Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[Sophisticatednut]

If anyone is interested the Syllabus of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. is online and shows details that should be kept in mind when using it as an example.

As one article put it "The Supreme Court ruling was a mixed bag that many observers are still parsing. In a 6-2 decision, justices sided with Google and its argument that the company’s copying of 11,500 lines of code from Oracle’s Java in the Android operating system was fair use. Great! At the same time, though, the court appeared to be operating under the assumption that APIs are copyrightable."

How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights give a summation that mere mortals can read. Despite the title the court didn't throw out the idea that APIs were copyrightable - in fact the Supreme Court ignored that and went straight to Fair Use.

Well I do believe I mentioned this difference.

Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his majority opinion. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted."

 

[theotherphil]

If a company builds an electronic device to be used on the consumer market and they do not want the consumers messing with the hardware, they put their own software on it but then say the software is licensed, which prevents the hardware from being messed with because to mess with the hardware has a tendancy to affect the software and because the software is only licensed it means it comes with a lot of restrictions.

The problem for Apple is that in some cases their licensing terms and conditions mean nothing, especially when it can be proven that a persons intention is just. The classic case in point being iphone jailbreaking which Apple fought heavily against using the iOS licensing T&C's as to why jailbreaking should be illegal but the courts went against Apple and said it was legal for an iphone owner to jailbreak their iphone.

Just because a company lists of a whole host of terms and conditions for it's hardware and it's software, it does not means these terms and conditions will hold up in a court of law and many times this has been the case.

So please, enough with this 'iOS is not yours to with as you please' nonsense.

Yes, as I said, the phone is yours to do with as you please. You can jailbreak or put another OS on it if you choose to. The OS does not belong to you however.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Devs should exit from apple or unionize.

That would be called company collusion that could be open to lawsuits against the member companies. We aren’t talking about people, Apple employees, but businesses / companies. In certain countries one needs to register their business, aka opening a company, to be able to market their products and services.

The reference to the devs is misleading. Even the name of the agreement is misleading. Its a business agreement between companies.

Exit from Apple. What does that even mean? Can digital services avoid Apple IP to reach 50% of the US population using smartphones … no. Safari is still Apple IP. So we are talking about people using digital services and buying goods on their computing devices … apps and devices not owned by Apple yet using elements of Apple IP as well as IP of many other entities to function.

PS: I personally don’t like the Union conceptualisation of the problem. It politically charged with leftist idealisms. This is businesses … the emergence of oligarchic capitalism mechanisms vs entrepreneurial capitalism.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Can digital services avoid Apple IP to reach 50% of the US population using smartphones … no.

To preempt the arguments:

“They can just build their own smartphones and OS. Or web apps.”

 

[draugminaion]

Here is a tidbit of related info: ( there's and NDA, so I'm going to be vague )
We (the company I work at) are doing a thing that was announced at WWDC, but we need some stuff from Apple to proceed. We got a call from Apple today to tell us there will be (more) delays. The regulatory chaos that's coming, some of which is already ongoing in the Netherlands, South Korea and Japan, has people scrambling with no time for other things.

It might well be that Apple is already working hard to adapt the AppStore infrastructure to weather the regulatory sh*tstorm that's coming and compared to that the fines are a relatively small problem.

(Also, they are appealing the ACM decision, so how much they end up actually paying remains to be seen.)

 

[Lihp8270]

Devs should exit from apple or unionize. Remember no one is forced to develop for apple, it’s completely voluntary.

With the opinions on this forum. Apple would only sell to a handful of countries. And nobody would develop apps for them.

 

[Abazigal]

With the opinions on this forum. Apple would only sell to a handful of countries. And nobody would develop apps for them.

Or maybe there are way fewer developers who have an issue with the current status quo than the current furore lets on. They develop a good app, and the App Store gives them a ready audience to market to. They earn a decent income (after the 15% cut and all), and get on with their lives.

An extra 10% in income is always nice, but it’s not going to make for a meaningful increase in their standard of living, and it’s just not a battle worth their time to fight.

Look at the people fighting this 30% cut. Epic (who wants their own App Store where they can charge other developers a cut). Spotify (who is in their own world of hurt). Hey (and DHH prefers posting conspiracy theories on social media about how Apple is somehow discriminating against his wife because he knows that’s what gets him internet clout). Tile (who is selling out to a company with a very questionable record for privacy). Facebook.

These are the people the critics are choosing to die on a hill for?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

To preempt the arguments:

“They can just build their own smartphones and OS. Or web apps.”

That is a easy one.

Some people might find abusive to require, say the “Grocery” business to be in the camera smartphone business in order to compete with companies that don’t even sell or distribute “groceries” at the moment. I’m one of those.

Zero fee is not an option.

Honestly this all thing is just speeding up the process of considering general purpose Operating Systems, utilities, like ISP platforms. Don’t think this is in Apple interest … but who knows, maybe it’s smart.

PS: Look at the words used around here when talking about third party businesses: Union, Income … expressions used in employee and social contexts. Fish in a fishnet.

Have you noticed that we are marked as 6502a? It used to be the label of a Microprocessor.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, as I said, the phone is yours to do with as you please. You can jailbreak or put another OS on it if you choose to. The OS does not belong to you however.

If the OS was included in the purchase of the device, then its your property as well.

There is no difference between OS and phones.
If you buy a DVD with software on it will be yours.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Here is a tidbit of related info: ( there's and NDA, so I'm going to be vague )
We (the company I work at) are doing a thing that was announced at WWDC, but we need some stuff from Apple to proceed. We got a call from Apple today to tell us there will be (more) delays. The regulatory chaos that's coming, some of which is already ongoing in the Netherlands, South Korea and Japan, has people scrambling with no time for other things.

It might well be that Apple is already working hard to adapt the AppStore infrastructure to weather the regulatory sh*tstorm that's coming and compared to that the fines are a relatively small problem.

(Also, they are appealing the ACM decision, so how much they end up actually paying remains to be seen.)

Can you share more information as this sounds fascinating

 

[draugminaion]

Can you share more information as this sounds fascinating

That the regulatory situation was given as an excuse for delays is all i know. The rest is guessing.
But they have to be doing something, right?
A big overhaul of App Store mechanics might be coming.
It will probably mean more hassle for developers, because the easy and simple way will no longer be allowed.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It will probably mean more hassle for developers, because the easy and simple way will no longer be allowed.

Why not. I mean, why can’t businesses relate the same way with the App Store as they do now if they choose to do so? Other in app options should not necessarily impact the current modus, just make its benefits even more explicit.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That the regulatory situation was given as an excuse for delays is all i know. The rest is guessing.
But they have to be doing something, right?
A big overhaul of App Store mechanics might be coming.
It will probably mean more hassle for developers, because the easy and simple way will no longer be allowed.

well we know that in the current iOS beta there is code for allowing sideloading. it could be related to this

 

[draugminaion]

Why not. I mean, why can’t businesses relate the same way with the App Store as they do now if they choose to do so? Other in app options should not necessarily impact the current modus, just make its benefits even more explicit.

Maybe that's an option.
Do it the hard way, where you have to submit accounting of your revenue and we can audit that, and we can freeze your account if we don't understand it or see something strange because you made a mistake.
Or do it the old way.

Oh, and because the new way is more work for us, it's always 30%.

Your choice.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That the regulatory situation was given as an excuse for delays is all i know. The rest is guessing.
But they have to be doing something, right?
A big overhaul of App Store mechanics might be coming.
It will probably mean more hassle for developers, because the easy and simple way will no longer be allowed.

New iOS/iPadOS 15.4 beta 2 came out today and it contained a surprise.
Watch this video at time stamp 3:25.
3rd Party Apps code

 

[draugminaion]

well we know that in the current iOS beta there is code for allowing sideloading. it could be related to this

There is?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Maybe that's an option.
Do it the hard way, where you have to submit accounting of your revenue and we can audit that, and we can freeze your account if we don't understand it or see something strange because you made a mistake.
Or do it the old way.

Oh, and because the new way is more work for us, it's always 30%.

Your choice.

I'm very confident this will not be legal in EU. and as it looks like now the EU courts do not look favorable on it.

and the DMA will bring the hammer on Apple in 2023 IF they continue to abuse their situation

 

[draugminaion]

New iOS/iPadOS 15.4 beta 2 came out today and it contained a surprise.
Watch this video at time stamp 3:25.
3rd Party Apps code

Hmmmmm....
Interesting.

Might be connected to the new thing where you can have unlisted apps on the app store. Download through a link.
Maybe these features will be available to users of the Xcode in the cloud thing.

 

[draugminaion]

I'm very confident this will not be legal in EU. and as it looks like now the EU courts do not look favorable on it.

and the DMA will bring the hammer on Apple in 2023 IF they continue to abuse their situation

Why would that not be legal? How does Unreal Engine or Unity get it's cut. They get a share of revenue above the free tier.
If it's no longer legal to get paid for a service, they will just stop providing it.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Here is a tidbit of related info: ( there's and NDA, so I'm going to be vague )
We (the company I work at) are doing a thing that was announced at WWDC, but we need some stuff from Apple to proceed.

Upcoming WWDC or previous? And it's related to App Store?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Why would that not be legal? How does Unreal Engine or Unity get it's cut. They get a share of revenue above the free tier.
If it's no longer legal to get paid for a service, they will just stop providing it.

No, getting paid for a service is absolutely legal. Epic provide use of their game engine in developers games and take a cut of any game revenue sold that is shipped with their code.

Apple doesn't provide developers the ability to use iOS code in their apps, only the ability to be published in the App Store and call APIs in iOS. Apple will have the right to take a cut on FIRST sale in the store. Apple will be allowed to provide a VOLUNTARY service for developers to use IAP and give apple a cut.

EU will force apple to allow developers to provide their own IAP solution and pay nothing to apple for that.
Apple will still be allowed to take payment for services they provide. It doesn't mean they can take a cut of revenue.

It doesn't mean they can take a cut of APIs as they aren't cover by copyright law and are free to use irrespective of contract or license clauses in EU

 

[draugminaion]

Upcoming WWDC or previous? And it's related to App Store?

Previous. Not related to the App Store. A Wallet thing.

 

[draugminaion]

No, getting paid for a service is absolutely legal. Epic provide use of their game engine in developers games and take a cut of any game revenue sold that is shipped with their code.

Apple doesn't provide developers the ability to use iOS code in their apps, only the ability to be published in the App Store and call APIs in iOS. Apple will have the right to take a cut on FIRST sale in the store. Apple will be allowed to provide a VOLUNTARY service for developers to use IAP and give apple a cut.

EU will force apple to allow developers to provide their own IAP solution and pay nothing to apple for that.
Apple will still be allowed to take payment for services they provide. It doesn't mean they can take a cut of revenue.

It doesn't mean they can take a cut of APIs as they aren't cover by copyright law and are free to use irrespective of contract or license clauses in EU

Calling iOS APIs is using iOS code.
They aren't taking a cut on use of the API's, the API's are free, the code behind the API's is proprietary and subject to a license.
Epic and Unity's cut is based on revenue, why can't Apple do the same?

 

[Lihp8270]

If the OS was included in the purchase of the device, then its your property as well.

There is no difference between OS and phones.
If you buy a DVD with software on it will be yours.

No. You purchase a license to use it. There’s no ownership.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Hmmmmm....
Interesting.

Might be connected to the new thing where you can have unlisted apps on the app store. Download through a link.
Maybe these features will be available to users of the Xcode in the cloud thing.

The Windows Store has a similar option. Deep linked paired with unlisted apps. Meaning the Apps aren’t promoted, aren’t searchable, no user reviews … nothing of that sort. Still Apps have running access the same as others.

You just pay for hosting and standard review processes for security and certificates which is fair enough. All other stuff, use whatever. Windows Store payment is still required I guess The markup is 5%.

Don’t know if this is new or not:

https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distribution/

It does not look similar to the Windows Store. The all thing is vague and dubious … as usual.

The Windows Store effectively makes a distinction between a lead generated in store or coming from outside through a link (deep link). So I guess if MS can do this and still run at a profit … the question is not profit vs cost but profit margins that come from fully controlling the distribution of third party assets as far as Apple is concerned.

Not that it matters, it is here only for comparison purposes. Of course customers use what they use and you need to be there whatever they use to serve them.