3 ms·

Apple randomly guessing how many users would have bought the app through the store and charging that amount to another company sounds like an easy anti-competit

by ko27 3y ago

Apple randomly guessing how many users would have bought the app through the store and charging that amount to another company sounds like an easy anti-competitive lawsuit.

lolinder 3y ago
They don't have to randomly guess, they'd ask developers who are using external payment processors to provide an accounting of the number of sales, with a clear paper trail showing that the developers certified that their numbers were honest. It'd end up functioning similar to income tax: Apple has a pretty darn good sense for what the numbers should look like, but they'd rely on you to fill in the gaps, and if you didn't do so accurately they'd sue you for breach of contract. I'm not sure what would make that an easier anti-competitive lawsuit than the one that Epic lost.
- ko27 3y ago
  Let's say Spotify adds this in-app message: "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". No links, just simple text. How would anybody be able to produce a "clear paper trail"? Spotify can only say the total number of web purchases. Apple has no choice, other than to guess how many people would have bought through the app store instead. If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Spotify is in a category that already is a known exception for Apple [0]—they sell a subscription to media and they have an accompanying app. I expect the anti-steering provision to go away and for Apple to just eat the cost on that category. Most apps that currently go through the App Store for sales are simple. There are sales for apps (or subscriptions), and they can be individually accounted. You and Apple both know how many users you have on Apple devices, and Apple gets a cut of sales to those users. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not hard to do the accounting. [0] "A Licensed Application may read or play content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is offered outside of the Licensed Application (such as, by way of example, through Your website) provided that You do not link to or market external offers for such content within the Licensed Application."
    - simiones 3y ago
      That only works for apps that are exclusive to Apple devices or that have separate licenses for Apple devices. If I buy Epic in-game currency from Epic and use it on my PC to buy some skin, and then use the skin I bought that way when playing on my iPhone, should Apple get a cut of the money? If yes, how much? The cost of the skin, or the cost of the in-game currency (maybe I bought a 10 USD bundle, but the skin only cost 1 USD, the other 9 USD is just staying in my account unused)?
  - judge2020 3y ago
    > Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less Worth noting that they only charge the commission on In-App Purchases, which are "Not Apple Pay". Apple Pay itself is just a way to pay with Wallet-saved cards and Apple only charges a nominal 15bp fee to the bankcard issuer.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    > If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling. Which part of the judgments would that conflict with? Both the District Court’s ruling and the 9th Circuit’s decision that affirms it only speaks of anti-steering, without any qualifications on potential limitations on steering users away They also both affirm that the commission would still be due and that Apple would have the right to audit to enforce payment of said commission. Apple, since then, has implemented changes to its policy that allow steering, albeit under circumstances that will enable them to track users using the purchase link and claim commission over sales in the seven days that follow. Any opposition to these requirements would be met with a “legitimate interest” counterargument, the legitimacy of the interest already being established by the courts by them stating that they still owe Apple a commission. In layperson’s terms: The courts have said that Apple can’t prohibit developers from steering users to an alternative purchase flow while simultaneously stating that developers will still owe Apple the commission. Apple, in response, said: Fine, but we want to be able to track it when you do this and make sure you don’t make it look like the native IAP flow to trick users. What’s the argument of the developers here? They’re allowed to steer users away to their purchase flow of choice; they just have to do it in a way that makes it easy for Apple to audit the owed commissions. I can’t imagine the courts frowning upon this, especially when both courts have stated on multiple occasions in their judgment how arduous it would be for both Apple and the developers to ensure payment of commissions if alternative payment methods are utilized. This alleviates some of those concerns.
threeseed 3y ago
When an app is first opened it needs to validate the digital signature with Apple. So they do definitively know the volume of apps a developer has sold. StoreKit API likely phones home as well: https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

by ko27 3y ago

Apple randomly guessing how many users would have bought the app through the store and charging that amount to another company sounds like an easy anti-competitive lawsuit.

lolinder 3y ago

They don't have to randomly guess, they'd ask developers who are using external payment processors to provide an accounting of the number of sales, with a clear paper trail showing that the developers certified that their numbers were honest. It'd end up functioning similar to income tax: Apple has a pretty darn good sense for what the numbers should look like, but they'd rely on you to fill in the gaps, and if you didn't do so accurately they'd sue you for breach of contract. I'm not sure what would make that an easier anti-competitive lawsuit than the one that Epic lost.

ko27 3y ago
Let's say Spotify adds this in-app message: "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". No links, just simple text. How would anybody be able to produce a "clear paper trail"? Spotify can only say the total number of web purchases. Apple has no choice, other than to guess how many people would have bought through the app store instead. If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Spotify is in a category that already is a known exception for Apple [0]—they sell a subscription to media and they have an accompanying app. I expect the anti-steering provision to go away and for Apple to just eat the cost on that category. Most apps that currently go through the App Store for sales are simple. There are sales for apps (or subscriptions), and they can be individually accounted. You and Apple both know how many users you have on Apple devices, and Apple gets a cut of sales to those users. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not hard to do the accounting. [0] "A Licensed Application may read or play content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is offered outside of the Licensed Application (such as, by way of example, through Your website) provided that You do not link to or market external offers for such content within the Licensed Application."
  - simiones 3y ago
    That only works for apps that are exclusive to Apple devices or that have separate licenses for Apple devices. If I buy Epic in-game currency from Epic and use it on my PC to buy some skin, and then use the skin I bought that way when playing on my iPhone, should Apple get a cut of the money? If yes, how much? The cost of the skin, or the cost of the in-game currency (maybe I bought a 10 USD bundle, but the skin only cost 1 USD, the other 9 USD is just staying in my account unused)?
- judge2020 3y ago
  > Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less Worth noting that they only charge the commission on In-App Purchases, which are "Not Apple Pay". Apple Pay itself is just a way to pay with Wallet-saved cards and Apple only charges a nominal 15bp fee to the bankcard issuer.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  > If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling. Which part of the judgments would that conflict with? Both the District Court’s ruling and the 9th Circuit’s decision that affirms it only speaks of anti-steering, without any qualifications on potential limitations on steering users away They also both affirm that the commission would still be due and that Apple would have the right to audit to enforce payment of said commission. Apple, since then, has implemented changes to its policy that allow steering, albeit under circumstances that will enable them to track users using the purchase link and claim commission over sales in the seven days that follow. Any opposition to these requirements would be met with a “legitimate interest” counterargument, the legitimacy of the interest already being established by the courts by them stating that they still owe Apple a commission. In layperson’s terms: The courts have said that Apple can’t prohibit developers from steering users to an alternative purchase flow while simultaneously stating that developers will still owe Apple the commission. Apple, in response, said: Fine, but we want to be able to track it when you do this and make sure you don’t make it look like the native IAP flow to trick users. What’s the argument of the developers here? They’re allowed to steer users away to their purchase flow of choice; they just have to do it in a way that makes it easy for Apple to audit the owed commissions. I can’t imagine the courts frowning upon this, especially when both courts have stated on multiple occasions in their judgment how arduous it would be for both Apple and the developers to ensure payment of commissions if alternative payment methods are utilized. This alleviates some of those concerns.

threeseed 3y ago

When an app is first opened it needs to validate the digital signature with Apple. So they do definitively know the volume of apps a developer has sold. StoreKit API likely phones home as well: https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...