4 ms·

I don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they t

by bze12 10mo ago

I don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they tried to charge 27%

adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago
I think Apple will have a very hard time arguing that the "reasonable" amount is a percentage of revenue with no cap.
- stockresearcher 10mo ago
  They absolutely will and they will absolutely get away with it. It just won’t be anywhere close to 27%. There has been craploads of litigation about “Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” licensing over the last two decades, and fees that are percentages of revenue with no cap have survived and there is no reason to believe any of these legal standards will change. In fact, I think it’s likely that Apple and Google will team up to create a standards body that defines the method for distributing/installing smartphone apps (because this is now in their best interest, not that I want them to). These standards are going to end up using a bunch of patents that you will have to license on FRAND terms. Yes, the cost is going to go down. Yes, Epic is going to benefit a lot more than any indie developer. Such is life
  - zamadatix 10mo ago
    This isn't related to what's fair in licensing, comparing it as such is Apples to oranges.
    - stockresearcher 10mo ago
      Just you wait
      - zamadatix 10mo ago
        I'm not disagreeing on the conclusion, this argument of why was just not supportive of it.
  - satvikpendem 10mo ago
    Yep, there's no reason to believe the fees will only be a few hundred dollars as Sweeney is saying, Apple will absolutely try to extract as much as possible without being sued again. The zero commissions for external links was the right approach.
    - g947o 10mo ago
      > ... without being sued again I'm not even sure about that. This very ruling shows that Apple blatantly violated the law (the previous ruling) and tried to collect as much fee as possible while the case goes through the system. And Apple isn't afraid of being sued. As long as they can earn more money in revenue than paying for lawyers, that's a net profit for them. They can certainly afford all of this.
- galad87 10mo ago
  It should be based on the app size, so maybe developers will stop shipping apps with a single feature and one button that takes 700 MB because of random bloated third-party SDKs that aren't even used.
  - dabbz 10mo ago
    They need locale-based app bundles to make that realistic then. If I need to support every locale I can, I need to bundle the frameworks necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeCYiD0hnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeCYiD0hnE
  - makeitdouble 10mo ago
    Money makers on the AppStore are games, and games need assets in high definition. Third party SDKs are probably a drop in the bucket in comparison with visual assets.
ericmay 10mo ago
I don't feel great either, but that's because prices aren't coming down, instead one billion dollar company just keeps more money than another billion (trillion I guess) dollar company, and we've lost some convenience features that Apple maintained, without any gain.
- SXX 10mo ago
  This is not only affects Epic. Basically any other app, game or SaaS developer can now earn more money because payment processing costing them 1-3% instead of 30%. And small companies are hit by 30% platform tax the most. More money for small compsnies mean more competition.
  - nodamage 10mo ago
    Not necessarily. For starters, small companies are paying 15%, not 30%. I'm also not sure where a small company can find a payment processor that will only charge 1%. Stripe charges 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction. If you have a $4.99 in-app purchase that will cost you 44 cents per transaction to use Stripe vs 75 cents to use Apple's IAP. But Stripe does not act as a merchant of record so you are responsible for remitting sales tax yourself. Registering for and remitting sales tax in every jurisdiction where you have nexus adds huge administrative overhead to a small company. If you want to avoid this overhead, Paddle will act as a merchant of record for you, but then you're paying 5% plus 50 cents which adds up to 75 cents on a $4.99 purchase anyway. Linking to external payments also reduces conversion rates (https://www.revenuecat.com/blog/growth/iap-vs-web-purchases-conversion-test/ https://www.revenuecat.com/blog/growth/iap-vs-web-purchases-...) compared to using IAP. Taken all together, depending on their pricing structure, small companies may very well be financially better off sticking with IAP rather than linking to external payments anyway.
    - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
      >small companies are paying 15%, not 30%. When talking in the grand scheme of this case, the 15% arose out of these proceedings. It was 30 back on in 2018. But yes, overall most people will stick with Apple regardless. I still see it as a win that companies who want to put the work in to go around apple can. That simply seems reasonable in my eyes.

by bze12 10mo ago

I don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they tried to charge 27%

adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago

I think Apple will have a very hard time arguing that the "reasonable" amount is a percentage of revenue with no cap.

stockresearcher 10mo ago
They absolutely will and they will absolutely get away with it. It just won’t be anywhere close to 27%. There has been craploads of litigation about “Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” licensing over the last two decades, and fees that are percentages of revenue with no cap have survived and there is no reason to believe any of these legal standards will change. In fact, I think it’s likely that Apple and Google will team up to create a standards body that defines the method for distributing/installing smartphone apps (because this is now in their best interest, not that I want them to). These standards are going to end up using a bunch of patents that you will have to license on FRAND terms. Yes, the cost is going to go down. Yes, Epic is going to benefit a lot more than any indie developer. Such is life
- zamadatix 10mo ago
  This isn't related to what's fair in licensing, comparing it as such is Apples to oranges.
  - stockresearcher 10mo ago
    Just you wait
    - zamadatix 10mo ago
      I'm not disagreeing on the conclusion, this argument of why was just not supportive of it.
- satvikpendem 10mo ago
  Yep, there's no reason to believe the fees will only be a few hundred dollars as Sweeney is saying, Apple will absolutely try to extract as much as possible without being sued again. The zero commissions for external links was the right approach.
  - g947o 10mo ago
    > ... without being sued again I'm not even sure about that. This very ruling shows that Apple blatantly violated the law (the previous ruling) and tried to collect as much fee as possible while the case goes through the system. And Apple isn't afraid of being sued. As long as they can earn more money in revenue than paying for lawyers, that's a net profit for them. They can certainly afford all of this.
galad87 10mo ago
It should be based on the app size, so maybe developers will stop shipping apps with a single feature and one button that takes 700 MB because of random bloated third-party SDKs that aren't even used.
- dabbz 10mo ago
  They need locale-based app bundles to make that realistic then. If I need to support every locale I can, I need to bundle the frameworks necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeCYiD0hnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeCYiD0hnE
- makeitdouble 10mo ago
  Money makers on the AppStore are games, and games need assets in high definition. Third party SDKs are probably a drop in the bucket in comparison with visual assets.

ericmay 10mo ago

I don't feel great either, but that's because prices aren't coming down, instead one billion dollar company just keeps more money than another billion (trillion I guess) dollar company, and we've lost some convenience features that Apple maintained, without any gain.

SXX 10mo ago
This is not only affects Epic. Basically any other app, game or SaaS developer can now earn more money because payment processing costing them 1-3% instead of 30%. And small companies are hit by 30% platform tax the most. More money for small compsnies mean more competition.
- nodamage 10mo ago
  Not necessarily. For starters, small companies are paying 15%, not 30%. I'm also not sure where a small company can find a payment processor that will only charge 1%. Stripe charges 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction. If you have a $4.99 in-app purchase that will cost you 44 cents per transaction to use Stripe vs 75 cents to use Apple's IAP. But Stripe does not act as a merchant of record so you are responsible for remitting sales tax yourself. Registering for and remitting sales tax in every jurisdiction where you have nexus adds huge administrative overhead to a small company. If you want to avoid this overhead, Paddle will act as a merchant of record for you, but then you're paying 5% plus 50 cents which adds up to 75 cents on a $4.99 purchase anyway. Linking to external payments also reduces conversion rates (https://www.revenuecat.com/blog/growth/iap-vs-web-purchases-conversion-test/ https://www.revenuecat.com/blog/growth/iap-vs-web-purchases-...) compared to using IAP. Taken all together, depending on their pricing structure, small companies may very well be financially better off sticking with IAP rather than linking to external payments anyway.
  - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
    >small companies are paying 15%, not 30%. When talking in the grand scheme of this case, the 15% arose out of these proceedings. It was 30 back on in 2018. But yes, overall most people will stick with Apple regardless. I still see it as a win that companies who want to put the work in to go around apple can. That simply seems reasonable in my eyes.