9 ms·

Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/t

Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment structure for in-app purchases? (what was the change?) Or no change, but pointing out how awful the status quo is? Other?

somenameforme 3y ago
As it seems many are not clear, here is a quick and abbreviated background: The case is primarily about Epic's Fortnite game. Fortnite is free to play, but makes billions of dollars based on in-game microtransactions for things like in-game cosmetics. Apple charges developers 30% on each of these transactions. Epic didn't like this and so started offering users a way to pay on their own site instead of going through Apple, with a large discount. Apple responded by kicking Fortnite off their app store, and so Epic sued them for anticompetitive behavior. The gist of the trial and appeals (to date) is that the judge ruled that Apple must allow developers to advertise non-apple means of payment. So Apple responded to this by allowing developers to include exactly one reference (in the entire program), in plain text (non-hyperlink), to an an outside payment site, and has changed their terms to require that developers must now also pay them 27% off all revenue from these outside transactions as well. Epic is now claiming that this was a bad-faith compliance of the court's ruling, and this will 100% end up in court again. And that's where we are for now.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  Thank you! That was a clear easy explanation.
PaulHoule 3y ago
[flagged]
lattalayta 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
annoyingnoob 3y ago
[flagged]
- dvt 3y ago
  > This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you. This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clearly anti-competitive and, more importantly, anti-developer. As a developer, you have to bump your prices because of the Apple tax. (And even as a consumer, prices are pushed up. Let's say you want to sell X for $10; too bad: you now have to sell it for $12 if you sell it in your Apple app to make up the difference. The consumer obviously eats that premium.)
  - annoyingnoob 3y ago
    As a developer, if Apple's fees went away, would you drop your price or just make more profit? Prices may have been pushed up but there is little incentive for them to ever come down.
    - djfdat 3y ago
      There would be more room to drop your prices, not saying that people necessarily will. And if they don't, the extra profit goes to developers of the app you are purchasing, rather than the (second?) largest company in the world.
    - atdrummond 3y ago
      That leaves an opening for someone to exploit with a market clearing price.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      As I recall, there are examples of things you can purchase both on and off the App Store, and the prices are indeed different. Though that may have more to do with the off-store purchase going directly to the seller and not another app store equivalent.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
threeseed 3y ago
https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... And there is more to this issue than people realise. Apple has had major lawsuits over the years [1] due to kids racking up large credit card bills via in-app purchases. And similar concerns exist for gambling apps. So this explains why they need to show such a large warning because they don't want to be held responsible for actions of a third party. Which is fine because most companies do this. It will also likely be their argument (whether it's true or not) about why they won't allow developers like Epic to offer a third party, one-click, in-app purchasing system and instead force users to go to the home page and take deliberate actions to buy the product. [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app-store-in-app-purchase-lawsuit-with-us-government https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app...
- extheat 3y ago
  This sounds even worse for Apple. If it’s too easy to make an in-app purchase, why don’t they make it harder to complete one by adding password requirement for payments through their App Store? Of course they won’t do that because it hurts /their/ bottom line. Following this logic, letting people complete payments outside of Apples control should absolve Apple of the legal liabilities between payments made between the user and a third party. If this is not the case, can you sue Apple for unauthorized payments made over Safari?
  - NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
    I think they did this. I'm pretty sure you can activate a password-entry requirement for in-app purchases, if it's not enabled by default.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    a) They always require your password for in-app purchases unless you disable it. b) People have been conditioned over 15 years to treat all app purchases as being managed by Apple. So they expect refunds, disputes etc to be done in the App Store. This is changing. And so it's completely reasonable to clearly inform users about this. Because we have a long history of IAP being a major addiction vector.
mkl 3y ago
Huge thread a day ago: "US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
skygazer 3y ago
No. They’re allowing alternate payment processing with a link from an an iOS app to a webpage, and reducing their commission to either 12 or 27% representing a 3% discount for not doing the payment processing themselves. They’re basically following the ruling based on some California law being applied nationally that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. The judge said Apple would have to allow links out to alternate payment and would be required to collect their commission, which she suggested might be a bit high, but didn’t order any changes because everyone else also charges 30%, too. They are basically trying to act as an affiliate or partner with commission, which is pretty much the way it was before, but accounting gets more complicated now. (The judge was okay with Apple continuing to collect commission on sales.) Apple is still requiring they also make Apple in-app purchases available for the same digital goods. And also being pretty restrictive on how to link out. I have no idea if that is in the spirit of the ruling, but I think so, because the law that was cited had to do with allowing links to app publisher’s site for alternate payment, and that Apple couldn’t deny apps including such links.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  I wonder how Apple thinks they're going to measure the transactions that take place. Simply clicking on the link and visiting the third-party-payment site doesn't prove anything, because the user could bail out before paying.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Because iOS apps talk to the Notarisation Service on launch. So they know total app installs as well as the installs purchased from the App Store.
    - sunnybeetroot 3y ago
      App installs does not equal transactions.
    - bongobingo1 3y ago
      But how does it know I bought 13 tokens for $20, or 100 tokens for $149 (best value!)? If the account balance is on the application server side.
Despegar 3y ago
Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission. Developers for many years believed that by having their own "payment processing" they could pay nothing to Apple. However the district court ruled that Apple is entitled to collect a commission because it wasn't just for "payment processing," it was for its intellectual property. They are just doing it in a convoluted and less efficient way as a result of the one claim Epic won in Epic v. Apple.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission Tim Sweeney should also be mad about having to pay a quarter of a billion dollar fine “for tricking users into making unwanted charges” [1]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...
etchalon 3y ago
1. If you want to include a link to an website for payment of digital goods, you have to request an entitlement from Apple. 2. As part of that entitlement, you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked. 3. You agree to send Apple monthly sales reports. 4. You agreed to give Apple a right to audit your books at anytime. That's the meat of it. It's a self-reported cost-per-conversion, which isn't exactly unheard of. Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. That's the heart of the disagreement. Apple believes they have a right to charge developers a fee for access to the users who shop through the App Store. There are developers who believe that the App Store should exist as a free-thing Apple provides to developers, to encourage them to write software for the iPhone. They're willing to accept a nominal processing fee, but anything more is "anti-competitive".
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  "you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked." So if the publisher says, "Click here for a renewal reminder and a 10% discount" and then sends a renewal E-mail on the 8th day, they're in the clear.
  - etchalon 3y ago
    RAW, yes.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  > Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical integration is illegal.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

somenameforme 3y ago

As it seems many are not clear, here is a quick and abbreviated background: The case is primarily about Epic's Fortnite game. Fortnite is free to play, but makes billions of dollars based on in-game microtransactions for things like in-game cosmetics. Apple charges developers 30% on each of these transactions. Epic didn't like this and so started offering users a way to pay on their own site instead of going through Apple, with a large discount. Apple responded by kicking Fortnite off their app store, and so Epic sued them for anticompetitive behavior. The gist of the trial and appeals (to date) is that the judge ruled that Apple must allow developers to advertise non-apple means of payment. So Apple responded to this by allowing developers to include exactly one reference (in the entire program), in plain text (non-hyperlink), to an an outside payment site, and has changed their terms to require that developers must now also pay them 27% off all revenue from these outside transactions as well. Epic is now claiming that this was a bad-faith compliance of the court's ruling, and this will 100% end up in court again. And that's where we are for now.

jrochkind1 3y ago
Thank you! That was a clear easy explanation.

PaulHoule 3y ago

[flagged]

lattalayta 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365

annoyingnoob 3y ago

[flagged]

dvt 3y ago
> This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you. This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clearly anti-competitive and, more importantly, anti-developer. As a developer, you have to bump your prices because of the Apple tax. (And even as a consumer, prices are pushed up. Let's say you want to sell X for $10; too bad: you now have to sell it for $12 if you sell it in your Apple app to make up the difference. The consumer obviously eats that premium.)
- annoyingnoob 3y ago
  As a developer, if Apple's fees went away, would you drop your price or just make more profit? Prices may have been pushed up but there is little incentive for them to ever come down.
  - djfdat 3y ago
    There would be more room to drop your prices, not saying that people necessarily will. And if they don't, the extra profit goes to developers of the app you are purchasing, rather than the (second?) largest company in the world.
  - atdrummond 3y ago
    That leaves an opening for someone to exploit with a market clearing price.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    As I recall, there are examples of things you can purchase both on and off the App Store, and the prices are indeed different. Though that may have more to do with the off-store purchase going directly to the seller and not another app store equivalent.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago

threeseed 3y ago

https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... And there is more to this issue than people realise. Apple has had major lawsuits over the years [1] due to kids racking up large credit card bills via in-app purchases. And similar concerns exist for gambling apps. So this explains why they need to show such a large warning because they don't want to be held responsible for actions of a third party. Which is fine because most companies do this. It will also likely be their argument (whether it's true or not) about why they won't allow developers like Epic to offer a third party, one-click, in-app purchasing system and instead force users to go to the home page and take deliberate actions to buy the product. [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app-store-in-app-purchase-lawsuit-with-us-government https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app...

extheat 3y ago
This sounds even worse for Apple. If it’s too easy to make an in-app purchase, why don’t they make it harder to complete one by adding password requirement for payments through their App Store? Of course they won’t do that because it hurts /their/ bottom line. Following this logic, letting people complete payments outside of Apples control should absolve Apple of the legal liabilities between payments made between the user and a third party. If this is not the case, can you sue Apple for unauthorized payments made over Safari?
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  I think they did this. I'm pretty sure you can activate a password-entry requirement for in-app purchases, if it's not enabled by default.
- threeseed 3y ago
  a) They always require your password for in-app purchases unless you disable it. b) People have been conditioned over 15 years to treat all app purchases as being managed by Apple. So they expect refunds, disputes etc to be done in the App Store. This is changing. And so it's completely reasonable to clearly inform users about this. Because we have a long history of IAP being a major addiction vector.

mkl 3y ago

Huge thread a day ago: "US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365

skygazer 3y ago

No. They’re allowing alternate payment processing with a link from an an iOS app to a webpage, and reducing their commission to either 12 or 27% representing a 3% discount for not doing the payment processing themselves. They’re basically following the ruling based on some California law being applied nationally that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. The judge said Apple would have to allow links out to alternate payment and would be required to collect their commission, which she suggested might be a bit high, but didn’t order any changes because everyone else also charges 30%, too. They are basically trying to act as an affiliate or partner with commission, which is pretty much the way it was before, but accounting gets more complicated now. (The judge was okay with Apple continuing to collect commission on sales.) Apple is still requiring they also make Apple in-app purchases available for the same digital goods. And also being pretty restrictive on how to link out. I have no idea if that is in the spirit of the ruling, but I think so, because the law that was cited had to do with allowing links to app publisher’s site for alternate payment, and that Apple couldn’t deny apps including such links.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
I wonder how Apple thinks they're going to measure the transactions that take place. Simply clicking on the link and visiting the third-party-payment site doesn't prove anything, because the user could bail out before paying.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Because iOS apps talk to the Notarisation Service on launch. So they know total app installs as well as the installs purchased from the App Store.
  - sunnybeetroot 3y ago
    App installs does not equal transactions.
  - bongobingo1 3y ago
    But how does it know I bought 13 tokens for $20, or 100 tokens for $149 (best value!)? If the account balance is on the application server side.

Despegar 3y ago

Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission. Developers for many years believed that by having their own "payment processing" they could pay nothing to Apple. However the district court ruled that Apple is entitled to collect a commission because it wasn't just for "payment processing," it was for its intellectual property. They are just doing it in a convoluted and less efficient way as a result of the one claim Epic won in Epic v. Apple.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission Tim Sweeney should also be mad about having to pay a quarter of a billion dollar fine “for tricking users into making unwanted charges” [1]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...

etchalon 3y ago

1. If you want to include a link to an website for payment of digital goods, you have to request an entitlement from Apple. 2. As part of that entitlement, you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked. 3. You agree to send Apple monthly sales reports. 4. You agreed to give Apple a right to audit your books at anytime. That's the meat of it. It's a self-reported cost-per-conversion, which isn't exactly unheard of. Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. That's the heart of the disagreement. Apple believes they have a right to charge developers a fee for access to the users who shop through the App Store. There are developers who believe that the App Store should exist as a free-thing Apple provides to developers, to encourage them to write software for the iPhone. They're willing to accept a nominal processing fee, but anything more is "anti-competitive".

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
"you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked." So if the publisher says, "Click here for a renewal reminder and a 10% discount" and then sends a renewal E-mail on the 8th day, they're in the clear.
- etchalon 3y ago
  RAW, yes.
arrosenberg 3y ago
> Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical integration is illegal.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]