Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjcon | Hacker News Reader

> 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”

View on HN

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.

>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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com