suggested maybe that would be the case. But I do not know of any explicit statement where the judge said this clearly. Happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't see that explicitly from the judge. It is only hypothosized.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Here you are, taken from the ruling text: >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
- stale2002 5y ago
  I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things. In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this. If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling. But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling. IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?

uberduper 5y ago

Seems that Apple could obligate the use of affiliate links when directing users from the app to an external site for purchases. I'm sure they'd be willing to add a required api for just such a thing.

nodamage 5y ago

It's not totally clear and we're in uncharted territory as Apple has never tried to collect commissions on payments that were not made with IAP. However, it is worth noting that the actual text of the developer agreement (quoted on page 32 of the ruling) says the following: "For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those countries listed in Exhibit B, Section 1 of this Schedule 2 as updated from time to time via the App Store Connect site, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User." Note that it just says "all prices payable by each End-User", there is no distinction in the contract between purchases made internally in the app and payments made externally via a website. To the extent that the court has found that this contract is indeed enforceable (minus the anti-steering provision), that would suggest to me that taking you outside of the app to pay via a website might not make a difference to the commission owed. But I suspect this is the kind of thing that very expensive lawyers are going to have to litigate before we get a definitive answer.

Aeolun 5y ago
That doesn’t really make sense though. Someone that’s had Netflix for years but now downloads the mobile app is not suddenly giving 30% of their subscription fee to Apple.
- nodamage 5y ago
  In that specific case there was already an exception for "reader apps" where the user was already subscribed elsewhere and is merely using the app to access content they've previously purchased. Where I suspect this would apply is apps like Fortnite, where if you were previously selling V-bucks directly via IAP, then popping up a web view to process the payment and returning you to the app to claim your V-bucks might not actually be the loophole people seem to think it is.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    It is if you can tell people they can use v-bucks purchased on a browser. As far as I read it you can even link to it, but maybe you can’t link directly to your payment page? Just like ‘you can also buy v-bucks on our [link](website)?