Hacker News Reader

Comment by syspec | Hacker News Reader

The ruling was largely interpreted incorrectly, with nearly all media outlets claiming Apple lost the case.

Epic lost 9/10 claims, winning only that Apple cannot ban mentioning or linking to a website with other payment options. However Apple is still entitled to its commission even in that case the judge ruled.

I think the drop was related to the misinformation being parroted around

View on HN

>However Apple is still entitled to its commission even in that case the judge ruled.

I didn't read that. Apple is entitled to Epic commission they previously own. And 30% they continue to charge in their IAP. But no where does it state Apple could collect 30% from other forms of payment.

>with nearly all media outlets claiming Apple lost the case. Epic lost 9/10 claims,

I mean I can hardly call that a Win from Apple. They are now officially not a monopoly but officially anti-competitive. And as noted [1], it wasn't because the court ruled in flavour of Apple. It was because EPIC make an EPIC failure ( sorry for the pun ) in court.

I think Apple was relieved from monopoly pressure, facing similar fate with Microsoft. But this is far from over. Japan and South Korea have barely settled. EU hasn't yet made their move.

[1] Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. [snip explanation] The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.

> But no where does it state Apple could collect 30% from other forms of payment.

The judge actually said exactly that.

>The judge actually said exactly that.

Where ? Quote from [1]

> 1. Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) 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 (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

How the ruling is interpreted and what's ultimately implemented in terms of alternative payment methods remains to be seen. But I dont see it mentioned anywhere 30% goes to Apple from alternate payment method. So please provide a source for that.

[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i...

The link in the parent comment is the injuncture against the app store rules, not the ruling from the actual case.

> G. Remedies

> The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely:

> (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment; and

> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-...

page 180

“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.”

Apple can take their 30% even if you use stripe.

What was linked in a later comment was the injuncture by the court related to the changing of apple's rules in the app store, not a direct ruling by the court related to who "won" the apple v epic trial. I won't copy the full Remedies from the 185 page document, but simply the part that you were asking about.

> G. Remedies

> The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely:

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-...

page 180

What you just replied is exactly what I wrote. EPIC lost and require to paid what they own. Not they have to paid 30% via another payment.

Isn't it common to make a lot of claims under slightly different formulations in order to make one of these stick? Epic wanted to poke holes in Apple's walled garden and did poke a small one. That counts as a win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com