5 ms·

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

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.
    - sethd 3y ago
      The developer has to agree to allow Apple to audit them.
      - iAMkenough 3y ago
        Sounds expensive for Apple, and like it will be enforced unevenly.
        lolinder 3y ago
        Yes, that's what the judge warned in the ruling. Epic got what they asked for on this point because they were technically correct on the merits, but both the judge and the appeals court were skeptical that demanding it would do anyone any good: > 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
        jahewson 3y ago
        More expensive not to do it.
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    That metric doesn't work accurately even in the simplest case (buying an app), let alone for more nuanced transactions -- in-app purchases, subscription tiers, etc. It's unclear how how Apple-the-middle-man can insert itself to effectively rent seek from customers/developers now.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's not rent seeking.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      Charging both sides of a market _typically_ results in crash of the two sided (platform-hosted) market. With iOS and Android being basically near feature parity, this is to Google's favor.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  They're claiming they have the right to demand accounting.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Mainly two ways. One is by tracking outgoing links via a specific framework that needs to be used, the ruling only provides for Apple having to allow linking out, no restrictions on Apple’s part for requiring a certain way of doing it. The other is the courts explicitly affirming Apple’s right to audit as a part of them stating that the commission will still be owed regardless. The latter is important because it allows Apple to claim a legitimate interest in defense if somehow a case is brought specifically about Apple’s requirements on how to link to a URL outside the app. Think: “Judge you said the commission would still be owed and you stated we can audit, you even lamented on how cumbersome it would be for all parties involved to settle the commission owed to us if third party payment options would be used, us requiring a specific framework to be used to link outside the app alleviates some of that. We have a legitimate interest in imposing these requirements because it helps us measure links to external purchase flows, which in turn helps us automate measuring these external transactions.” If you read the appellate court’s judgment, the annoyance towards the district court is palpable. Because the district court both stated the unlawfulness of the anti-steering provision under California statutes as well as stating how cumbersome after the fact collection is of the commission as well as stating that the commission is still owed. All of this is marginally contradictory, but because the district court didn’t err in sufficient ways for the appellate court to step in and all of it ultimately is in line with the law and standing jurisprudence, the appellate court’s hands were tied, because the appellate court isn’t for do-overs, it’s merely there for significant errors that cause harm. SCOTUS refused to take up the case, so until further notice the law of the land is that a) developers are allowed to steer users away from the the app while b) Apple remains entitled to their commission regardless because c) there's nothing inherently illegal about Apple's commission because d) it primarily is a payment mechanism for usage of Apple's IP by virtue of how it's structured in the developer agreement and e) as such it's legal because Apple can't be forced to give away their IP for free.
  - NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
    Thanks for the rundown. What's the basis of the perceived annoyance though? What was the district court supposed to do differently?
tomrod 3y ago
This is leading to awful, awful outcomes. If I owned a large payment registers company or similar type of capital that is hard to switch immediately, I'd be licking my predatory lips.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  You’d have been licking your lips way sooner because that’s completely legal in the US. In fact increasing the switching cost either monetarily or in other ways (e.g., time sink) is a very common way of locking customers in. That’s why cancellation fees are so common in many industries.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    And why users love the subscription management in Apple app store.

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.
  - sethd 3y ago
    The developer has to agree to allow Apple to audit them.
    - iAMkenough 3y ago
      Sounds expensive for Apple, and like it will be enforced unevenly.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        Yes, that's what the judge warned in the ruling. Epic got what they asked for on this point because they were technically correct on the merits, but both the judge and the appeals court were skeptical that demanding it would do anyone any good: > 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
      - jahewson 3y ago
        More expensive not to do it.
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
  That metric doesn't work accurately even in the simplest case (buying an app), let alone for more nuanced transactions -- in-app purchases, subscription tiers, etc. It's unclear how how Apple-the-middle-man can insert itself to effectively rent seek from customers/developers now.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's not rent seeking.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Charging both sides of a market _typically_ results in crash of the two sided (platform-hosted) market. With iOS and Android being basically near feature parity, this is to Google's favor.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
They're claiming they have the right to demand accounting.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Mainly two ways. One is by tracking outgoing links via a specific framework that needs to be used, the ruling only provides for Apple having to allow linking out, no restrictions on Apple’s part for requiring a certain way of doing it. The other is the courts explicitly affirming Apple’s right to audit as a part of them stating that the commission will still be owed regardless. The latter is important because it allows Apple to claim a legitimate interest in defense if somehow a case is brought specifically about Apple’s requirements on how to link to a URL outside the app. Think: “Judge you said the commission would still be owed and you stated we can audit, you even lamented on how cumbersome it would be for all parties involved to settle the commission owed to us if third party payment options would be used, us requiring a specific framework to be used to link outside the app alleviates some of that. We have a legitimate interest in imposing these requirements because it helps us measure links to external purchase flows, which in turn helps us automate measuring these external transactions.” If you read the appellate court’s judgment, the annoyance towards the district court is palpable. Because the district court both stated the unlawfulness of the anti-steering provision under California statutes as well as stating how cumbersome after the fact collection is of the commission as well as stating that the commission is still owed. All of this is marginally contradictory, but because the district court didn’t err in sufficient ways for the appellate court to step in and all of it ultimately is in line with the law and standing jurisprudence, the appellate court’s hands were tied, because the appellate court isn’t for do-overs, it’s merely there for significant errors that cause harm. SCOTUS refused to take up the case, so until further notice the law of the land is that a) developers are allowed to steer users away from the the app while b) Apple remains entitled to their commission regardless because c) there's nothing inherently illegal about Apple's commission because d) it primarily is a payment mechanism for usage of Apple's IP by virtue of how it's structured in the developer agreement and e) as such it's legal because Apple can't be forced to give away their IP for free.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  Thanks for the rundown. What's the basis of the perceived annoyance though? What was the district court supposed to do differently?

tomrod 3y ago

This is leading to awful, awful outcomes. If I owned a large payment registers company or similar type of capital that is hard to switch immediately, I'd be licking my predatory lips.

turquoisevar 3y ago
You’d have been licking your lips way sooner because that’s completely legal in the US. In fact increasing the switching cost either monetarily or in other ways (e.g., time sink) is a very common way of locking customers in. That’s why cancellation fees are so common in many industries.
- Terretta 3y ago
  And why users love the subscription management in Apple app store.