Hacker News Reader

as long as computers have existed you have always been able to install an application from your preferred source, it is unconscionable and anticompetitive to impose a fee only if the application is installed from a third party source.

is like having a cookie wall where pressing accept all is a single click, instead to do reject all you have to uncheck 50 checkboxes one at a time.

apple is doing the same thing by saying it's okay I use app store vs. I want freedom, because for the first choice it's easy, for the second choice they put a big tax in front of you

> as long as computers have existed you have always been able to install an application from your preferred source

The company that creates a platform gets to decide if their platform is open or closed.

For instance, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform while they created XBox as a closed platform.

Apple created Macintosh as an open platform and created iOS as a closed platform.

Microsoft attempted to close Windows after the fact with Windows RT and Surface RT but consumers rejected that change. The free market decides what consumers find acceptable.

iOS is a platform that favors ease of use and safety over openness.

https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/215-buildi...

Consumers have a choice. Quite a lot of them choose Android.

> is like having a cookie wall where pressing accept all is a single click, instead to do reject all you have to uncheck 50 checkboxes one at a time.

Which is an extremely clear violation of GDPR

> Apple says that by transacting with a customer _by any means_ on their platform, you owe them a part of that transaction.

That is indeed what the US Federal court ruled in Apple v. Epic, and all possible appeals have let that ruling stand.

> as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. 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.

Indeed, 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 use of its intellectual property.

https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/

Fortunately for EU regulators, US judicial precedent is not binding there while their Digital Markets Act is. We'll see if they take this lying down.

Given treaties between the EU and US, I doubt the EU will be able to strip companies of their intellectual property rights.

We'll see.

That's not how intellectual property works.

Getting paid when others use your intellectual property is exactly how intellectual property works.

"Intellectual property" is a right granted by states in order to further specific goals of the state.

"Treaties" are binding agreements between nations that place limits on what they may or may not do.

Fun fact: The EU itself is based on treaties between it's member states.

I would think that case is at least meaningfully in my favour. The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform.

The ruling is meaningfully weaker than what I'd expect from DMA, but this is natural, the legal case was argued on existing law, DMA is new.

> The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform.

The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property.

The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well.

> "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy."

Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content.

https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/

Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.

This ruling means at minimum that a company can say ‘or sign up for less at on our website’. Cf. Spotify, who were allowed to serve customers that signed in from an account with an off-app subscription but were not allowed to tell the customer that this alternative subscription existed.

Companies like Spotify and Netflix (that have a free app used to access subscription content) removed the option to pay through their app years ago.

You can only pay (and create an account) by going to their website, so they have always effectively paid Apple nothing but the yearly $99 developer account fee under the old rules.

However, now they can now tell you where to go to set up a new account on their website next to the login account and password fields of their app.

>I'm fine with Apple charging $.X per install from their app store. That should be in their right as a platform.

100% totally disagree. If you are engaging in a sales transactions, both parties should be given the opportunity to approve the sale.

The developer had the opportunity to approve when it put the app up for its list price.

IMO it is easier to see why this is OK if you imagine Apple weren't tying a waiver for this fee to being unable to inform the user about alternate payment platforms. That tie is obviously anti-competitive but is therefore distracting.

Once you put your code out there you can’t control who installs it.

If someone gets my app package and puts it up on another App Store I can’t control, I would be getting charged for those installations and have little control over taking it down depending on the government hosting the servers hosting my stolen software.