5 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    It's a massive pain when working with non-technical entities. Both professionally and in my side-business I have to do this and it's a horrible experience. I'll pay the damn $99/yr, just let me admin everything for the client. Tracking down the owner and getting them to login and click a button is harder than it sounds and it brings updates (even internal on TF) to a screeching halt.
  - pottertheotter 3y ago
    It’s a pain even in small orgs. There are some things only the account owner can do. You can make someone else an admin with every possible authorization, and if the person who set up the account is tied up or out of office, a whole dev team and testing can be stopped.
- that_guy_iain 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. I suspect the EU will at some point, they have haven't already, make terms that must be accepted to continue void.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    EU already forbids consumer contracts from e.g. having the business force a change of terms (though ending the contract on disagreement might count as good enough behavior). https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
    - that_guy_iain 3y ago
      I suspect if the EU courts consider denying access to a website if they refuse GDPR permissions illegal they'll probably consider ending a contract based on not accepting new terms as forced.
  - KingLancelot 3y ago
    [dead]
threeseed 3y ago
Will be interesting to see Epic file a lawsuit questioning the legality of per-sale licensing models for SDKs. You know given they charge exactly the same way for Unreal Engine.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Doesn't sound interesting at all, as the two matters are unrelated. Apple isn't charging for use of the iOS platform SDKs; the developer agreement is much more vague and weasely about what they're charging for, being the developer's "agent and/or commisionaire". Per-sale licensing for a copyrighted (or patented) work is pretty normal and done in many industries. Apple's agreement doesn't specify any fees for licensing at all.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Moreover, if they would actually admit what they were nominally charging for then someone could create a third party implementation of whatever that is, people would want to be able to use that instead of paying the fee, and what is their excuse supposed to be then?
- zamadatix 3y ago
  The case has been about whether preventing others from competing on pricing is anticompetitive not whether having pricing should be illegal in itself. Whether that's about the App Store or the SDK it would be extremely odd to suddenly expect Epic to instead try to argue it's the payment model that's the problem not the anti-competitiveness of only allowing 1 option.
judge2020 3y ago
To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much". My only guess is filing against Apple and Google jointly for being a duopoly, but Epic has made it extremely hard to do something like this because of their existing jury trial against Google which gives a lot of concessions to third-party app stores in terms of functionality.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  "You're charging too much" seems unlikely to be the actual argument presented though. Something along the lines of the scare message, still not actually allowing it to be handled via in app flow like a first party payment, and intentionally making a 3rd party choice potentially impossible to compete vs a 1st party choice by arguably hiding part of the processing fee margin in the overall fee would be the kinds of arguments I'd expect. I.e. Epic's goal here isn't about whether Apple charges 99% or 1% rather it's about allowing other payment methods (theirs in their case of course) to compete with equal footing regardless what Apple wants to charge to do it through them instead.
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    I think the percentage charged is very relevant though. And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3) And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).
    - eastbound 3y ago
      Honestly Apple does not act as an agent for companies that are known outside of the Appstore. Netflix has an app, Netflix “is not” an app. Google Chrome, Airbnb, Epic, anyone who has spent marketing bucks promoting their service and providing a supporting app, was rather acting as a marketing agent for Apple than the opposite. Apple’s new stance has no merit. We all understand it’s fair to participate in the funding of the Appstore, but it is a very bad defense.
    - 3y ago
newZWhoDis 3y ago
>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. We really do live in clown world
- lolinder 3y ago
  She basically signaled that she wished she could do something about it but that Epic didn't challenge the 30%, they challenged the existence of a commission at all. Epic overreached and she can't just make up a judgement about things that haven't actually been brought before her.
volleygman180 3y ago
Apple's justification seems counterintuitive, given that the commission only applies to app sales or in-app purchases. Since free apps don't pay anything, what is the commission for if not for "services as a payment provider"?
- lolinder 3y ago
  It's very normal for companies to charge some customers more than others based on their ability and/or willingness to pay. See: student, senior, and military discounts, SaaS with organization pricing vs individual pricing, etc.
  - folmar 3y ago
    I don't know for the US but in many countries that's just illegal if you have a monopoly.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      The judge in this ruling found that Apple does not have a monopoly, so it wouldn't matter either way.
bsimpson 3y ago
Holy crap! > Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions. > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. So tl;dr: of that page is that Apple is saying "if you wanna link to your website, it can't be prominent (only a single text link with our language in our chosen placement) and we still get our commission."
- lolinder 3y ago
  Yes. Which the judge explicitly said they'd be entitled to do: > As discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

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.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  It's a massive pain when working with non-technical entities. Both professionally and in my side-business I have to do this and it's a horrible experience. I'll pay the damn $99/yr, just let me admin everything for the client. Tracking down the owner and getting them to login and click a button is harder than it sounds and it brings updates (even internal on TF) to a screeching halt.
- pottertheotter 3y ago
  It’s a pain even in small orgs. There are some things only the account owner can do. You can make someone else an admin with every possible authorization, and if the person who set up the account is tied up or out of office, a whole dev team and testing can be stopped.
that_guy_iain 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. I suspect the EU will at some point, they have haven't already, make terms that must be accepted to continue void.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  EU already forbids consumer contracts from e.g. having the business force a change of terms (though ending the contract on disagreement might count as good enough behavior). https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    I suspect if the EU courts consider denying access to a website if they refuse GDPR permissions illegal they'll probably consider ending a contract based on not accepting new terms as forced.
- KingLancelot 3y ago
  [dead]

threeseed 3y ago

Will be interesting to see Epic file a lawsuit questioning the legality of per-sale licensing models for SDKs. You know given they charge exactly the same way for Unreal Engine.

kelnos 3y ago
Doesn't sound interesting at all, as the two matters are unrelated. Apple isn't charging for use of the iOS platform SDKs; the developer agreement is much more vague and weasely about what they're charging for, being the developer's "agent and/or commisionaire". Per-sale licensing for a copyrighted (or patented) work is pretty normal and done in many industries. Apple's agreement doesn't specify any fees for licensing at all.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Moreover, if they would actually admit what they were nominally charging for then someone could create a third party implementation of whatever that is, people would want to be able to use that instead of paying the fee, and what is their excuse supposed to be then?
zamadatix 3y ago
The case has been about whether preventing others from competing on pricing is anticompetitive not whether having pricing should be illegal in itself. Whether that's about the App Store or the SDK it would be extremely odd to suddenly expect Epic to instead try to argue it's the payment model that's the problem not the anti-competitiveness of only allowing 1 option.

judge2020 3y ago

To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much". My only guess is filing against Apple and Google jointly for being a duopoly, but Epic has made it extremely hard to do something like this because of their existing jury trial against Google which gives a lot of concessions to third-party app stores in terms of functionality.

zamadatix 3y ago
"You're charging too much" seems unlikely to be the actual argument presented though. Something along the lines of the scare message, still not actually allowing it to be handled via in app flow like a first party payment, and intentionally making a 3rd party choice potentially impossible to compete vs a 1st party choice by arguably hiding part of the processing fee margin in the overall fee would be the kinds of arguments I'd expect. I.e. Epic's goal here isn't about whether Apple charges 99% or 1% rather it's about allowing other payment methods (theirs in their case of course) to compete with equal footing regardless what Apple wants to charge to do it through them instead.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  I think the percentage charged is very relevant though. And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3) And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Honestly Apple does not act as an agent for companies that are known outside of the Appstore. Netflix has an app, Netflix “is not” an app. Google Chrome, Airbnb, Epic, anyone who has spent marketing bucks promoting their service and providing a supporting app, was rather acting as a marketing agent for Apple than the opposite. Apple’s new stance has no merit. We all understand it’s fair to participate in the funding of the Appstore, but it is a very bad defense.
  - 3y ago

newZWhoDis 3y ago

>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. We really do live in clown world

lolinder 3y ago
She basically signaled that she wished she could do something about it but that Epic didn't challenge the 30%, they challenged the existence of a commission at all. Epic overreached and she can't just make up a judgement about things that haven't actually been brought before her.

volleygman180 3y ago

Apple's justification seems counterintuitive, given that the commission only applies to app sales or in-app purchases. Since free apps don't pay anything, what is the commission for if not for "services as a payment provider"?

lolinder 3y ago
It's very normal for companies to charge some customers more than others based on their ability and/or willingness to pay. See: student, senior, and military discounts, SaaS with organization pricing vs individual pricing, etc.
- folmar 3y ago
  I don't know for the US but in many countries that's just illegal if you have a monopoly.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    The judge in this ruling found that Apple does not have a monopoly, so it wouldn't matter either way.

bsimpson 3y ago

Holy crap! > Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions. > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. So tl;dr: of that page is that Apple is saying "if you wanna link to your website, it can't be prominent (only a single text link with our language in our chosen placement) and we still get our commission."

lolinder 3y ago
Yes. Which the judge explicitly said they'd be entitled to do: > As discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2