17 ms·
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 licens
by 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 agoSo 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 agoNo, 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 agoPretty 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.