18 ms·

There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timswee

by radley 3y ago

There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1747408147260571730?s=61&t=m0AaMhvzMjn6qiSFg9E4lg https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...

qarl 3y ago
I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down. The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly for payment provider. I understand that many people misunderstand this point, but that does not change it.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  The Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.
  - qarl 3y ago
    I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.
    - bluefirebrand 3y ago
      Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this. This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS. So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple Tax for those purchases. In this case the "store" is not an app store but an in-game store, sure. Have I got that right so far?
      - qarl 3y ago
        > This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax That may be, but that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled in favor of Epic on only one count of ten - specifically that Apple must allow other payment processors. As long as the app was originally installed via the Apple App Store, it's still subject to the Apple Tax.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Depends. If we’re talking about the details of the implementation, maybe. If it’s about the commission that still needs to be paid, then no. That’s directly mentioned in the original ruling by the district court, a commission is due regardless.
- radley 3y ago
  I think the real problem is unlimited access to accounting books for any business that has an iOS app. This will affect free apps too, since they now have the potential to offer purchases outside the app store. (Obviously, strategic partners and FAANG are exempt.)
  - slaymaker1907 3y ago
    I don’t think so. This entitlement is something devs have to explicitly opt in for.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    In theory, perhaps, in practice Apple will only audit the developers that use the special entitlement. Ironically, this is something that is bothering the appellate court as well if you read between the lines of their judgment[0]. They gently criticize the district court for both saying that developers should be able to link and sell outside the app while simultaneously saying that it’s undesirable for Apple to audit developers because it’s too cumbersome. But the appellate court isn’t meant for do overs, just for when courts have erred in a significant way, so they only gently lament this, instead of doing something about it. 0: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    The difference between the Apple and Google lawsuits (from what I can tell), is that Apple didn’t exempt FANG and held them to the same terms as everyone else while Google made private deals with special terms for individual businesses (Spotify was one, IIRC) that were not available to all customers.
  - 3y ago
rideontime 3y ago
My eyes glazed over while scrolling the OP's list of restrictions. I'd probably want to sue rather than try to implement all that too.
- stevage 3y ago
  They weren't all restrictions, some were things you can do.
- scythe 3y ago
  If you don't want to read a lot of boring swill, you definitely don't want to participate in a lawsuit.
judge2020 3y ago
It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Via user lolinder ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 ): > Apple is already pretty clear in its developer agreement [0] that the 30% commission is for "its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire" (Schedule 2 3.4), not for its services as a payment processor. They are contractually allowed to take the 30% fee out of payments collected, but merely using a different payment processor doesn't remove the obligation to pay them for their other "services as Your agent and/or commissionaire". 0: https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/apple-developer-program-license-agreement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/apple-developer-pr... In addition, from the original ruling: > Yvonne-Gonzalez was skeptical of the 30% fee during the trial, and in the ruling she was suspicious about Apple's justification of the commission, writing that "the 30% is not tied to anything in particular and can be changed," but did not order Apple to do so.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- justinclift 3y ago
  > It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Mind you, you can be blocked from doing needed Apple dev stuff (eg sign binaries, etc) until you've manually logged into your Apple account and clicked on the "I accept" button whenever they change terms. This happened to us (sqlitebrowser.org) in recent weeks, as our CI just stopped working one day. It turns out there was a new developer agreement that needed signing, and until I'd logged in and done that then Apples servers would no longer sign binaries. There's literally no choice but to sign the things - regardless of terms - if you want your users to have software that runs.
  - foooorsyth 3y ago
    >There's literally no choice but to sign the things - regardless of terms - if you want your users to have software that runs. This gets to be a real nightmare in large organizations with multiple Apple Dev Portal admins, some of which may not even be authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the company.
SllX 3y ago
I’m not sure Epic actually has standing anymore. They did back when they were part of the developer program. If they can make their case that it is bad faith compliance as part of their original case before the Court goes “c’ya, we’re done here”, they might have something, but Apple revoked Epic’s membership for violating their terms in the developer program worldwide and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, Apple has not been ordered to reinstate it. So Epic can’t really argue that they have or will have suffered a harm under these new terms since they’re still in a position where Apple isn’t doing business with them and their lawsuit under which they did have standing is basically at its conclusion.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  I agree. As much as I disagree with the ruling the courts made, they definitely decided Apple was allowed to ban Epic for their store permanently, and so Apple's fees no longer are Epic's problem, legally speaking. Someone else would have to be willing to invest the funding on the legal battle, with pockets as deep as Tim's and the same willingness to go up against a Goliath... one that already won against Epic, and won't be bought out a special deal. Tim Sweeney was uniquely concerned with getting fair treatment for everyone here and that is shockingly rare in billionaire CEOs.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argument is basically that Epic doesn't have standing because Apple won't let them be in a position where they could have standing, yet they generally offer that position (dev program membership) to the public at large, that seems like some sort of Catch-22-ish nightmare. Again, little surprises me in the legal system these days, but I have to think courts would be very skeptical of an argument where a potential defendant controls the gates that decide whether a potential plaintiff has standing.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Why can’t developers bring a class action lawsuit or someone else just open a case? They did so in Cameron vs Apple and Google … and settled I believe !
w10-1 3y ago
A "bad faith" claim essentially admits Apple is in fact in compliance. It's the weakest objection you can have, and typically would only be sufficient to get relief in very, very specific circumstances where the unfairness could be proven (as intended). But this case involves broad policies for millions of developers, and it's perfectly compliant with permitting other payment processors. So: there's almost no chance it would be "shot down" on those grounds.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  How are they possibly in compliance? The judgement was about Apple's "steering practices", not just allowing 3rd party payment processing. They're clearly making Apple's in-app purchases the preferential choice by prohibiting developers from using anything but a single plain text link, and scaring users with strongly worded warnings.
  - tiltowait 3y ago
    How are they not? IIUC, the ruling said Apple has to allow devs to link to an alternative payment processor (i.e. Netflix can now link to netflix.com instead of the absurd rigmarole they had to endure before). Apple now allows devs to do this, with certain requirements (namely, a 27% commission). Since the court said Apple is allowed to collect a commission, those requirements don't seem to be (to this non-lawyer) illegal. Are the strongly worded warnings untrue? Absolutely no one should be surprised by the new policy. Every podcast I listened that discussed the matter when the judge handed down the initial verdict predicted this outcome.
lolinder 3y ago
What exactly is bad faith about this compliance? The original ruling specifically called out that Apple would still be entitled to a commission even if people used alternative payment processors. The main thing that feels icky to me is the hurdles to getting approved to link to alternative payment methods, but even if those are walked back that doesn't solve the main issue, which is that alternative payment providers were never a sensible solution to Apple's tax. Apple has always argued that the commission is for the App Store, not for payment processing, and it is only collected through their payment processor as a matter of convenience. The policy announced here is essentially the same that they announced two years ago in the Netherlands in response to a similar ruling [0]. I'm surprised that anyone here is surprised that they're doing the same thing in the US. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2990 3y ago
[flagged]
jonhohle 3y ago
Yeah, as much as I defend Apple against the “they have a monopoly on the iPhone” crowd, this seems worse than the original restrictions. People have been buying stuff online for decades. There’s no new security issue at play here. Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance. Is every store required to integrate with their payments API? If they’re taking payments from the platform and it does turn out to be a scam, now their hands are dirty as well.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > ... this seems worse than the original restrictions. This is worse from the original restrictions _specifically_ because the original restrictions were chosen to simplify from this sort of scenario. If Apple says all app purchases and purchases of digital goods/services within the app are subject to the 15/30%, and those payments are always made through Apple, then Apple can check for non-compliance with the contract terms up-front (via App Store review) and then there are no separate books to audit, there is no commingling of revenue from in-app purchases vs independent web purchases or purchases made on other platforms, and so on. No need to audit the company's books, because they are using Apple's books. It is hard to take Apple to task for charging too much, because the 30% ceiling and who pays it has effectively been the same since day 1 of the App Store. They have only created special cases to reduce that percentage (small business program, multi-year subscriptions). Regulators can say that you can't block other companies from the "iPhone in-app payment for digital goods" market without being anti-competitive, but it is much more onerous to force a company to continue to provide a set of services (maintaining developer tools and SDKs, reviewing and signing binaries, providing backward compatibility in new OS versions) but for a fee schedule determined by regulators. > Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. Why not? There's a decades-running assumption by some that Apple was a ridiculously expensive payment processor, only existing because they gave you no other choice than to use them for certain things (and outright forbade you from using them for others). But Apple provides other services and access to developers per a financial agreement, and was doing payment processing to meter the revenue split. The regulator argument is that Apple is blocking other companies from taking in-app revenue for digital services. Apple has now split that out in a few markets for companies willing to take on such complexity. IMHO the only apps I think actually have benefited from the split are dating apps in the Netherlands - because quite frankly the way many dating services charge people is user hostile and/or discriminatory.

by radley 3y ago

qarl 3y ago

I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down. The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly for payment provider. I understand that many people misunderstand this point, but that does not change it.

bluefirebrand 3y ago
The Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.
- qarl 3y ago
  I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this. This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS. So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple Tax for those purchases. In this case the "store" is not an app store but an in-game store, sure. Have I got that right so far?
    - qarl 3y ago
      > This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax That may be, but that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled in favor of Epic on only one count of ten - specifically that Apple must allow other payment processors. As long as the app was originally installed via the Apple App Store, it's still subject to the Apple Tax.

turquoisevar 3y ago

Depends. If we’re talking about the details of the implementation, maybe. If it’s about the commission that still needs to be paid, then no. That’s directly mentioned in the original ruling by the district court, a commission is due regardless.

radley 3y ago
I think the real problem is unlimited access to accounting books for any business that has an iOS app. This will affect free apps too, since they now have the potential to offer purchases outside the app store. (Obviously, strategic partners and FAANG are exempt.)
- slaymaker1907 3y ago
  I don’t think so. This entitlement is something devs have to explicitly opt in for.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  In theory, perhaps, in practice Apple will only audit the developers that use the special entitlement. Ironically, this is something that is bothering the appellate court as well if you read between the lines of their judgment[0]. They gently criticize the district court for both saying that developers should be able to link and sell outside the app while simultaneously saying that it’s undesirable for Apple to audit developers because it’s too cumbersome. But the appellate court isn’t meant for do overs, just for when courts have erred in a significant way, so they only gently lament this, instead of doing something about it. 0: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
- jonhohle 3y ago
  The difference between the Apple and Google lawsuits (from what I can tell), is that Apple didn’t exempt FANG and held them to the same terms as everyone else while Google made private deals with special terms for individual businesses (Spotify was one, IIRC) that were not available to all customers.
- 3y ago

rideontime 3y ago

My eyes glazed over while scrolling the OP's list of restrictions. I'd probably want to sue rather than try to implement all that too.

stevage 3y ago
They weren't all restrictions, some were things you can do.
scythe 3y ago
If you don't want to read a lot of boring swill, you definitely don't want to participate in a lawsuit.

judge2020 3y ago

It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Via user lolinder ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 ): > Apple is already pretty clear in its developer agreement [0] that the 30% commission is for "its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire" (Schedule 2 3.4), not for its services as a payment processor. They are contractually allowed to take the 30% fee out of payments collected, but merely using a different payment processor doesn't remove the obligation to pay them for their other "services as Your agent and/or commissionaire". 0: https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/apple-developer-program-license-agreement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/apple-developer-pr... In addition, from the original ruling: > Yvonne-Gonzalez was skeptical of the 30% fee during the trial, and in the ruling she was suspicious about Apple's justification of the commission, writing that "the 30% is not tied to anything in particular and can be changed," but did not order Apple to do so.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
justinclift 3y ago
> It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Mind you, you can be blocked from doing needed Apple dev stuff (eg sign binaries, etc) until you've manually logged into your Apple account and clicked on the "I accept" button whenever they change terms. This happened to us (sqlitebrowser.org) in recent weeks, as our CI just stopped working one day. It turns out there was a new developer agreement that needed signing, and until I'd logged in and done that then Apples servers would no longer sign binaries. There's literally no choice but to sign the things - regardless of terms - if you want your users to have software that runs.
- foooorsyth 3y ago
  >There's literally no choice but to sign the things - regardless of terms - if you want your users to have software that runs. This gets to be a real nightmare in large organizations with multiple Apple Dev Portal admins, some of which may not even be authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the company.

SllX 3y ago

I’m not sure Epic actually has standing anymore. They did back when they were part of the developer program. If they can make their case that it is bad faith compliance as part of their original case before the Court goes “c’ya, we’re done here”, they might have something, but Apple revoked Epic’s membership for violating their terms in the developer program worldwide and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, Apple has not been ordered to reinstate it. So Epic can’t really argue that they have or will have suffered a harm under these new terms since they’re still in a position where Apple isn’t doing business with them and their lawsuit under which they did have standing is basically at its conclusion.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
I agree. As much as I disagree with the ruling the courts made, they definitely decided Apple was allowed to ban Epic for their store permanently, and so Apple's fees no longer are Epic's problem, legally speaking. Someone else would have to be willing to invest the funding on the legal battle, with pockets as deep as Tim's and the same willingness to go up against a Goliath... one that already won against Epic, and won't be bought out a special deal. Tim Sweeney was uniquely concerned with getting fair treatment for everyone here and that is shockingly rare in billionaire CEOs.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argument is basically that Epic doesn't have standing because Apple won't let them be in a position where they could have standing, yet they generally offer that position (dev program membership) to the public at large, that seems like some sort of Catch-22-ish nightmare. Again, little surprises me in the legal system these days, but I have to think courts would be very skeptical of an argument where a potential defendant controls the gates that decide whether a potential plaintiff has standing.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Why can’t developers bring a class action lawsuit or someone else just open a case? They did so in Cameron vs Apple and Google … and settled I believe !

w10-1 3y ago

A "bad faith" claim essentially admits Apple is in fact in compliance. It's the weakest objection you can have, and typically would only be sufficient to get relief in very, very specific circumstances where the unfairness could be proven (as intended). But this case involves broad policies for millions of developers, and it's perfectly compliant with permitting other payment processors. So: there's almost no chance it would be "shot down" on those grounds.

dns_snek 3y ago
How are they possibly in compliance? The judgement was about Apple's "steering practices", not just allowing 3rd party payment processing. They're clearly making Apple's in-app purchases the preferential choice by prohibiting developers from using anything but a single plain text link, and scaring users with strongly worded warnings.
- tiltowait 3y ago
  How are they not? IIUC, the ruling said Apple has to allow devs to link to an alternative payment processor (i.e. Netflix can now link to netflix.com instead of the absurd rigmarole they had to endure before). Apple now allows devs to do this, with certain requirements (namely, a 27% commission). Since the court said Apple is allowed to collect a commission, those requirements don't seem to be (to this non-lawyer) illegal. Are the strongly worded warnings untrue? Absolutely no one should be surprised by the new policy. Every podcast I listened that discussed the matter when the judge handed down the initial verdict predicted this outcome.

lolinder 3y ago

What exactly is bad faith about this compliance? The original ruling specifically called out that Apple would still be entitled to a commission even if people used alternative payment processors. The main thing that feels icky to me is the hurdles to getting approved to link to alternative payment methods, but even if those are walked back that doesn't solve the main issue, which is that alternative payment providers were never a sensible solution to Apple's tax. Apple has always argued that the commission is for the App Store, not for payment processing, and it is only collected through their payment processor as a matter of convenience. The policy announced here is essentially the same that they announced two years ago in the Netherlands in response to a similar ruling [0]. I'm surprised that anyone here is surprised that they're doing the same thing in the US. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwaway2990 3y ago

[flagged]

jonhohle 3y ago

Yeah, as much as I defend Apple against the “they have a monopoly on the iPhone” crowd, this seems worse than the original restrictions. People have been buying stuff online for decades. There’s no new security issue at play here. Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance. Is every store required to integrate with their payments API? If they’re taking payments from the platform and it does turn out to be a scam, now their hands are dirty as well.

dwaite 3y ago
> ... this seems worse than the original restrictions. This is worse from the original restrictions _specifically_ because the original restrictions were chosen to simplify from this sort of scenario. If Apple says all app purchases and purchases of digital goods/services within the app are subject to the 15/30%, and those payments are always made through Apple, then Apple can check for non-compliance with the contract terms up-front (via App Store review) and then there are no separate books to audit, there is no commingling of revenue from in-app purchases vs independent web purchases or purchases made on other platforms, and so on. No need to audit the company's books, because they are using Apple's books. It is hard to take Apple to task for charging too much, because the 30% ceiling and who pays it has effectively been the same since day 1 of the App Store. They have only created special cases to reduce that percentage (small business program, multi-year subscriptions). Regulators can say that you can't block other companies from the "iPhone in-app payment for digital goods" market without being anti-competitive, but it is much more onerous to force a company to continue to provide a set of services (maintaining developer tools and SDKs, reviewing and signing binaries, providing backward compatibility in new OS versions) but for a fee schedule determined by regulators. > Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. Why not? There's a decades-running assumption by some that Apple was a ridiculously expensive payment processor, only existing because they gave you no other choice than to use them for certain things (and outright forbade you from using them for others). But Apple provides other services and access to developers per a financial agreement, and was doing payment processing to meter the revenue split. The regulator argument is that Apple is blocking other companies from taking in-app revenue for digital services. Apple has now split that out in a few markets for companies willing to take on such complexity. IMHO the only apps I think actually have benefited from the split are dating apps in the Netherlands - because quite frankly the way many dating services charge people is user hostile and/or discriminatory.