61–70 of 1001 posts
There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...
If we’re talking about the details of the implementation, maybe.
If it’s about the commission that still needs to be paid, then no. That’s directly mentioned in the original ruling by the district court, a commission is due regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMA has surprisingly little effect on the US. In the EU has the 30% (or now 27%) been found illegal? I know they’re being forced to allow other app stores or side loading or something. But what about the fee?
Well if they try any shady business here (e.g. forcing a fee, limiting competitors contractually, lot's of big scary warnings for everything) the EU is standing by for rounds two, three etc. The regulatory rules passed in the DMA are written to allow action without the need to go through the whole legislative process. I predict it will come to that. Apple is gonna fight this tooth and nail to the very end. And unless…
I’m curious to see what happens in the EU. Apple could do a couple of things to make their life easy but I know they’re gonna go down kicking and screaming and make things worse for themselves. It’s what they always do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems a lot more egregious that anything Microsoft did in the 90s. While MS tried to push their own products and lock out competitors, they never tried to take a massive cut of all the software on their OS. The level of sheer FU everyone chutzpah is pretty impressive. They're indeed making quite a joke out of antitrust at this point.
Microsoft had like 95% of the market. Apple has 50%. Courts have already ruled they’re not a monopoly. Epic asked the Supreme Court to look at that again and they specifically decided not to and to leave the decision in place. That’s why Apple can do what they’re (now, post order) doing legally and Microsoft couldn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMA has surprisingly little effect on the US. In the EU has the 30% (or now 27%) been found illegal? I know they’re being forced to allow other app stores or side loading or something. But what about the fee?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. For obvious reasons, the US government and justice system is probably not interested in being the beta tester for such a regulation – they have relatively little to gain and much to lose. Even "green bubbles" seem to be a much bigger point of contention in US public discourse than sideloading/the 30% tax. But if the DMA it ends up working well well and consumers like it, and app stor…
I don’t think that really matters at all. No one (in the legislative branches) cares enough to pass something about this. Is basically impossible to get things past anyway recently, even far more important things than this.
There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...
These conditions are onerous enough that the Kindle app probably still cannot handle in-app purchases. It's really pretty annoying that I have to leave the Kindle iOS app and go to the Kindle web app to make a purchase. Obviously it wouldn't cost either Apple or Amazon anything to allow this, it wouldn't be insecure or unsafe in any way, and it would be nice for consumers. So the fact that Apple and Amazon haven't ma…
I kind of figured this already when there's no way to filter apps by "doesn't have in-app purchases".
A 27% cut will make a 3rd party payment service a non starter for all but the biggest app. For small players a 3% savings isn't worth the administrative overhead of paying apple separately. Apple is begging for another lawsuit over this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about sketchy apps with subscriptions, are those still managed via Apple? As an end user, I like the fact I can just cancel through Apple instead of having to find my way around a 3rd party site that is trying its best to prevent me from unsubscribing.
This change means that users could go and subscribe externally, including to scam subscriptions, and you would no longer be able to cancel via Apple. That's probably part of the motivation for why they don't want to implement this sort of thing.
It wouldn’t surprise me if using a non-Apple payment system quickly became a very good way to figure out if you were about to get scammed by a random third party.
If it’s a company that I already know and trust, I might be willing (though Apple payments will still be more convenient).
Rando company? No way. Honestly this whole thing is probably going to prove their point. Even if they don’t exactly deserve the win.
> In accordance with the entitlement agreement, the link may inform users about where and how to purchase those in-app purchase items, and the fact that such items may be available for a comparatively lower price
The fact that you must apply for permission to tell your users that you even have off-app purchase items is bullshit.
Apple’s welcome to make the rules of their own platform (within reason), but it’s garbage that developers aren’t even able to say the rules exist. If Apple believes they’re so right and just, why must they leave users uninformed?
What’s the good faith argument for any of this? I want to see Craig Federighi on stage at WWDC announcing and this revolutionary new "link" API, demoing how great the scary warning screens are.
They want a 27% commission on sales made from those links and the right to audit companies' accounts for compliance. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1747406430054097099 It's beyond a joke. Between that and the payment processing fees, you're no better off. In fact, you get all of the same costs but none of the benefits of Apple's app store native payment infrastructure.
I’m not sure why the audit requirement is getting called out. That seems pretty standard for this type of revenue sharing agreement to me.