5 ms·

As I understood this ruling at the time, one major caveat was that they have to open up payment options but are still allowed to demand 30% of the third-party p

As I understood this ruling at the time, one major caveat was that they have to open up payment options but are still allowed to demand 30% of the third-party payments, thus making it mostly irrelevant. This article mentions nothing about it - was this interpretation overly pessimistic?

newprint 3y ago
From what I understand, ruling is saying: Apple can't block developers from displaying notification that the app can be bought cheaper elsewhere.
- threeseed 3y ago
  But it won't be cheaper elsewhere since developer still needs to pay the 30% commission.
  - ko27 3y ago
    How would that work? From my previous comment, let's say you add this message (no links): "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". Nobody knows how many users decided to visit the website instead.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Total Installs - App Store Installs = Third Party Installs And they know total installs from the notary service.
      - simiones 3y ago
        That doesn't work for in-app purchases, which is almost certainly the majority of revenue.
    - 542458 3y ago
      It would work the same as many other revenue sharing agreements out there (including those for Epic’s own Unreal Engine). Yes, there’s no technical mechanism to keep you from screwing the other party (and small-scale fraud will likely go undetected), but there are contractual/legal mechanisms.
jncfhnb 3y ago
Pretty sure wrong. Apple cannot tax you for buying things on the game’s website. It’s just in app purchases that they have a monopoly on. So it’s annoying but it is possible. Hopefully developers make use of this and other regulation finishes the job
- saurik 3y ago
  The argument was that Apple can use a business model similar to Epic's business model for Unreal Engine: no matter where / how you sell your game, Epic's licensing terms have you pay them a cut of your revenue.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    So if I sign up for, say, Spotify on my windows pc on the browser, and then download the iOS client, Apple believes they deserve 30%? Yeah they can piss off with that. It’ll go away with time.
    - fastball 3y ago
      No, it would only be if you made the purchase via clicking on a specific link from within the iOS app, which Apple allows via a certain API, called an "External Purchase Link". So Apple's method of complying is: - yes you can link to an external price, but you need to use our API (External Purchase Link) to do it, per our terms - any purchases made via an External Purchase Link require Apple be paid the usual cut, per our terms Seems to fairly clearly violate the spirit of the last ruling, but not the letter of it. I dislike Apple's behavior here, but it's actually kinda genius from a "malicious compliance" perspective. Doing the above is going to be more annoying and you will still owe them a cut, so everyone will just keep doing IAP via Apple if their implementation is allowed to stand.
      - simiones 3y ago
        Pretty sure that Epic will sue again over this, and quite easily win. If Apple has to allow you to advertise that things can be bought from somewhere else, it doesn't seem plausible they can mandate how exactly you advertise this.

newprint 3y ago

From what I understand, ruling is saying: Apple can't block developers from displaying notification that the app can be bought cheaper elsewhere.

threeseed 3y ago
But it won't be cheaper elsewhere since developer still needs to pay the 30% commission.
- ko27 3y ago
  How would that work? From my previous comment, let's say you add this message (no links): "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". Nobody knows how many users decided to visit the website instead.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Total Installs - App Store Installs = Third Party Installs And they know total installs from the notary service.
    - simiones 3y ago
      That doesn't work for in-app purchases, which is almost certainly the majority of revenue.
  - 542458 3y ago
    It would work the same as many other revenue sharing agreements out there (including those for Epic’s own Unreal Engine). Yes, there’s no technical mechanism to keep you from screwing the other party (and small-scale fraud will likely go undetected), but there are contractual/legal mechanisms.

jncfhnb 3y ago

Pretty sure wrong. Apple cannot tax you for buying things on the game’s website. It’s just in app purchases that they have a monopoly on. So it’s annoying but it is possible. Hopefully developers make use of this and other regulation finishes the job

saurik 3y ago
The argument was that Apple can use a business model similar to Epic's business model for Unreal Engine: no matter where / how you sell your game, Epic's licensing terms have you pay them a cut of your revenue.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  So if I sign up for, say, Spotify on my windows pc on the browser, and then download the iOS client, Apple believes they deserve 30%? Yeah they can piss off with that. It’ll go away with time.
  - fastball 3y ago
    No, it would only be if you made the purchase via clicking on a specific link from within the iOS app, which Apple allows via a certain API, called an "External Purchase Link". So Apple's method of complying is: - yes you can link to an external price, but you need to use our API (External Purchase Link) to do it, per our terms - any purchases made via an External Purchase Link require Apple be paid the usual cut, per our terms Seems to fairly clearly violate the spirit of the last ruling, but not the letter of it. I dislike Apple's behavior here, but it's actually kinda genius from a "malicious compliance" perspective. Doing the above is going to be more annoying and you will still owe them a cut, so everyone will just keep doing IAP via Apple if their implementation is allowed to stand.
    - simiones 3y ago
      Pretty sure that Epic will sue again over this, and quite easily win. If Apple has to allow you to advertise that things can be bought from somewhere else, it doesn't seem plausible they can mandate how exactly you advertise this.