4 ms·

Apple might still collect its 30% by asking for accounting records later.

towawy 5y ago
There is way to little talk about this. Apple might still be entitled to the 30% (of gross purchase price paid by the customer) even if the developer is not using the IAP mechanism. The ruling did nothing to invalidate that.
- Danieru 5y ago
  Apple would be playing with fire if they attempt that interpretation. It would detooth the ruling, and could force the judges hand to impose stricter or more vague requirements. The judge certainly not have an issue with the api design...
  - CubsFan1060 5y ago
    The judge outright said this was ok: “In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.”
    - Danieru 5y ago
      Wow, that's insane. She really did give a toothless ruling. Thanks for correcting me.
      - FDSGSG 5y ago
        It's not insane, there's simply no reason for why Apple shouldn't get their cut.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        Microsoft doesn’t get a cut from Windows apps. Why should Apple?
        CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Why are you comparing iOS to Windows? MacOS to Windows, or iOS to Android make more sense. A more fair comparison would be andorid. Or the Windows Phone, where Microsoft took 20%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone
        Aeolun 5y ago
        I’m comparing a small general purpose computer to a big one. How is that an invalid comparison? Just because everyone does the same thing on a mobile phone doesn’t make it any more sensible.
        CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Because it's a cherry picked example that ignores a lot of factors. I could easily make the statement "Microsoft gets a cut of everything purchased on Xbox, why shouldn't Apple?" To which I suspect your response would be waving your hands around something that is ill defied (General Purpose Computing), and then trying to define it to fit your narrative.
        roflc0ptic 5y ago
        A more cogent and principled response would be that there is an effective duopoly in the phones market, and this creates incentives for and actually realized anti competitive practices on the part of both google and apple. Apple both builds a market and regulates that market in its own favor, and consumers don't have an especially plausible alternative to participating.
      - worrycue 5y ago
        It’s less that it’s toothless and more that Apple won the case - she ruled 9/10 counts in Apple’s favour.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 5y ago
  They’re not doing that for existing apps though. It’s going to be a bit hard to enforce.

There is way to little talk about this. Apple might still be entitled to the 30% (of gross purchase price paid by the customer) even if the developer is not using the IAP mechanism. The ruling did nothing to invalidate that.

Danieru 5y ago
Apple would be playing with fire if they attempt that interpretation. It would detooth the ruling, and could force the judges hand to impose stricter or more vague requirements. The judge certainly not have an issue with the api design...
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  The judge outright said this was ok: “In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.”
  - Danieru 5y ago
    Wow, that's insane. She really did give a toothless ruling. Thanks for correcting me.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      It's not insane, there's simply no reason for why Apple shouldn't get their cut.
      - Aeolun 5y ago
        Microsoft doesn’t get a cut from Windows apps. Why should Apple?
        CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Why are you comparing iOS to Windows? MacOS to Windows, or iOS to Android make more sense. A more fair comparison would be andorid. Or the Windows Phone, where Microsoft took 20%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone
        Aeolun 5y ago
        I’m comparing a small general purpose computer to a big one. How is that an invalid comparison? Just because everyone does the same thing on a mobile phone doesn’t make it any more sensible.
        CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Because it's a cherry picked example that ignores a lot of factors. I could easily make the statement "Microsoft gets a cut of everything purchased on Xbox, why shouldn't Apple?" To which I suspect your response would be waving your hands around something that is ill defied (General Purpose Computing), and then trying to define it to fit your narrative.
        roflc0ptic 5y ago
        A more cogent and principled response would be that there is an effective duopoly in the phones market, and this creates incentives for and actually realized anti competitive practices on the part of both google and apple. Apple both builds a market and regulates that market in its own favor, and consumers don't have an especially plausible alternative to participating.
    - worrycue 5y ago
      It’s less that it’s toothless and more that Apple won the case - she ruled 9/10 counts in Apple’s favour.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
They’re not doing that for existing apps though. It’s going to be a bit hard to enforce.