4 ms·

This article is continuing to spread FUD, the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the store f

by syspec 5y ago

This article is continuing to spread FUD, the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the store for a digital good used in the game. Apple is still entitled to a 30% commission. The commission is the licensing fee for Apple's I From the court ruling: > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons: > 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.

rvz 5y ago
Absolutely correct. The Verge and other media reporters continues to omit this important note from the ruling itself from [0]: Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional [0] (p68) Seems like The Verge loves to spin their way into misinformation since they know that the majority of readers won't read the ruling text at all. For those that don't have time, it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth. [1] [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E
gpm 5y ago
You are misstating the ruling. It does not say that they are still entitled to the 30% commission, it says that they could choose to charge it for third party payments. The difference is that the former would be the judge saying that the existing contract entitles them to that (something the judge did not rule on), while the latter just means that they could legally make a contract that did entitle them to that.
- syspec 5y ago
  It actually literally says that: "The Court concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property."
  - gpm 5y ago
    Yes, those words were said, but you are ignoring the context and assuming it means something that it does not. The broader context is that the judge is justifying why Apple's actions do not violate the Sherman Act. The immediate context is as follows: > 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, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. [...] The judge is not here determining that Apple is due any percentage of non-in-app purchases given the current contract, the judge is determining that (as far as the Sherman Act goes) apple is entitled to create a contract licensing it's intellectual property in that manner. Apart from the lack of any language finding such a contract exists, finding so would be wholly inappropriate given that it isn't a question on trial in the case.
    - rezonant 5y ago
      Exactly. And it also points out how hard it would be for Apple to extract those fees, which conceivably would be difficult indeed. Apple could just deny publishing your app if you didn't sign an agreement requiring you to pay 30% of your externally sourced revenue via your iOS app but the enforcement would now become (mostly) manual, whereas with IAP, compliance with the fees are unavoidable as they all go through Apple's software
detaro 5y ago
Maybe I missed it, but where does the article suggest otherwise? I don't see the FUD (and not how this would cause Fear, uncertainty and doubt either way)?
elpool2 5y ago
What bothers me is that you can already avoid paying the 30% to Apple by using a 3rd party payment processor. You just can’t tell your customers about that option or link to it. So it’s not really a commission on buying digital goods or on use of the App Store. I get that Apple can come up with whatever arbitrary fee structure they want, but when it becomes so divorced from the value you’re actually getting in return it starts to feel pretty anti-competitive.
- musicale 5y ago
  > you can already avoid paying the 30% to Apple by using a 3rd party payment processor. You just can’t tell your customers about that option or link to it. Presumably Apple will now be highly motivated to close the loophole and require third party payment processors to pay a commission to Apple.
- dwaite 5y ago
  Apple had a firewall around telling customers about cheaper options because they only wanted to collect revenue between two easy-to-audit sources - app purchases and IAP. Now, they will likely go after commissions to pay their commissions when they are collected externally. This judge's ruling may wind up costing some developers a lot more money.
sundvor 5y ago
I primarily use Netflix on Windows 10. That's where I set up my PayPal etc. So, if I sign on once to my Netflix account on my son's iPad, Apple would suddenly be entitled to a third of my fees? (In case: What the actual foxtrot!).
- dwaite 5y ago
  Apple is not forbidden from changing their contract language to collect commissions for purchases made outside of IAP. It would require new developer agreements.
  - mewse 5y ago
    As a point of interest.. Apple requires new developer agreements rather frequently. I had to accept a new set of agreements just a couple of days ago; they wouldn't sign any Mac packages until I'd done so. This happens about every three or four months on average, I'd estimate; package signing fails, so you have to log into Apple's developer site to find and sign the new agreements. (I sell some cross-platform software. Not sold through any Apple stores, but I still need to sign the Mac app bundles in order for them to launch for Mac customers, by default)
  - sundvor 5y ago
    I see from my post score that there are a number who hold their monopoly dear. To clarify, my case was about accessing an existing Netflix subscription with a new device that happens to be an iPad, and wondering if Apple could claim a stake of my subscription fees from Netflix for this access. If new developer agreements would need to be pushed out to allow for this, then that's something at least - however it's still disappointing the door has been left open. It will be interesting to see if they chase this option. I'll looking to phase the iPad out of the household if so. (Not that a sample size of 1 matters to them, but principles do to me).
    - dwaite 5y ago
      Apple attempts to maintain a position from the perspective of marketing toward customer acquisition and purchasing. Back when Netflix was available with IAP, they were an excellent example of this. If you have a separate Netflix account already, Apple is not providing Netflix with any revenue value (with respect to customer acquisition) and makes nothing. If the user signs up through Apple, then that was a customer Netflix may have not gotten without Apple's store, and apple takes an ongoing commission. The subscription pricing aligned with this, with a much higher percentage for the first year going to apple for the acquisition. Things like the anti-steering provisions (you can't link to purchasing from within the app) are a double-edged sword: - Developers who don't think they owe Apple 30% want to cut them out of the equation, both in terms of revenue and being an intermediary to their customer - Apple, who considers themselves owed 30% by contract, is more concerned keeping a clear line of which customers are acquired where So if Apple sees their revenue at risk, they will start to change their rules. With the line smudged by regulation, they may change their rule to one of attribution and auditing. For example, "if a customer signs up for an account or makes a purchase within two weeks of downloading the app, Apple is contractually obligated an X% cut of that revenue, and a developer may be periodically audited for compliance". One might imagine how the iOS 14+ Attribution API gets repurposed for this. Or, they might just decide a lot of that is money from dark patterns anyway - they restrict certain payment patterns and we see a lot of slot machine games disappear overnight. I look forward to the future lawsuit that causes the current executive email chains to be released to the public.
stale2002 5y ago
> the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the stor Its a bit more complicated than that. For example, currently, right now, I can buy hearthstone packs/digital goods on other platforms, not pay Apple a Fee, and still use those digital goods on smart phones. It is the existing workflow, that it is already possible, to get around apple's fee, by buying on other platforms. Thus, Apple would have to change its existing contracts, if it wants to get that cut. And now it is simply going to be easier to get around paying apple that fee, due to external links to places where Apple is already not taking a cut.
hamilyon2 5y ago
Let's say there is a website, google app and apple app. When user buys and uses digital tokens on a website, are both google and apple entitled to 30% commission just because there is a link to the website from both apps?

by syspec 5y ago

rvz 5y ago

Absolutely correct. The Verge and other media reporters continues to omit this important note from the ruling itself from [0]: Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional [0] (p68) Seems like The Verge loves to spin their way into misinformation since they know that the majority of readers won't read the ruling text at all. For those that don't have time, it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth. [1] [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E

gpm 5y ago

You are misstating the ruling. It does not say that they are still entitled to the 30% commission, it says that they could choose to charge it for third party payments. The difference is that the former would be the judge saying that the existing contract entitles them to that (something the judge did not rule on), while the latter just means that they could legally make a contract that did entitle them to that.

syspec 5y ago
It actually literally says that: "The Court concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property."
- gpm 5y ago
  Yes, those words were said, but you are ignoring the context and assuming it means something that it does not. The broader context is that the judge is justifying why Apple's actions do not violate the Sherman Act. The immediate context is as follows: > 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, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. [...] The judge is not here determining that Apple is due any percentage of non-in-app purchases given the current contract, the judge is determining that (as far as the Sherman Act goes) apple is entitled to create a contract licensing it's intellectual property in that manner. Apart from the lack of any language finding such a contract exists, finding so would be wholly inappropriate given that it isn't a question on trial in the case.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    Exactly. And it also points out how hard it would be for Apple to extract those fees, which conceivably would be difficult indeed. Apple could just deny publishing your app if you didn't sign an agreement requiring you to pay 30% of your externally sourced revenue via your iOS app but the enforcement would now become (mostly) manual, whereas with IAP, compliance with the fees are unavoidable as they all go through Apple's software

detaro 5y ago

Maybe I missed it, but where does the article suggest otherwise? I don't see the FUD (and not how this would cause Fear, uncertainty and doubt either way)?

elpool2 5y ago

What bothers me is that you can already avoid paying the 30% to Apple by using a 3rd party payment processor. You just can’t tell your customers about that option or link to it. So it’s not really a commission on buying digital goods or on use of the App Store. I get that Apple can come up with whatever arbitrary fee structure they want, but when it becomes so divorced from the value you’re actually getting in return it starts to feel pretty anti-competitive.

musicale 5y ago
> you can already avoid paying the 30% to Apple by using a 3rd party payment processor. You just can’t tell your customers about that option or link to it. Presumably Apple will now be highly motivated to close the loophole and require third party payment processors to pay a commission to Apple.
dwaite 5y ago
Apple had a firewall around telling customers about cheaper options because they only wanted to collect revenue between two easy-to-audit sources - app purchases and IAP. Now, they will likely go after commissions to pay their commissions when they are collected externally. This judge's ruling may wind up costing some developers a lot more money.

sundvor 5y ago

I primarily use Netflix on Windows 10. That's where I set up my PayPal etc. So, if I sign on once to my Netflix account on my son's iPad, Apple would suddenly be entitled to a third of my fees? (In case: What the actual foxtrot!).

dwaite 5y ago
Apple is not forbidden from changing their contract language to collect commissions for purchases made outside of IAP. It would require new developer agreements.
- mewse 5y ago
  As a point of interest.. Apple requires new developer agreements rather frequently. I had to accept a new set of agreements just a couple of days ago; they wouldn't sign any Mac packages until I'd done so. This happens about every three or four months on average, I'd estimate; package signing fails, so you have to log into Apple's developer site to find and sign the new agreements. (I sell some cross-platform software. Not sold through any Apple stores, but I still need to sign the Mac app bundles in order for them to launch for Mac customers, by default)
- sundvor 5y ago
  I see from my post score that there are a number who hold their monopoly dear. To clarify, my case was about accessing an existing Netflix subscription with a new device that happens to be an iPad, and wondering if Apple could claim a stake of my subscription fees from Netflix for this access. If new developer agreements would need to be pushed out to allow for this, then that's something at least - however it's still disappointing the door has been left open. It will be interesting to see if they chase this option. I'll looking to phase the iPad out of the household if so. (Not that a sample size of 1 matters to them, but principles do to me).
  - dwaite 5y ago
    Apple attempts to maintain a position from the perspective of marketing toward customer acquisition and purchasing. Back when Netflix was available with IAP, they were an excellent example of this. If you have a separate Netflix account already, Apple is not providing Netflix with any revenue value (with respect to customer acquisition) and makes nothing. If the user signs up through Apple, then that was a customer Netflix may have not gotten without Apple's store, and apple takes an ongoing commission. The subscription pricing aligned with this, with a much higher percentage for the first year going to apple for the acquisition. Things like the anti-steering provisions (you can't link to purchasing from within the app) are a double-edged sword: - Developers who don't think they owe Apple 30% want to cut them out of the equation, both in terms of revenue and being an intermediary to their customer - Apple, who considers themselves owed 30% by contract, is more concerned keeping a clear line of which customers are acquired where So if Apple sees their revenue at risk, they will start to change their rules. With the line smudged by regulation, they may change their rule to one of attribution and auditing. For example, "if a customer signs up for an account or makes a purchase within two weeks of downloading the app, Apple is contractually obligated an X% cut of that revenue, and a developer may be periodically audited for compliance". One might imagine how the iOS 14+ Attribution API gets repurposed for this. Or, they might just decide a lot of that is money from dark patterns anyway - they restrict certain payment patterns and we see a lot of slot machine games disappear overnight. I look forward to the future lawsuit that causes the current executive email chains to be released to the public.

stale2002 5y ago

> the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the stor Its a bit more complicated than that. For example, currently, right now, I can buy hearthstone packs/digital goods on other platforms, not pay Apple a Fee, and still use those digital goods on smart phones. It is the existing workflow, that it is already possible, to get around apple's fee, by buying on other platforms. Thus, Apple would have to change its existing contracts, if it wants to get that cut. And now it is simply going to be easier to get around paying apple that fee, due to external links to places where Apple is already not taking a cut.

hamilyon2 5y ago

Let's say there is a website, google app and apple app. When user buys and uses digital tokens on a website, are both google and apple entitled to 30% commission just because there is a link to the website from both apps?