Comment by riversflow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by riversflow | Hacker News Reader

I thought this was pretty clear?

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."

The Verge and the rest of the media was incorrect, because the injunction goes with a 185-page ruling the media didn’t read that explained it in greater detail how to interpret the injunction.

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.

> 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.

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”

>Even if that were accurate

It's literally the text of the ruling.

However, yes, it looks like Hollywood math will soon apply to online gaming transactions.

It’s literally not in the text, no need to get snarky without even providing a quote. Here is the text which by my reading speaks to the falsehood of the parent article:

“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.

Respectfully, you’re (I presume) not a lawyer and neither am I; a layman’s reading of a legal ruling is a Bad Idea.

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.

I’m speaking hypothetically, I’m no apple app developer I have no skin in this game

The point is covered multiple times in the ruling:

>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

> Apple could still charge a commission on developers.

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).

And risk permanent bans from releasing on the App Store. This model of collecting outside of your walled garden isn’t even remotely new; hell, it’s how Epic’s own Unreal Engine operated for the majority of its lifetime.

This is absolutely false. As evidence of this, Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.

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.

And it's a contractually obligated requirement - that means Apple can suspend your developer account, remove you from the App Store, and potentially sue you for breach of contract, if they suspect you are fudging the numbers or not paying.

> Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.

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.

> "Apple is: 'permanently restrained . . . from prohibiting developers from including in their apps . . . calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms'"

> "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.

"Epic doesn’t need to handle all game sales in order to collect their commission from developers who use Unreal Engine.'

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.

More precisely Epic won nothing, as they have no prospect of getting any future revenue from the iOS ecosystem, save for winning on appeal.

Apple has said that they will reinstate Epic’s account if they agree to follow the rules, so Epic can earn future revenue on iOS if they want to… but so far they’ve said they don’t plan to change their stance.

That is true and I stand corrected. I had discounted that as a potential option due to Tim Sweeney's prior and current statements on the matter.

Have they said this recently (i.e. do we know if that offer still exists?)

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...

Yup, Apple just said this to The Verge: “As we’ve said all along, we would welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else”.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...

Eh, if Epic manages to find a way to continue to develop unreal engine for iOS, they won an increased revenue stream from unreal engine royalties.

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.

Apple will now be allowed to terminate Epic's developer account for Unreal Engine, if they choose to do so.

So no, Epic did very, very, very poorly.

Isn’t it 40% ownership by Tencent? I don’t think they ever were able to get more ownership stake. They might even own less than 40% now.

Ah, it looks like you're more right than I am. They acquired a 40% total stake, which was 48% of the outstanding shares.

I don't think we know of them selling any shares, but I'm not sure that we would.

It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero.

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 scary to think that the entire political speech industry controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever sharing your opinion ever again are basically zero.

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 have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The sentiment you state is common FUD on HN but that's not how the world works. In fact, the software industry probably has fewer gatekeepers than most industries, by way of being relatively immature. That's if you count actual gatekeepers like regulatory bodies. As for competiton and business decisions, those are not gatekeepers*, that is competition and business decisions.

* 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".

So what you're saying is that I'm wrong if you change the definition of a word I used in my comment?

What’s your definition?

"It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero."

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.

Notice how your examples are monopolies and the government.

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.

Could you name an example where a company does not have to pay to use another's product and ecosystem? I can't.

I think if it was as clear cut as you're suggesting that we would see a rash of app updates. However, it is unclear, and the devs are probably biding their time to see how appeals and what not play out. This is far from over.

However, if I was an app dev that has been bitching&moaning about this prohibition, I'd be jumping all over pushing updates.

The injunction doesn't take effect for 90 days, so I expect we won't see any updates related to this for 3 months.

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.

What are you risking? You're just doing what is no longer disallowed by courts.

I just think it's the safe play. If I'm a small developer without any clout with Apple or the media, and I've already built a good-enough business model around accepting Apple's 30% cut, it shouldn't hurt much to wait until things shake out.

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.

If the injunction doesn’t take hold for 90 days, then it isn’t _now_ disallowed by courts. And if Apple wins an appeal against it you are screwed if you jumped now (assuming it passed review).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com