Epic vs. Apple injunction doesn't allow for alternative in-app payment mechanism
fosspatents.com
fosspatents.com
(Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
(Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
(Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-...
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
I think there's a chance he's happens to be on the right side of the law this time (a stopped clock is right twice a day). At the same time he's good at his job at making believable bullshit. I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis and would suggest that reading his posts is more likely to deceive you than inform you.
"The photo, taken from the lawn inside Apple Park, was posted at 4:55 PM Pacific Time, and the color of the sky as well as the length of the shadows cast by the trees suggest that the picture had been taken at just about that time of day."
My cofounder tweeted the photo because Twitter had just launched new photo sizes, and the photo looked good with the changes.
Just for the record, it was taken at 11:25 AM.
And why is Tim Sweeney tweeting that he lost the court case?
I'm not particularly sympathetic to his views, here, nor Apple, but if there was a "loser" here it would definitely be Epic.
Apple is still entitled to some form of commission even if Epic or anyone else doesn't directly use IAP in their apps. Given that Epic admitted to violating the App Store guidelines, Apple is still barring them from the App Store.
Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP. Apple also has to figure our how to collect the "commission", which could lead to devs not working with Apple in the future. Apple will have a hard time appealing because the appeals court could rule against them on the counts they already won on. That's why it's not seen as a huge win for Apple.
Epic has to pay a meaningless amount of money (a few million dollars they'll make back up in a few days) and is barred from a platform they didn't care about in the first place. Non-US regulators are also looking into Apple's handling of the AppStore, which means Apple could still be forced to make changes in line with what Epic was arguing. This is why it isn't a huge loss for Epic.
> Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP.
Again, even if they charge a higher price on the IAP and lower on the website, Apple is still entitled to charge the commission regardless if they use IAP or not. The judgement clearly states that 'Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional' [0] (p68)
On Epic's side they lost the antitrust argument which was the whole point of filing this lawsuit. Apple already made the changes to mentioning links for paying outside of the App Store before this ruling was made.
Nothing has changed on the commission side for Apple and Epic still cannot allow their own billing system in Fortnite, thus they are still banned on the App Store even after admitting being in breach of the App Store rules and must pay for those damages. Meaningless or not.
So actually, Apple still wins and it is a huge win.
[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-...
As it stands, Epic lost and Apple is still entitled to the commission even if you use IAP or not and regardless if you change the pricing on the website to be cheaper than the IAP.
Apple was not found to have broken anti-trust laws which was the basis of Epic's argument and Apple already addressed the anti-steering count before the decision of this lawsuit.
Either way, Apple is still getting paid and Apple still wins.
EDIT: Why did you delete your comment? Care to explain what was wrong with it?
> You seem to be really invested in this in an unhealthy way.
It's not that hard to understand that is it?
I have no real opinion on the journalistic integrity of techrights, I do have opinions on groklaw being pretty close to the epitome of unbiased coverage (and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill...).
Even if your vague insinuations about techrights and groklaw did have foundation, it would still just be a "whataboutism" argument. Someone intentionally producing misinformation is wrong no matter how reliable other people are. The fact that foss patents was paid was literally in court, and is an admitted fact (I'm loathe to links to fosspatents blog directly, so here's a link to a news article reporting on it with direct quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailyt...)
The identity of who wrote Groklaw is known (Pamela Jones), and the accusations that they were a paid was disproven in court in the Oracle case.
Edit: And when I said advocated for them, I mean it in the legal sense as well as blogging about them: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/commen...
>In other words, I was hoping people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular.
Maybe we should follow PJ's advice while reading the posted article.
Anyway, we are rehashing a discussion from the past.
Here is an article by Pamela Jones (ironically not on groklaw) discussing the lack of compensation for running groklaw: https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-gr...
Here is the court filing by IBM in which they deny that they paid groklaw (page 10): http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf
https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_...
And the other link is an assertion by an anonymous person that they're totally on the up and up. What would you expect if they were not, a confession? Would Florian Muller make a confession if he were anonymously posting as FM (Frank Matthew) while getting paid as a consultant? No one would ever know he was getting paid if we didn't know his real identity.
You're inventing wild conspiracies that don't even have a good reason to exist.
That "violation" means nothing.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comme...
I would suggest that just about no individual is interested in millions of dollars of fines...
If I read this properly, it also doesn't prohibit the possibility of criminal charges in that case either.
That case also didn't exist at the time, so didn't exist as precedent for believe that you might get off "lightly".
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-a-crime-to-use-a-di...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legal-status-of-pseudonyms...
One would hope a competent paralegal would know that.
The court didn't determine who paid for hosting and dev. They didn't examine her tax returns. They don't know her employer(s). Didn't examine her bank accounts. She could be the daughter or wife of an IBM lawyer and IBMs assertion in court would still be true.
He states that he's been rooting for Epic to win in the third paragraph.
>I've been rooting for Epic, and I wish everyone were as honest as Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney after losing a court battle.
1. It's entirely possible he is lying, it wouldn't be the first time.
2. The date of that accusation is back in 2012, it's entirely possible that his loyalties have shifted in the meantime.
3. The accusation could be false...
I'm criticizing the person and not the analysis for several reasons.
The primary one is that the purpose of my post is to caution people about reading fosspatents as a reliable law blog, not to discuss this case.
An equally important reason is that I think there's a chance that he happens to be right this time (as I indicate in my original post) so there's probably not much in his analysis for me to criticize (though I did not read it in detail).
Finally it takes substantially more time and expertise to disprove disinformation (especially in a fashion convincing to lay people in a comment short enough to post on hn) than it does to make it. Debating misinformation every time it comes up is not something I have the time or expertise to do. Warning people about a known bad actor however is something I do have the time to do, and is in my opinion more likely to improve the world.
> the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person
True statements are not defamatory as a matter of the meaning of the word in common language.
Calling out bad actors is not a "cheap shot", it's a useful social service. On HN we should demand better sources that do not come from known bad actors.
A cheap shot would be some sort of unfair attack on his character, e.g. calling out random cases where he called the outcome wrong (which inevitably happens if you comment on enough cases).
If you want to read well written and thorough criticisms of some of his older posts, you can, for example, pull up old groklaw posts about them (which did take the time to disassemble the arguments step by step and criticize them).
Edit: Though now that you mention it, here is blacks law dictionaries definition, emphasis added
> What is DEFAMATION?
> The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander.
You can read the document in which microsoft discusses paying shills in this form (directly on page 53) and make up your own mind...
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096....
1. The judge affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer accounts for violation of the developer agreement and ban them from the App Store, including all developer accounts related to their Unreal Engine business.
2. The judge fully rejected Epic's entire monopolization claim based on the theory that Apple held a single-brand "monopoly" over the distribution of apps on its own devices, killing any hope they had of running their own app store.
3. The judge repeatedly made it clear that Apple was still entitled to a commission for the use of its intellectual property, even if developers did not use IAP to process payments:
> "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." (page 67)
> "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." (page 150)
> "The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155)
4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself.
[1] The Hoeg Law video linked elsewhere in this thread is good place to start.
Which is still a win, I suppose, but it's a very, very small win, and not that useful to Epic. I think it's potentially useful for services that have a large non-iOS presence, where buying a thing for use outside of the iOS ecosystem coincidentally allows you to use it inside the iOS ecosystem. Like, say, Netflix or HBO Max. Or maybe buying Kindle books.
Because I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut if someone saw the Netflix signup screen in the iOS app, went to the Netflix website on their laptop (or even on their phone?), subscribed there, and then went back to the iOS app and signed in.
(At any rate, I think Apple is already changing this particular rule due to a ruling that happened in Japan, so maybe this is is all moot anyway.)
They won that for other developers but not for themselves. Epic failed to win an injunction that would see Fortnite return to the App Store; their singular victory is of no use to them.
I don't see even that as a clear win. It would be quite straightforward for Apple to require devs to mark all such notifications or links under an 'external promotions' category, and then give users the choice to disable promotional notifications. All users will disable them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/26/apple-a...
Very simple. Apple adds such language to the developer agreement. "We get a 30% cut of revenue for any services used on iOS devices." Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%" "iOS device XYZ paid via IAP, we don't owe you" etc etc etc etc down the line.
Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books. Apple adds provisions whereby being off by more than X% results in penalties. Apple adds provisions whereby they can request an independent audit of the companies books (quite reasonable with a "you're honest, we paid, you lied, you pay" provision). If all else fails Apple obviously retains the right to sue to enforce and a court can require a company to provide apple financials as part of discovery.
It's really not HARD per-se. I imagine the only reason apple doesn't do this as that it's just so much complicated than the IAP route.
Probably the thorniest issue here is that it would create some perverse incentives. Netflix might chose to remove their app from the app store in favor of telling you to just go to the website again avoiding the 30% cut.
Furthermore, what would entitle apple to their 30%?
I just bought and installed a card control badge access system at our office. I downloaded/installed the app on my phone. Should apple get 30%? If so, 30% of what? 30% of the total system cost including install? 30% of what I paid for the hardware? 30% of just the controller hardware cost? 30% of the annual support maintenance cost? I don't even KNOW most of those costs because they aren't even enumerated to me. I just paid a big lump sump. Super messy.
A company could just, y'know, not do that. Or vastly under-report. Apple has no way of knowing, especially if the developer has apps and/or customers on other platforms. Because:
> Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books.
I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court. Especially for any company that has any significant non-Apple-related business. That information is proprietary and confidential.
I think it is hard to enforce. And agree on your card control system example, though I think the 30% cut is already not in play when it comes to physical goods... consider that otherwise Amazon couldn't have an iOS app: a 30% cut would bankrupt them, and raising prices by 30% would mean no one would buy from them.
See footnote 617 on page 150 of the ruling where the judge suggests exactly that:
"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."
I wish every app had the balls to do this.
Netflix will still have the potential subscribers signing up because the name will simply bring ppl in.
MyNiceService that has 0 budget and benefits from every subscriber, even if I have to bring 30% (which is 15% in the beginning until I get big) to apple is simply not able to do that.
This is one of the big ones I didn't realize in my initial reading of the situation. How far does this go? Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website?
I still feel like I'm misunderstanding something here, I guess I need to go through some of the linked videos/articles.
Linking to alternative purchase methods would be a big thing, regardless of whether they're IAP or not -- it's obviously not everything or even most of what Epic wants, but it would be a huge step over existing app store rules (across both iOS and Google Play) where developers were getting in trouble for linking to their own websites within the app or even just telling users that alternatives existed. That inability to even tell consumers that Apple collects a 30% fee in the first place, basically forcing developers to pretend to users that the restrictions don't exist -- that's a really big issue with large market implications, and a restriction on that is honestly on the upper edges of what I thought Epic could possibly get in an initial ruling.
If Epic got that, then I understand why they're unhappy because obviously they wanted way more, but it's still not a minor inconsequential ruling. Apple has been extremely protective of that restriction. They do not want apps telling users about how the payment methods work, where they are, or about what iOS fees are.
But this seems to imply that if an app linked to their website in their app, and a user clicked on that link, opened it in a web browser, then bought something through the browser, that Apple could then collect a 30% commission on that. I'm misunderstanding that, right?
> would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155)
On any purchase made within apps applies to links that take you out of the app?
Is Microsoft entitled to a percentage of everything that is run on windows?
Is Google entitled to a cut of anything that runs on chrome (do products running on aws and azure count?)
Is Intel entitled to anything running on their silicon?
Is TSMC entitled to some part of Apple's and Intel's profits?
Is ASML entitled to some part of TSMC's profits?
I'd be ok with this if sweatshop worker is entitled to a significant part of Nike's profits. Perhaps we can make the economy fair after all.
example: Qualcomm likes to charge 5% of the device price for the use of their patents.[1]
[1]https://www.eetimes.com/apple-reveals-qualcomm-patent-fees/
Whether they should be reclassified as some sort of public utility is another discussion.
The question I have is whether or not this ruling opens the door for collecting commissions made on other platforms outside of iOS, or whether we think that's likely to be something Apple can get away with if apps like Netflix or Gacha games start linking to their websites. Currently, Apple does not attempt to do anything like that.
There is a pretty big gulf between a judge saying "anti-steering is anti-competitive" and a judge saying, "you can't decide what apps go in your store." I haven't seen any interpretation of this ruling that says the latter happened.
I'm interested in this ruling. I'm not saying that the ruling means that Apple isn't anti-competitive in general or in other ways, I'm not saying that an anti-steering ban would solve the entire situation, I'm not telling activists to go home, I'm not advocating for a specific solution. I'm asking about what the current implications are of this case.
The parent poster was not saying that they wanted the App Store to be turned into a public utility, they were pointing out that this ruling didn't turn it into a public utility. Which... correct, but I don't think anybody anywhere was claiming that it did. A judge restricting anti-steering rules or ruling that a specific business practice is anti-competitive is not even remotely equivalent to turning the App Store into a commons.
"For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those countries listed in Exhibit B, Section 1 of this Schedule 2 as updated from time to time via the App Store Connect site, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User."
Note that it just says "all prices payable by each End-User", there is no distinction in the contract between purchases made internally in the app and payments made externally via a website.
To the extent that the court has found that this contract is indeed enforceable (minus the anti-steering provision), that would suggest to me that taking you outside of the app to pay via a website might not make a difference to the commission owed. But I suspect this is the kind of thing that very expensive lawyers are going to have to litigate before we get a definitive answer.
Where I suspect this would apply is apps like Fortnite, where if you were previously selling V-bucks directly via IAP, then popping up a web view to process the payment and returning you to the app to claim your V-bucks might not actually be the loophole people seem to think it is.
As far as I read it you can even link to it, but maybe you can’t link directly to your payment page? Just like ‘you can also buy v-bucks on our [link](website)?
If they decided to write it into the contract, I see no reason why not. Generally you're free to make up whatever contracts you want.
If there is a reason why not, I'm certain that it's complex enough that you would need to make a new lawsuit over it and get a new injunction, since it wasn't argued in either direction in this case at all.
Whether or not app developers would agree to "30% of profit from everywhere" is an entirely different conversations. I imagine a variety of important app developers like banks would be rethinking their decision to publish apple apps if that was the TOS.
I've read all 180 pages of the ruling, so will give my opinion.
IMO this claim about still owing commission comes from statements that the judge said, regarding a separate hypothetical of if alternative payment systems were included in the app itself, then those alternative payment systems would still owe a commission.
I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website.
Yes, some lawyers have suggested maybe that would be the case. But I do not know of any explicit statement where the judge said this clearly.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't see that explicitly from the judge. It is only hypothosized.
Here you are, taken from the ruling text:
>Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
>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 comission.
>Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.
>While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property.
>To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law
Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things.
In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this.
If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling.
But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling.
IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?
I have a friend whose company had to remove any mention of any store, no matter how little, from their application. In his eyes this was a big win. Epic obviously thinks differently because they had bigger ideas in mind.
>SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
So the only point that Apple lost on in this case had already been conceded.
I am cautious about making a claim now, because I'm worried that I just don't understand the ruling at all.
But forcing Apple to remove anti-steering restrictions for all apps and allowing those apps to link to websites in order to connect payments dodging Apple's fees would be a pretty big deal, and their previous concession did not do that as far as I can see. Of course getting rid of anti-steering rules wouldn't be enough that people are going to suddenly stop talking about antitrust, but it would still be a big deal.
Doing it just for a tiny subset of Apps that Apple defines? Not so much of a big deal.
To me, it sounds like the only applicable change is the same one already conceded to settle the Japanese antitrust investigation.
At least if my reading that you are allowed to communicate with users without interference, but you are still required to use in-app purchases for digital goods consumed in the app is correct.
Again, not making a hard claim here, because I'm not sure what the full range of the ruling is, but if what you're saying is true then it seems to me that this is a huge deal and I have no idea why people are minimizing its potential impact.
The only reason why the Japanese antitrust concession wasn't a bigger deal was because it was narrowly applied to a small subset of apps and because Apple retained the exclusive ability to decide what those apps were.
Just taking that earlier concession with no other changes and widening it to apply to the entire app store seems like a pretty impactful ruling to me.
So the extent of the (effective) change for those not selling reader apps seems limited.
At least that's my interpretation. I'm willing to assert that I got closer to the truth than the vast majority of the tech media outlets did yesterday.
As far as I know, Epic has no restrictions on apps in their store linking to other purchasing methods for in-app purchases, and they don't collect commissions for games that do so. Itch.io has a client app on the Epic games store, but I don't think they pay Epic a cut every time someone buys a game on the Itch.io website.
It feels oddly like two things are getting conflated here, and I'm trying to figure out if they actually are the same thing, or if people are just kind of assuming that they're the same. The Epic engine takes a cut of revenue in general. The stores take a cut of purchases. As far as I know, no app store that I'm familiar with on PC/mobile (Steam, Epic, iOS, Google Play, etc) currently tries to take a cut of purchases made outside of that store. Is that going to change in the future?
Also, the Epic Games Store is currently being run at a loss, so it isn't (yet) a poster child for a sustainable business model.
But nobody has that contract right now. Not Epic, not Apple, not Valve, not Microsoft, not Google. No PC or mobile store that I'm aware of has clauses that try to take a portion of 3rd-party purchases. It's not just Epic Store "being run at a loss", nobody does this.
So again, you're talking about this like it's the norm and developers are pulling sneaky tricks to avoid it, but as far as I can tell nobody including Apple is trying to collect commissions on individual purchases that happen on other platforms, and it's not clear to me as a non-lawyer that it should be treated as the same category of contract as a general revenue contract. I can't find any current store contract that tells me that the company is entitled to percentages of purchases that happen on a website that they're not interacting with. And given Apple's extreme distaste for linking to other platforms, it seems like they're at least a little hesitant to just put this language in their contract themselves.
Outside of specific revenue contracts, it doesn't seem to be the norm to me. So sure, Apple could start doing this, but it would be a new thing that would seem to be relatively unique among PC/mobile stores, and that goes back to the original question of whether or not a judge would view that as anti-competitive -- is it just a standard extension of a revenue agreement, or is it something else.
Very confusing that so many of the media outlets covering this trial got the results wrong. I miss the days of Groklaw.
Games and similar apps are not exempted in this way and thus are required per Apple's license agreement / developer agreement to use Apple's in-app purchases mechanism.
Groklaw, to my knowledge (and a quick check of various sources agrees) largely wound down after the SCO trial was done and dusted and was only temporarily handed over to another editor after the fact, finally shutting down in 2013.
The site appears to still be up, if you have specifics you're thinking of you'd point at.
Not quite. If I understand correctly (IANAL), now you can link to your website if your website has an alternative way to pay, whereas before that could lead to your app getting rejected (although apple was inconsistent about it).
I'm also unclear on if this changes anything about Apple's rules that you can't charge more for IAP than the same product purchased through a different mechanism. It doesn't sound like it does, which would limit how useful linking to alternative prices is.
Things Apple framed as pure safety and privacy features turned out to be used within just a few years of introduction for cartel-like extraction.
That seems like a major win compared to before.
It seems you still can’t make it 30% cheaper. Sure, making a different offer and skirting around the rules might be possible, but the judgment gives Apple the right to go after what it feels is cheating.
I mean, preventing devs from linking to their own sites to create an account to their own existing, pre-app service was forbidden. Common sense has long gone down the drain.
Allies got nothing of use to them from D-day! It's just a beach full of sand! What are they gonna do with it, eat it?
So Epic got nothing. Less than nothing. They have less today than they would have had they never updated their app in violation of their contract.
Apple did lose something, a small thing, but that's not a win for Epic.
The media outright jumped into conclusions with their headlines and caused this hype of misinformation to spread very quickly and now we have to cut thought it and correct the wrongs they reported.
I also recommend those interested to watch the first 4 minutes of the Hoeg Law video and even the whole video for an in depth look into the trial. [0]
That verge article that was on here the other day (which apparently said the opposite in the title/headline(I ignore those)) had relevant text right at the top. Shortened for brevity, emphasis mine, I'm not a lawyer.
"Apple is: 'permanently restrained . . . from prohibiting developers from including in their apps . . . calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms'"
I was kinda baffled by all the talk about APIs for IAPs and what have you. I feel kinda dumb for not realizing the headline was off.
Question, is my reading here off?
for reference the full quote was:
Under the new order, Apple is: "permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app."
You cannot use your own IAP system. You can link to a webpage, but Apple is still entitled to the 30% cut and can bill the developer after the fact each month or so for the commission that would have been paid.
And for this reason, Epic owes 30% of their unpaid iOS IAP revenue to Apple (about $4 million) for breach of contract and Apple does not need to let Fortnite back on the store.
Epic won almost nothing. 9/10 counts lost, and the remaining count they won still owes 30% but it would be collected through a different method. Super shallow victory that.
Even if that were accurate (which it isn’t really), there is no way Apple would be able to actually collect that commission. People can now link to their websites, patreons, Venmo links etc. this pushes the doors wide open.
The Judge here was speaking to the use of alternative in-app payment processors (which the parent article is wrong about) which apple would be entitled to cuts of. If people link out to the web no such agreement exists. Here is the actual text, see for yourself:
“The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store”
It would require honesty by app developers and Apple to build new infrastructure to account for and receive commission payments from developers, but there’s no impediment. Only inconvenience.
This has nothing to do with honesty. If I link to my website and someone donates, there is no way for me to know they were referred from the app.
Furthermore the actual quote being referenced reads, “The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store”
Which seems to be at odds with the parent article. If someone uses an alternative IN APP payment method (which would be traceable) then yes, Apple would be entitled. If they link their website and are taken out of the app, no such agreement exists.
> "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." (page 150)
My reading of these two statements is that you could link to your website but you'd be contractually obligated to make it possible to tell that visit came from your app so you could give Apple their cut.
If I am a developer using Unreal Engine, I pay for actually using the engine. Apple collects money from music, movie and book sales. There is no chance they will be able to demand that money.
If you think Apple will be entitled to get a 30% cut for non-app items you bought, then by extension apple would be entitled to demand a cut from you buying a washing machine or paying your bill. I don't think the intention of this judgement is to enable Apple to become a universal parasite.
It's literally the text of the ruling.
However, yes, it looks like Hollywood math will soon apply to online gaming transactions.
“The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store.”
Note ‘made within apps’. This suggests alternative IN APP purchases, which again is at odds with the parent article. If you are kicked to safari this would not apply.
>Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
>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 comission.
>Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.
>While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property.
>To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law
Note the could not the does, Apple can make the contract say this, but the court is not saying the current contract does (the question wasn't before the court). I doubt the current contract does because it didn't need to, and because historically that's how Apple has worked (you weren't allowed to link to payments off of Apple, but if someone found your website and paid for things there you didn't have to give Apple a commission).
Do what you want with your app, but I urge anyone who does to seek legal advise first, rather than relying on their own interpretation of parts of the ruling.
The latest from Tim Sweeney sounds like they're trying to get the account back for Mac OS, though they're not interested in iOS at this time. I assume that means they're willing to follow the rules by simply not publishing iOS apps (but that is an assumption)
(All tweets from Sept 10 2021)
> Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143637084654580941...
> Like Apple’s attempt to retaliate against all Unreal Engine customers, their refusal to restore Epic’s Fortnite developer account is vindicative and nonsensical. We’re fighting Apple over their iOS terms, but this ban blocks Fortnite from Mac too. Nobody’s arguing about Mac.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/143634036372011827...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...
It's like if you get banned from every restaurant/grocery store in the world, your only chance to not starve is to purchase land and grow your own food. Except, there are only 2 grocery stores in the world.
Without Apple and Google's permission, it's impossible to make money selling mobile apps. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI).
Sounds like a healthy environment for innovation /s
It's like if you get banned from every town square in the world, your only chance to get the word out is to purchase posters and put them on lampposts.
Without YouTube and Facebook's permission, it's impossible to make money sharing your opinion on how the world should be. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI).
Sounds like a healthy environment for democracy /s
* I'm making a distinction here between "gatekeeping", which anyone may participate in (e.g. people who rally against or challenge women gamers), and "gatekeepers", entities with the power and authority to decisively determine what is and isn't allowed (like the bouncer at a club). Not everyone who is "gatekeeping" is a "gatekeeper".
I mean that same argument can be said for doing business within any ecosystem. It's really not that scary and is the reality of life.
If you pissed off X then your chances of Y again are basically 0.
(x, y) = Amazon, selling books
(x, y) = Google, selling apps
(x, y) = SEC, trading stocks
(x, y) = U.S., having fair tariffs
What would the opposing choice be? Should we have the freedom to break the rules set by the governing body while participating in their ecosystem? Certainly, we should be able to challenge them hence this case.
The government is a different beast from provate organizations (even monopolies). Governments can legally take away your freedoms, your livelihood, your life, etc. They’re there for those kinds of difficult decisions for the good of society.
But when a private company can effectively do the same thing at their own discretion? That’s not right. They’re too big for anyone’s benefit.
…at least, in my opinion. I’m sure some people disagree, and see a benefit to having unregulated megacorps with that much power.
Epic is also 50% owned by tencent, who in turns owns numerous mobile app companies, who will profit from this. So in the sense that Epic lives to help out there share holders... they didn't do so bad a job.
So no, Epic did very, very, very poorly.
I don't think we know of them selling any shares, but I'm not sure that we would.
However, if I was an app dev that has been bitching&moaning about this prohibition, I'd be jumping all over pushing updates.
But if I were an iOS dev, I would definitely wait and see much longer than that. It wouldn't be worth risking my apps or my developer account.
Regardless of what the court says, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple drags their feet approving app updates that add information about other payment options, and I expect they'll be interpreting things as narrowly as possible.
Edit: I thought both sides were appealing. That is apparently not the case. Still, If there is a chance that you interpret the rule differently from Apple - it’s still safer to wait and see what happens.
Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.
You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis.
Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days.
Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies.
MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.
I’m all in on the Apple ecosystem. I likely contribute to this mess with some narrative bias of my own. Though I would be on webOS or Windows Phone right now if either were still alive :p
Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning.
From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.
Do you do business in a different country, make money, and then criticize the government for "siphoning off a share of the money flowing through their platform"? I'm referring to taxes.
Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them.
> I'm referring to taxes.
Are Apple's shareholders going to provide people with education and healthcare? What a complete non-sequitur.
I think you are talking about something different. This is in regards what is allowed on the app store. In this case, Epic didn't want to pay the app store fees. That's different from what a user wants. This is a ruling on the relationship between the company and Apple, not the user.
Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
In short, consoles would just be PCs.
Apple (and Google) charge much lower fees in comparison. But I do agree that the current situation isn't great. In the days of feature phones, the defining feature (heh) was making calls and perhaps texting. Most people didn't buy them for the (paltry few) apps that were available on some (paltry few) models. The manufacturers and carriers didn't need the apps, really.
But that's not the case anymore. Most people's phones are entertainment platforms primarily, and the "phone" aspects are pretty secondary. While the app-poor iPhone of 2007 was revolutionary for its time, if Apple or Google killed all third-party apps on iOS or Android, phone sales would drop like a rock. Yes, the app developers need the phone platform, but the phone platform really needs the app developers too.
I think it's fine for Apple to get some cut of apps sold through the App Store. I think it's fine for them to get a cut of in-app purchases made through Apple's own IAP system. Those things were not free for Apple to build, and they are not free for Apple to operate, so it's only fair that Apple should charge something for use of them. I think 30% happens to be too much (opinions differ, of course), but I think the "correct" amount is certainly greater than zero.
But I don't think Apple should have a monopoly on iOS app stores, or on iOS in-app payment methods. Customers should be allowed to install things on the phone however they want, and if they install something they bought from some random developer's website, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of that. And if an app allows you to purchase things through the app, I don't think Apple should be allowed to require use of their IAP system, or be allowed to take a cut if a developer chooses to use their own system. I know they have a legal right to do so, but I don't believe it's good for consumers that they can demand this[0].
Until this changes, I'll never own an iPhone (I'm sure Apple doesn't care). As much as Android has its own problems, I'm happy that I can install things from the F-Droid repository, and in the past I've even run alternate ROMs on my phone. Giving up the ability to do all that is a non-starter for me.
[0] On the flip side, I do think that Apple's IAP system, as designed, is actually great for consumers, since it makes sure nothing shady goes on with these purchases, and makes it easy to manage subscriptions without dark patterns confusing people. But I think they should be required to make it the best system for app developers as well, which means much more reasonable pricing, and possibly giving app developers a little more ownership over the customer relationship. If they don't want to do that, that's fine, but then I think they should be required to allow competitors to enter the "in-app payments system" market to give both developers and customers more choice. I'll even concede that Apple should be able to require that apps offer the option of Apple's IAP system if another system is available, but users should be able to decide to use the other system if it offers better prices and they're happy with whatever trade off that entails.
This is literally already the case for XBox.
Microsoft tried to lock the Surface RT and Windows RT to their app store, but the product failed in the marketplace.
People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
Fuck no. I as a consumer already paid $1000 for that hardware. They have zero claim to it.
The problem is they still get to hold the OS hostage.
It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.
I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.
Or even further, if I make a business deal using an email app on iOS, are they entitled to 30% of that? It’s absurd.
Context:
> enos_feedler 2 days ago [–]
> This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing.
In this case, the developer is the company and not the end-user.
But if you charge users directly, pay up?
Why do you think Apple reduced the fee to 15% for small developers?
Conversely I could say the product costs 10$ for the PC platform (which does't have the commission), and you get a 'free' version for iOS and pay 30% of 0$. That seems wrong...
Or maybe I would have have to track users installs and use time? That seems wrong...
Apparently the 30% rule in a different contract than the one that requires IAP. So it still stands.
So… you can’t use your own system, and if you link to a website instead, Apple can knock at the door each month and grab what you would have paid. Shallow victory there.
From the Judge's ruling:
>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.
So, Hollywood math could find a new venue?
It's also telling that Apple's official stance on this is that they've won[0], and Epic's is that they're disappointed and will appeal. Apple would not be so happy about this if they had to allow other in-app payment systems and forego their 30% cut. And if they did, Epic would be a lot happier about this ruling, and might even just call it a win right here.
[0] The one concession that Apple must make under this injunction -- allowing app developers to link to information about alternative payment methods on other platforms -- is a concession they are already making due to a recent ruling in a Japanese antitrust case[1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
The judge ruled 9/10 claims in apples favor
>SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
They might want to challenge the notion that a California law can be used to force a change in the way you do business in other states, but that's about it.