10 ms·

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going

• enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? If Apple were serious about it then why aren't they charging free apps for downloads and approvals? Why doesn't the developer policy require Netflix to pay 30% of subscriptions for anyone who signs in on an Apple device? Why are the prices lower for "reader" apps who presumably cause Apple to incur similar costs? Its like a toll road arguing "no, driving on the road is free of course, we just charge at the entrance and exit for the privilege of looking at the toll road". What does it take for the legal system to be able to call BS on a claim like that?
  • lolinder 3y ago
    I agree that it's an oddly-applied pricing system, but it's not unique. Apple's differential pricing functions similarly to student and senior discounts—it's an acknowledgment that some customers are harder to get than others and it's worth it to the company to meet those customers where they are. Some apps don't make any money at all, and Apple wants to let those exist and so they get a free pass. For others, Apple is only providing a tiny portion of the value of the app, most of it comes from the content that the app licenses from other companies. Apple recognizes that they can't take 30% from those apps without them giving up on an app entirely, so they get a discount in order for them to stay on the platform. Is it fair? Probably not. But I see no reason to believe it's illegal.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >Is it fair? Probably not. But I see no reason to believe it's illegal. If they take it too far, that's how you get into antitrust territory. That's why Epic's court case against Google ruled in Epic's favor, as it was giving paying off devs to not make their own app stores and blocked OEMs from making deals with other studios. So I'd say this puts apple on thin ground. I'm sure this won't be the last high profile lawsuit over the app store this decade.
      • lolinder 3y ago
        This (a policy of charging some devs more/less than others) isn't Apple bribing devs to not compete with them, and it isn't a series of shady backroom deals. It's a relatively straightforward and transparent price discrimination scheme, and I have a hard time imagining why this would put Apple at risk of an unfavorable antitrust ruling if the complete lack of any alternate app stores didn't. Where I imagine Apple could get into trouble is if they systematically turned a blind eye to commission-dodging by specific entities as part of a trade to ensure their market dominance. Unlike Google, though, I'm not even sure which entities Apple could bribe that would risk looking like a trust.
        • johnnyanmac 3y ago
• scarface_74 3y ago
  If all the developers I assume you care about left the App Store, Apple wouldn’t care. The apps that make the majority of the money on the App Store are slimy pay to win games where “whales” buy coins and loot boxes. The other popular apps are front end for services where Apple doesn’t collect a dime like Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, etc.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    I'm on Android and get most of my apps through F-Droid. I don't have any stake in this fight at all, I'm just an observer who's been a bit baffled by the conclusions that people have jumped to.
  • callalex 3y ago
    If iPhones didn’t run Instagram and TikTok they would sell very few phones.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      And it's exactly why Netflix gets special treatment and Apple isn't auditing them yearly. They care about money but even more about marketshare
      • scarface_74 3y ago
        Every streaming app has the option to have outside subscriptions or not allow in app purchases at all.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • johnnyanmac 3y ago
          Sure, in the same way every website has the option to make it's own social media website. The website is the "easy" part but not necessarily the most profitable point to pitch to companies like Apple.
• turquoisevar 3y ago
  Yeah, the amazement amongst people here on HN amazes me. The district court was crystal clear about this in their judgment, which at the time caused quite some consternation. The appellate court then affirmed the same and even clarified more clearly that it’s completely fine because it primarily is the mechanic Apple gets payment for the use of their IP and, secondly, their services that encompass more than just payment processing. In fact, if you read the appellate judgment, the annoyance towards the district court is palpable. The annoyance stems from the fact that the district court states in their judgment that alternative ways of collecting the commission aren’t worth considering and expanding on because of how onerous they are (retroactive audit, collection efforts, etc.) while at the same time causing exactly that by striking the anti-steering provision and opening the door to third-party payment providers. The appellate court doesn’t go further than expressing annoyance between the lines because, ultimately, the district court didn’t err substantially enough for the appellate court to step in, which is ultimately the bar that needs to be met. Appellate courts aren’t meant to relitigate cases, after all.
  • MBCook 3y ago
    Now that the Supreme Court has put this issue to rest by refusing to weigh in, will the appellate court now take that until the district court to figure out those kind of details? Or will everything stand as it is at the moment with figuring out specific details that Apple must abide by that haven’t already been listed up to future lawsuits to determine?
    • turquoisevar 3y ago
      The appellate court affirmed the judgment by the district court, albeit while making some comments here and there. So as it stands, the appellate court’s decision is the law of the land. Technically, from a legal perspective, there is a small chance this changes if a case makes it way to an appellate court in a different circuit and they’re in the mood to come to a different conclusion, at which time SCOTUS might be inclined to take up that case to resolve the contradictory outcomes, but those are pretty slim for a couple of reasons. One, it’s not likely a new case would play out outside of California, by virtue of Apple being located there. Two, a court of appeals of a different circuit would need to be in the mood to completely disregard the 9th circuits conclusion. While technically an option, most appellate courts don’t want to contradict their sister circuit, but there are some “activist” courts out there. Three, the outcome needs to be sufficiently different for it to cause a significant contradiction. And lastly, the fact pattern of the new case would need to be extremely similar to the Epic v Apple case.
• winter_blue 3y ago
  > Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The cost of operating an App Store and providing distribution is relatively negligible. Several Linux distros have app stores, and package management and distribution systems that are as good or superior than Apple’s. The annual fee that Apple charges developers alone should more than cover the cost of App Store. It is not something that costs tens of billions of dollars.
  • voisin 3y ago
    It’s not about cost. It’s about using their IP, which is all of iOS.
  • shiroiuma 3y ago
    It's not about the cost of the App Store, it's about maximizing profits and generating shareholder value. How is Apple supposed to have the most valuable stock in the world without raking independent developers over the coals?
  • roenxi 3y ago
    The cost of a human working all day is negligible; they need a little bit of food. And yet they still expect to be paid - sometimes quite a lot. Just based on your quote and without having much interest in the case... the fee isn't about covering costs. They have an app store, people want to be in the app store, and Apple is going to charge them a fee to be in the app store. Similar logic to drawing a wage.
    • winter_blue 3y ago
      > cost of a human working all day is negligible This is bad analogy. A person who works provides services or labor worth a certain amount of value in exchange. Often that value exceeds the wage. For example, a software engineer $3000 "worth" of work in a day, but only gets paid around $1000 for that day. I understand the worth/value is a difficult thing to measure. In Apple's, they provide almost nothing of value in exchange, other than the threat to kick your app out of the App Store: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-i... So Apple is more like the Mafia. The threaten negative/adverse action, if you don't pay them. Also, historically, software could be installed on computers without the permission of an overlord. I'm aware iOS & game consoles are glaring exceptions.
• awesomeMilou 3y ago
  EDIT: I just realized: > running the App Store, marketing the apps What marketing specifically? Last time I checked, I had to integrate third party ad experiences in order to market my app in their ecosystem. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. > Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles With hindsight of the antitrust case in the EU this argument itself seems like it is in bad faith. Apples argument in the EU against antitrust was that there isn't one but five different app stores, conveniently for each device family. So they are indeed aware that a commercial app developer would likely not be "benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge", because they are likely not taking advantage of their entire catalogue of intellectual property (if there is five different app stores, for five different markets, as per Apples argument, surely there is different IP between those markets to run the app store in an effective manner). In other words, as others have mentioned, Apple charges a 30% flat fee for "intellectual property" that developers may or may not take advantage of, as per their own argument overseas. I don't see how it's not antitrust when a company forces me to pay for services that I am not taking advantage off or ever had the intent of using, or can't use, due to technical limitations. As a developer, to me it rather feels like Apple is trying to artificially bind me to invest into the app store as a platform due to this high fee, for example by developing an accompanying watch applet or a tablet version of my app, because the act of simply offering these on their devices seems to be part of their precious App Store IP. And you can't argue that pricing these add-on apps differently would make a difference for Apple, since they collect the 30% cut across income in their entire ecosystem either way. It also doesn't make sense for Apple to tell me to go elsewhere (Android) to mitigate this, as I can't replicate the UX of their ecosystem on my own even if I tried (prime example would be the peripheral integration imo. You'll find creating a device that integrates as seamlessly as the Apple Watch fairly hard, not because Apple has some special proprietary integration IP secret sauce, but because they artificially lock down ways to interface with peripherals to secure market dominance).
• mvdtnz 3y ago
  > 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, To this day it remains absolutely unbelievable to me that anyone would ever agree to this. I always have and always will tell Apple to shove their app store up their ass. Plenty of other ways to make a living in software.
• brettp 3y ago
  One thing I haven't seen anyone mention which I think is the most obvious reason for commission on outside purchases: if Apple did not charge a commission on purchases made outside the app, it would leave a huge loophole - developers could just list their apps free on the App Store with limited functionality, with a link to an outside purchase to fully activate them.