5 ms·
The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission , but did't rule if 30 % was fair. "First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of fa
by rdsnsca 5y ago
The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission , but did't rule if 30 % was fair.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. 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 commission.
Indeed, 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 use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."
- kerng 5y agoyeah, reasonable commmission seems like 2-4 percent here. I don't think consumers should have to pay more for it. And most important, apps should have no restrictions whatsover to have payments inside their own app ecosystem!
- apple4ever 5y agoBingo. There is no reason I have to go to a website to buy a book to read on my book reader app, other than Apple being a bully.
- lostlogin 5y agoCharacterising Apple as bullying Amazon is interesting. The ebook example is quite a fraught one and Apple roundly lost that battle.
- FireBeyond 5y agoHow did they lose that one? I cannot buy a book for my Kindle in the Amazon app.
- fossuser 5y agoYeah - I think Apple's 30% cut is a racket and a bad incentive for them. They should make money by shipping incredible products, not taxing everyone who builds for them. That said, I like the app store rules they can enforce like IAP - I just don't think they should be taking a cut. If they want to charge a flat one time fee of like $100 to publish then fine, but profit sharing seems wrong to me. My worry is their aggressiveness in defending their tax will cause blow back that damages their ability to leverage their rules. A worse outcome is one where they keep the tax, but app devs are allowed around the rules. This is starting to happen (an admittedly tiny bit) by them being forced to allow links out to sign up off of the phone. If they just forced people to use IAP for their user's benefit (easy cancellation, easy account subscription tracking and privacy, easy payment), but didn't take a cut that would be the best outcome for their users and it'd be an easier argument to win in the public eye.
- swman 5y agoOr just have the flat developer fee cover it unless your app hits like 100k plus download or something.
- vbezhenar 5y agoCommission does not matter. It could be 300%. What matters is whether users can use another method of payment without artificial difficulties. If I can press "Apple Pay" and pay $120 or I can press "Paypal" and pay $40, I'd choose Paypal. If it would be $41 vs $40, I'll consider Apple. But that's me. Some people surely value Apple services more than me. So when competition is allowed, Apple will be able to price their commission competitively.
- dwaite 5y agoApple only was slapped down on anti-steering to other payment options, NOT in collecting a commission. That includes potentially changing their developer agreement to now require developers to meter and perhaps even audit external payments to submit Apple's commission. Because they can no longer differentiate payments made independent of the app (because the anti-steering clauses are gone) this could result in required commission to apple in cases which it formerly was not required.