7 ms·

I would think that case is at least meaningfully in my favour. The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wan

I would think that case is at least meaningfully in my favour. The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The ruling is meaningfully weaker than what I'd expect from DMA, but this is natural, the legal case was argued on existing law, DMA is new.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property. The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well. > "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy." Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.
- Veedrac 3y ago
  This ruling means at minimum that a company can say ‘or sign up for less at on our website’. Cf. Spotify, who were allowed to serve customers that signed in from an account with an off-app subscription but were not allowed to tell the customer that this alternative subscription existed.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Companies like Spotify and Netflix (that have a free app used to access subscription content) removed the option to pay through their app years ago. You can only pay (and create an account) by going to their website, so they have always effectively paid Apple nothing but the yearly $99 developer account fee under the old rules. However, now they can now tell you where to go to set up a new account on their website next to the login account and password fields of their app.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property. The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well. > "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy." Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.

Veedrac 3y ago
This ruling means at minimum that a company can say ‘or sign up for less at on our website’. Cf. Spotify, who were allowed to serve customers that signed in from an account with an off-app subscription but were not allowed to tell the customer that this alternative subscription existed.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Companies like Spotify and Netflix (that have a free app used to access subscription content) removed the option to pay through their app years ago. You can only pay (and create an account) by going to their website, so they have always effectively paid Apple nothing but the yearly $99 developer account fee under the old rules. However, now they can now tell you where to go to set up a new account on their website next to the login account and password fields of their app.