4 ms·

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

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?

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?