Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#981

Post by qarl »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #980
qarl wrote: post #979

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down. The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly for payment provider. I understand that many people misunderstand this point, but that does not change it.

The Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.

I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#982

Post by bluefirebrand »

qarl wrote: post #981
bluefirebrand wrote: post #980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.

I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.

Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this.

This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS.

So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple Tax for those purchases.

In this case the "store" is not an app store but an in-game store, sure.

Have I got that right so far?

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#983

Post by qarl »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #982
qarl wrote: post #981

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.

Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this. This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS. So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple…

> This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax

That may be, but that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled in favor of Epic on only one count of ten - specifically that Apple must allow other payment processors.

As long as the app was originally installed via the Apple App Store, it's still subject to the Apple Tax.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#984

Post by sangnoir »

andsoitis wrote: post #949
sangnoir wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much" Anti-price-gauging laws have already been ruled as constitutional, so there is case law for "You're charging too much"

> Anti-price-gauging laws Price gauging has a very particular meaning; it isn't simply a subjective "you're charging too much". It is the practice of significantly increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities during a time of crisis or high demand. This can happen when there is a sudden shortage of a product, like during a natural disaster, or when there is a surge in demand, like for popular concert tick…

Your tone is unexpectedly adversarial, and yet you're not disagreeing. I was simply answering gp's question about legal foundation of whether one can be considered to be "charging too much" under the law.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#985

Post by beretguy »

tempodox wrote: post #626
interpol_p wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah! Actually, they have kind of done this with Apple Arcade, and charge you a $10 subscription for the service

Arcade is for games only. Also, any discontinued games on Arcade immediately stop working on any device where you have downloaded them. Apps from the regular App Store stay functional, even when discontinued. If you thought you couldn't have less ownership than with the stuff from the App Store, Arcade shows you how. You're merely a tenant, and even if you keep paying the rent, stuff just disappears.

The fact that arcade still exists tells me that people actually pay for it, which is very unfortunate to see so many gullible people out there who are willing to be taken advantage of so much.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#986

Post by SCM-Enthusiast »

lozenge wrote: post #647
dwaite wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite getting your point. The parent seems to be saying that when you take the difference between physical and digital goods into account, that Amazon is leaving him with a similar slice of the revenue. You seem to be arguing that he has alternatives to Amazon. However, you also seem to be making the point indirectly that the motivation for selling on Amazon, and why businesses sell in the App Stores, is that…

Companies like Amazon and Apple are free to set prices, but there are rules about being a monopoly and what that entails. Amazon is not a monopoly, it just has a dominant position. Apple has used technological means to make itself a monopoly. Web apps are not a real alternative. Firstly, an app you can only use on a desktop is a non starter for almost every use case. So you need a mobile layout. Now, some features li…

Your whole second section seems like a startup pitch to solve those issues.

"Web apps for mobile".

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#987

Post by tiltowait »

dns_snek wrote: post #582
w10-1 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "bad faith" claim essentially admits Apple is in fact in compliance. It's the weakest objection you can have, and typically would only be sufficient to get relief in very, very specific circumstances where the unfairness could be proven (as intended). But this case involves broad policies for millions of developers, and it's perfectly compliant with permitting other payment processors. So: there's almost no chance…

How are they possibly in compliance? The judgement was about Apple's "steering practices", not just allowing 3rd party payment processing. They're clearly making Apple's in-app purchases the preferential choice by prohibiting developers from using anything but a single plain text link, and scaring users with strongly worded warnings.

How are they not?

IIUC, the ruling said Apple has to allow devs to link to an alternative payment processor (i.e. Netflix can now link to netflix.com instead of the absurd rigmarole they had to endure before). Apple now allows devs to do this, with certain requirements (namely, a 27% commission). Since the court said Apple is allowed to collect a commission, those requirements don't seem to be (to this non-lawyer) illegal.

Are the strongly worded warnings untrue?

Absolutely no one should be surprised by the new policy. Every podcast I listened that discussed the matter when the judge handed down the initial verdict predicted this outcome.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#988

Post by srcreigh »

klabb3 wrote: post #103
Hikikomori wrote: post #85

If you are are ok with this you should also be ok with Apple taking a cut on anything you buy with their browser, why not also take a fee for any data going in and out of your phone.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If the web was invented today browsers would never be allowed on the App Store. Not even a dumbed down version without advanced scripting capabilities. The fact that they have a browser and allow “3p browsers” is only because the web was already established and customers wouldn’t have bought in without it. iPhones and iPads are not general purpose computing devices. Not by…

Keeping in mind what a browser could have been in 2024 if Apple hadn't disallowed/slowed innovation, it's fair to say browsers aren't allowed on the App Store.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#989

Post by sprgit8 »

throwaway290 wrote: post #954
m000 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe is the epitome of gatekeeping. Epic developed a cross-platform game that runs on half a dozen platforms. The appeal of the game is exactly because of that. And you claim that Epic should pay 30% to Apple, because "we are friends with rich people". Not to mention that the "is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit" claim is completely bollocks. Can you point to any iOS-exclusive games that…

> And you claim that Epic should pay 30% to Apple, because "we are friends with rich people". What? > "is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit" claim is completely bollocks If it was true Epic wouldn't be clamouring so hard for App Store presence and iOS users. Epic is the first to admit that App Store provides a ton of value and profit. The whole rigamarole is Epic wanting it but paying less or nothing…

> Epic wouldn't be clamouring so hard for App Store presence and iOS users

Do you see deliberately kicking themselves off of Apple platforms as "clamoring so hard"? On the contrary, Epic saw the platform was terrible for shooter games and driving extremely little value, and thus was happy to fight the monopoly on behalf of their _other_ main consumer - game engine developers.

> they were losing ungodly money after millions of iOS based gamers stopped playing Fortnite

Sorry but this is just laughable, and the numbers are all there in the lawsuit already. Almost no one played Fortnite on IOS. Some players installed on mobile but the majority solely used it as a web frontend to purchase cosmetics. Thus robbing Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo of their commissions for creating the platforms that players _actually_ play on.

> leech money off you or your kids like Fortnite.

If it wasn't obvious you have some weird bone to pick already, this certainly proves it. Epic's monetization model is wildly less predatory than the vast majority of mobile games. Why are you speaking so confidently about something you seem to know nothing about?

> [iOS] is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit > Apple offers developers significantly more than just a games engine. (comment from threeseed)

Apple sells hardware to consumers (above cost), then blocks consumers from actually using the hardware they own, and developers from distributing software for it, without paying Apple a monopolistically-high cut of sales. All Apple provides to developers is access to consumers who are blocked from their own hardware, and a nominal file distribution via CDN. A game engine provides an order of magnitude more value to developers than a CDN file distribution platform offers.

If Apple was providing real value to developers they wouldn't be so deathly afraid of competing with other app distributors.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#990

Post by yencabulator »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #799
justinclift wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Mind you, you can be blocked from doing needed Apple dev stuff (eg sign binaries, etc) until you've manually logged into your Apple account and clicked on the "I accept" button whenever they change terms. This happened to us (sqlitebrowser.org) in recent weeks, as our CI just stopped working one day. It turns out there was a new develo…

> There's literally no choice but to sign the things - regardless of terms - if you want your users to have software that runs. I suspect the EU will at some point, they have haven't already, make terms that must be accepted to continue void.

EU already forbids consumer contracts from e.g. having the business force a change of terms (though ending the contract on disagreement might count as good enough behavior).

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

Post reply on HN