Apple cannot ban links to outside App Store payments, U.S. appeals court says
reuters.com
reuters.com
All this said, I think everyone forgets after the first year of continuous billing per customer on subscriptions the percentage drops down to 15%, from the 70-30 to 85-15, which gets pretty close to operational profit parity for small shops.
It's even more complicated, if your company makes less than $1mm in revenue, Apple discounts their first year take to 15% also. This makes work for the MBAs at startups to make somewhat complicated revenue forecast spreadsheets.
If the app is selling inexpensive things, such as things at the popular $0.99 price, 30% to Apple is going to be less than 2-3% + $0.30 to a third party payment processor.
The Visa/MasterCard auth fee can be below 10 cents for larger payments as well, and depending on card type and brand program the percentage can be below 1%
Did you read the article?
The judges literally just said that yes they are obligated to allow this.
Literally, yes, there is now a legal obligation, by the court system, to allow links to outside of app store payment options.
> they just can't expect Apple to market them
Yes they can (if thats what you are calling allowing outside links). Because thats what the judges just said Apple is forced to allow, by law.
> through anti-competitive practices
Actually, yes they did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice.
That's what the judges just affirmed.
There's the line there from the article.
> nor, dare I say, does the judgment.
You can just read the judgement yourself.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games...
Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law"
> Your interpretation
You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling.
> Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them.
They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says.
> The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments
Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge.
> there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling
Did you not know that this was already the appeal?
> if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim
Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them.
If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them.
> Why would Apple be required
Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined.
They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law.
> not only are you not right
Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you.
The legal system is on my side, not yours.
You have used terminology that was absent from the article and the decision, namely, "anti-competitive practices." To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws in no way means that Apple engages in "anti-competitive practices."
> > nor, dare I say, does the judgment.
> You can just read the judgement yourself. > https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games...
> Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law"
Again, see above. You have over reached with your language, and are now trying to sweep that under the rug.
> > Your interpretation
> You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling.
It is not in the ruling. The ruling does not use your terminology, "anti-competitive."
> > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them.
> They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says.
That is not what it says. It says they violated California's unfair competition laws by not allowing alternate payment methods. It does not state Apple is required to allow outside links. So that is not what the ruling says.
> > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments
> Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge.
No, because you are using language that does not apply to the case nor Apple. You are being intentionally inaccurate to spin a false narrative.
> > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling
> Did you not know that this was already the appeal?
Irrelevant straw man. Did you read the article? "Apple may appeal... a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court."
> > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim
> Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them.
> If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them.
Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract.
> > Why would Apple be required
> Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined.
That is not what the judge said. You are extrapolating beyond the scope of the case and incorrectly rewording, and the result is inaccurate at best and false at worst.
> They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law.
The California unfair competition law does not require Apple to allow links.
> > not only are you not right
> Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you.
> The legal system is on my side, not yours.
Unlikely. Laws and judgements are meticulous and specific. If the judgement does not include the order, "Apple is required to allow links to alternative forms of payment," which it does not, then that is not the judgement. The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws, not that Apple engages in anti-competitive practices, and not that Apple is required to provide links to alternative forms of payment.
Comprehension is critical here.
> It says they violated California's unfair competition laws
Awesome! So you agree that yes the courts have ruled that they violated californias unfair competition laws. I am glad that you are conceding that this is the case.
> Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract
No, not if the contact breaches california's unfair competition laws! In that case, Apple would not be allowed to continue that unfairly competitive action.
> The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws
But you have to concede that this means that Apple cannot continue to break that law.
So yes, Apple has to change its behavior! You have to admit that yes Apple has to stop doing the unfairly competitive action.
Not quite. Effect does not precede cause. I corrected you, and you then parroted my correction.
> No, not if the contact breaches california's unfair competition laws! In that case, Apple would not be allowed to continue that unfairly competitive action.
Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running. Closing the AppStore, for example, would satisfy California's unfair competition laws.
> But you have to concede that this means that Apple cannot continue to break that law. So yes, Apple has to change its behavior! You have to admit that yes Apple has to stop doing the unfairly competitive action.
This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious.
At any rate, I am through feeding your trolls.
Actually it is recognizing the following 2 statements.
Statement 1: The judges ruled that Apple broke the law, because of its behavior.
Statement 2: Apple can't keep doing that, if the existing judgement stands.
It sounds like you agree that both of these statements are true!
> Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running.
So then Apple could not keep running an app store, with these provisions.
If they run an App store, then they would be prevented, by law, from doing these unfair competition contracts.
It sounds you agree completely that yes the judge ruled that they broke the law, and that they can't keep doing that, if the judgement stands!
Apple is likely to maliciously comply by allowing external links yet introducing new restrictions and guidelines that will dissuade developers from even trying.
This would be in line with their attempt to charge further commissions in South Korea and the Netherlands after being forced allow alternative payment systems for certain app categories.
Though it is interesting how the same story has wildly different responses depending on the headline.
Sure there is no proof, but I'm quite sure there is some form of corruption going on in getting that kind of justice decisions...
This should be obvious to any laymen who has heard that antitrust legislation exists.
Because it was an issue disputed in a US District Court case, and someone disagreed with the outcome.
> This should be obvious to any laymen who has heard that antitrust legislation exists.
The same decision (applying California unfair competition law on the headline question) also found Apple was not violating anti-trust law, so, your hypothetical layman would have come to the right conclusion only by coincidence, on the wrong basis.
The spirit of antitrust legislation is that competition should not be harmed by one or few dominant players. I would claim it is very clear that Apple (and Google) harm competition in the mobile space. If this cannot be prevented using the existing laws, new legislation is required. Monopolies and duopolies are harmful.
Most things that make it to court, and especially to appeals, actually have important arguments on both sides. If it's in court, it's pretty much by definition non-obvious.
A "win" for Apple, in an individual battle, merely means that the status quo remains unchanged. They have to win every battle, to win the war.
And Apple is already losing very significant battles elsewhere.
For example, in the EU, with the soon to be in effect App Store laws, Apple is being forced to allow sideloading, and won't be able to charge the 300% fee, in the EU.
In the USA, maybe this court case fails. But there are more court cases being brought against them, and also laws being considered that could force Apple to change anyway, even if they win the current court battles.
The article title focuses on the one they lost, but...
Supposedly Apple will be making some moves to rectify this in iOS17 but handling subscriptions yourself makes this pretty easy...
It’s two sides of the same coin, and I think the idea of taking a percentage of revenue does a better job of aligning platform owners and developers.
In the Microsoft model, small developers, who couldn't pay the thousands of dollars for development cost and figure out their own distribution lost.
In the App Store model, everything is free (or very cheap, $99), till you make revenue.
That said, they'd generally target bigger businesses over smaller dev-only shops.
Some competitor app stores may charge as low as 5%, to pay for processing fees.
And others will charge different fees. And the app store that is the most competitive will get most of the business.
The streaming apps have either completely abandoned in app purchases (Netflix, Spotify, YouTube TV, etc) or they allow outside purchases.
Not to mention apps that require out of band subscriptions to use or sell physical services and have an option of Apple Pay (standard credit card charges) like Uber.
Even if in app purchases only charged standard credit card processing fees, that’s the least of the problems for the Indy developer.