Hacker News Reader

Comment by vivegi | Hacker News Reader

I had posted a separate comment on the ruling that discusses this point.

The district court and the appeals court both agree that Apple is well within its rights to charge developers $99 initially and x% of revenues, under the principle of what they are calling IP compensation.

The district court did not completely agree to Apple's argument that 30% is fair (they expressly rejected it) and the appeals court observed that Epic's tactic on this argument was legally flawed and mentioned something to the effect of Epic should have used a different argument (and since they didn't, we are not ruling on this). To me, this looks like a vulnerability for Apple that they could be attacked by a different plaintiff using a different legal theory.

View on HN

It seems like you're saying that there can exist enforceable revenue-sharing agreements between developers and Apple. But with sideloading, I don't see why a developer would have to enter into any contract with Apple in the first place? And in the absence of any contract, surely Apple would have no right to a developer's revenue?

The court held the Apple DPLA (developer program license agreement) as an adhesion agreement. If you want to develop apps for Apple you need to sign that. I think that is also needed to get their compilers, SDK etc., that provides apps access to their IP (i.e., the device, ios etc.,).

While the contours of how sideloading is going to unravel is unknown at this time, it is possible that Apple may still use some form of app notarization (perhaps an API for 3rd party stores and require that the stores use those APIs -- similar to their stance on webkit).

Then, similar to the Netherlands case where dating apps were allowed alternatives to InAppPayments, but charged 27% commission, Apple might charge a discounted commission (relative to the 30%) for sideloaded apps.

They will look to get their cut.

I don't like it, but that seems to be where this is headed.

It's at least technically possible to build an iOS app without any Apple tools. It seems like there are some guides already (https://vojtastavik.com/2018/10/15/building-ios-app-without-...), and I imagine it will become easier if there's suddenly a lot of interest in avoiding Apple tools.

I agree it's not entirely clear how this will play out, but I don't think a simple policy of sideloading only apps approved by Apple (or someone acting like their proxy) would be compatible with DMA rules like

> The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.

There are some security-related caveats, so perhaps Apple can use those as a pretense for denying sideloaded apps access to a bunch of features, but I don't see how they could block simple games etc.

But they didn’t get past signing. They did the signing steps themselves but still used a developer account. The iPhone will not run unsigned code and you can’t get a signing key without the help of Apple.

Apple has enough security to ensure nothing gets on the phone without their signing, and legally they are in full control over that and can set the terms (within what’s legal for contracts). No court or law has yet said that has to change.

People have speculated that side loading may work by Apple just letting you download the fully signed IPA file, as it would exist in the App Store. That way side loaded apps would pass the security checks but Apple is still in full control.

IANAL, but to me "allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software" sounds like a broad rule. There are a few exceptions mentioned in that provision, but it doesn't seem like a gatekeeper would be able to just come up with their own exceptions where they won't follow the rule, like "except for apps we don't like" or "except if the developer hasn't agreed to pay us".

> I don't see why a developer would have to enter into any contract with Apple in the first place

It's almost guaranteed apps will still have to be signed by Apple in order to be sideloaded. Current developer sideloading requires signing.

Apple will be required to "allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications".

IANAL, but I doubt a policy of "sideloading is allowed, but only for apps that we approve and/or developers who pay us" would be considered compliant with that.

They could enforce some sort of signature requirement, but if they tried to force developers into some sort of business relationship before being able to sign, that seems like failing to allow third-party software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com