3 ms·

> That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of creating a new shell company for every million users. Which would be all around moot because the fe

> That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of creating a new shell company for every million users. Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is illegal.

Someone 3y ago
> Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is illegal I haven’t seen any statement in any jurisdiction by lawmakers or judges that supports that claim. It also would, to me, feel inconsistent with the rulings I read about: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision: “Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut” - https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...: “Consistent with the interim relief ruling of the Rotterdam district court, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities” What did I miss?
- layer8 3y ago
  You may have missed the “free of charge” wording in the DMA.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  You missed that this is the DMA we're talking about. All those cases are either out of its jurisdiction or predate the Act's passage.
- pavon 3y ago
  The Epic ruling is in the US and are irrelevant to EU regulations. Dutch regulators have rejected Apple's response to the dating app ruling, and that matter is currently in the courts[1]. Lastly, these latest changes are in response to a new law, the Digital Markets Act. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_app_rules_netherlands/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_app_rules_nethe...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

> That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of creating a new shell company for every million users. Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is illegal.

Someone 3y ago

> Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is illegal I haven’t seen any statement in any jurisdiction by lawmakers or judges that supports that claim. It also would, to me, feel inconsistent with the rulings I read about: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision: “Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut” - https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...: “Consistent with the interim relief ruling of the Rotterdam district court, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities” What did I miss?

layer8 3y ago
You may have missed the “free of charge” wording in the DMA.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
You missed that this is the DMA we're talking about. All those cases are either out of its jurisdiction or predate the Act's passage.
pavon 3y ago
The Epic ruling is in the US and are irrelevant to EU regulations. Dutch regulators have rejected Apple's response to the dating app ruling, and that matter is currently in the courts[1]. Lastly, these latest changes are in response to a new law, the Digital Markets Act. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_app_rules_netherlands/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_app_rules_nethe...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]