7 ms·

> those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income While 27% is higher than expected, everyone knew Apple would (and had the right

> those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income While 27% is higher than expected, everyone knew Apple would (and had the right to) impose a fee for alternative payment methods. There isn't a magic flag you can wave to avoid paying Apple if you are accepting payments in an iOS app. > app developers have to produce an entirely new app This is the part the Dutch court slapped down. The development concerns in the press release are overblown, though ("must develop a completely new app") since it's more like you must submit a new app that uses the new entitlements.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> you must submit a new app that uses the new entitlements. That's easy to do. Simply change the SKU and Bundle ID, and set up a new app in iTunes App Store. Deprecate the old one. Lots of apps do this, anyway. It's sort of S.O.P. for new paid versions. I've released a whole bunch of apps, over the years. I've retired most of them, and come out with entirely new versions of others. It's a pain, but nothing too intimidating. I find the article to be a bit ... hyperbolic ... The process I just described would take me a day, and that's mostly because I'm fairly anal about hand-crafting a lot of stuff that many developers can integrate into their CD process.
JanSt 5y ago
I‘m sure the fee will be slapped down later too. It gives Apple unfair competetive advantages in the industries it operates in. (e.g Apple Music vs Spotify)
- FabHK 5y ago
  "Reader" apps, broadly construed, can already offer outside subscriptions. Apparently, Spotify does not pay a 30% fee to Apple, but only 15%, and that on less than 1% of its paid members, so only around 0.15%. That does not seem to constitute unfair competitive advantage. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-pa...
  - JanSt 5y ago
    Well I‘ve read that math many times and I don‘t understand the intention here. Of course the number is very low - Spotify did not allow subscriptions through apps for a long time (do they now?) Even if they have to pay 15% now (I don‘t know) that‘s still 15% of their margin (!). Apple is able to make much better offers because they don‘t have to pay that fee. The 0.15% is math meant to distract, just ask Spotify. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innovators-win-on-a-level-playing-field/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innova...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
muro 5y ago
There are multiple "simple magic flags" you can wave - e.g. monetize using ads or make a "reader" app where users have to subscribe elsewhere. Apple doesn't make you pay them 30% that way. I hope governments force them to not take 30% elsewhere too, because neither devs nor users can do it.
EMIRELADERO 5y ago
> There isn't a magic flag you can wave to avoid paying Apple for the use of their platform. If alternate App Stores and direct inatallation of IPA files off the browser was allowed, developers could have the ability to not even use any of Apple's plattform. Hell, I bet that a community-made FOSS SDK to create iOS apps would arrive. Then those devs wouldn't use or distribute any of Apple's IP while developing their apps (besides the Apple devices they already own and use for developement)
- KDTreeHipster 5y ago
  Apple does allow installation of IPA from the browser. There are a few different ways you can do it, from generating a special URL to App Clips. https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/ https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/ That's not the issue. The issue isn't the method of distribution. The issue is being able to get around Apple's sandboxing.
  - keleftheriou 5y ago
    When you say “The issue is being able to get around Apple's sandboxing”, what do you mean exactly? Any examples?
techdragon 5y ago
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. “We the people” are the ultimate arbiters of what companies can and cannot do, in this case the government of the Netherlands acting on behalf of the people of the Netherlands is going to say what Apple can and cannot do in the Netherlands. Apple has no “right to profit”… no company does. They are *allowed* to profit.
- simonh 5y ago
  Irrespective of App Store rules and such, the idea that people acting through a company lose their rights has to die. A company is simply an organisational structure the owners, managers and employees use to exercise their rights and freedoms. We exercise our legal rights, in the context of our employment, all the time. Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too. The same arguments used to attack the activities of companies could be used to restrict political parties, or undermine the activities of charities. It’s a dangerous road to take. Commercial groups have been recognised as legitimate vehicles for the exercising of rights for hundreds, even thousands of years. There’s nothing new about it, and it’s been recognised in legal systems throughout history across the globe.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. You have many rights related to privacy and sexual reproduction that can not and should not be exercised through companies. There is also laxk of responsebility, if you commit crimes individually you will be in jail for the rest of your life, but companies get away with it regularly. Both due to power of money and diffusion of reaponsebility
    - simonh 5y ago
      It makes sense to exercise some rights though a company or similar organisation, such as a charity, NGO or political party, and not others. >This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. As I said, it has a long history and sound basis in common law jurisprudence in the west going back at least to medieval law, and in other cultures going back even further. The very word corporation, or incorporation (corpus being Latin for body), expresses the principle of representing and acting on behalf of a body of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
HNSucksAss 5y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

> you must submit a new app that uses the new entitlements. That's easy to do. Simply change the SKU and Bundle ID, and set up a new app in iTunes App Store. Deprecate the old one. Lots of apps do this, anyway. It's sort of S.O.P. for new paid versions. I've released a whole bunch of apps, over the years. I've retired most of them, and come out with entirely new versions of others. It's a pain, but nothing too intimidating. I find the article to be a bit ... hyperbolic ... The process I just described would take me a day, and that's mostly because I'm fairly anal about hand-crafting a lot of stuff that many developers can integrate into their CD process.

JanSt 5y ago

I‘m sure the fee will be slapped down later too. It gives Apple unfair competetive advantages in the industries it operates in. (e.g Apple Music vs Spotify)

FabHK 5y ago
"Reader" apps, broadly construed, can already offer outside subscriptions. Apparently, Spotify does not pay a 30% fee to Apple, but only 15%, and that on less than 1% of its paid members, so only around 0.15%. That does not seem to constitute unfair competitive advantage. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-pa...
- JanSt 5y ago
  Well I‘ve read that math many times and I don‘t understand the intention here. Of course the number is very low - Spotify did not allow subscriptions through apps for a long time (do they now?) Even if they have to pay 15% now (I don‘t know) that‘s still 15% of their margin (!). Apple is able to make much better offers because they don‘t have to pay that fee. The 0.15% is math meant to distract, just ask Spotify. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innovators-win-on-a-level-playing-field/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-innova...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

muro 5y ago

There are multiple "simple magic flags" you can wave - e.g. monetize using ads or make a "reader" app where users have to subscribe elsewhere. Apple doesn't make you pay them 30% that way. I hope governments force them to not take 30% elsewhere too, because neither devs nor users can do it.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

> There isn't a magic flag you can wave to avoid paying Apple for the use of their platform. If alternate App Stores and direct inatallation of IPA files off the browser was allowed, developers could have the ability to not even use any of Apple's plattform. Hell, I bet that a community-made FOSS SDK to create iOS apps would arrive. Then those devs wouldn't use or distribute any of Apple's IP while developing their apps (besides the Apple devices they already own and use for developement)

KDTreeHipster 5y ago
Apple does allow installation of IPA from the browser. There are a few different ways you can do it, from generating a special URL to App Clips. https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/ https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/ That's not the issue. The issue isn't the method of distribution. The issue is being able to get around Apple's sandboxing.
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  When you say “The issue is being able to get around Apple's sandboxing”, what do you mean exactly? Any examples?

techdragon 5y ago

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. “We the people” are the ultimate arbiters of what companies can and cannot do, in this case the government of the Netherlands acting on behalf of the people of the Netherlands is going to say what Apple can and cannot do in the Netherlands. Apple has no “right to profit”… no company does. They are *allowed* to profit.

simonh 5y ago
Irrespective of App Store rules and such, the idea that people acting through a company lose their rights has to die. A company is simply an organisational structure the owners, managers and employees use to exercise their rights and freedoms. We exercise our legal rights, in the context of our employment, all the time. Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too. The same arguments used to attack the activities of companies could be used to restrict political parties, or undermine the activities of charities. It’s a dangerous road to take. Commercial groups have been recognised as legitimate vehicles for the exercising of rights for hundreds, even thousands of years. There’s nothing new about it, and it’s been recognised in legal systems throughout history across the globe.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. You have many rights related to privacy and sexual reproduction that can not and should not be exercised through companies. There is also laxk of responsebility, if you commit crimes individually you will be in jail for the rest of your life, but companies get away with it regularly. Both due to power of money and diffusion of reaponsebility
  - simonh 5y ago
    It makes sense to exercise some rights though a company or similar organisation, such as a charity, NGO or political party, and not others. >This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. As I said, it has a long history and sound basis in common law jurisprudence in the west going back at least to medieval law, and in other cultures going back even further. The very word corporation, or incorporation (corpus being Latin for body), expresses the principle of representing and acting on behalf of a body of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

HNSucksAss 5y ago