Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

> They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order.

Not at all. Both the district court as well as the 9th circuit who affirmed the district court’s judgment explicitly stated that only the anti-steering guideline needs to be scrapped, that Apple is still entitled to their commission because it serves as payment for their IP and that Apple would be entitled to include an auditing provision in their developer agreement.

In fact, the courts noted how cumbersome this auditing process and after the fact collection of the commission would be.

In other words, this is not only fully sanctioned by the courts, but the expected outcome.

> But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission

There was no reframing. It was always defined as such. Or to be more specific, the developer agreement always designated Apple as an agent to the developer, akin to a literary agent, and explicitly defined the commission as a payment for those agent services and Apple’s IP.

The commission has also never legally been tied to IAP or payment through the App Store, but rather directly tied to sales in general.

All the big parties that are now acting “shocked” that Apple would do this, such as Epic and Spotify, etc, have well paid legal departments that explained all of the above to the people in charge, so none of this is a surprise to any of them.

They just bank on you not knowing so you’ll be a willing pawn in their push to make their profits go up.

> Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the implementation but this definitely makes it murkier - can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice?

There’s nothing to challenge. The courts have spoken and SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

It’s the law of the land and honestly, spelled out in a crystal clear plain language way in the judgments. None of this should be surprise to anyone.

>It's always kind of annoying seeing this "just don't use it" argument, as it completely ignores that part of the point of the walled garden is that it gradually forces people to be so invested in the garden that it becomes increasingly expensive to leave it.

My personal experience doesn't leave me super convinced of this, which is why I asked. I don't think I use any apps I've purchased on the regular anymore. There are a few I subscribe to, but that's an ongoing fee I could continue to pay on Android (if the app exists) and I'll buy a game every now and then, but I rarely go back to them, so I'm not sure that I'm personally losing a ton of sleep over the loss of access to Magic Research. The cost of moving is going to be my time in migration.

The issue you describe (parents preferring iOS over Android) sounds rather distinct of an issue to a walled garden.

Does anyone here work in the back office of a grocery chain?

What’s the typical markup on a gallon of milk or a frozen dinner?

I’d bet that Apple’s 27% isn’t as egregious as it sounds.

The grocery chain has to spend money to buy the products.

A better comparison might be a flea market or fair where the organizers take 27% of gross receipts from each vendor, even if the customer went to the vendors store outside of the fair to buy. Which sounds egregious to me, moreso if it was the only fair that existed for a large demographic.

I appreciate the time you put into your thought. Fundamentally, I disagree with the assertion that because a minor consumer purchase goes south and charges an unarguably illegal processing fee (for interchange) now deemed legal for hardware providers that the usual moral justification for this, consumer welfare, is harmed as the BATNA is simple - get a different maker's phone. Varying qualities of substitutes are easily attainable.

No, where Apple goes wrong and will lose the market is through the exercise of market access to developers, as they lock the currently largest market down. It's also a implicit tax for purchasing.

But the legal remedies are already stymied. We are stuck with the stupidity of the decision for awhile despite the minor migration inconvenience.

Thus ends the House of Jobs, not with a fight but with a pyhric win.