Ok, I missed that part apparently. Where was that stated by the judge?
Still seems silly. What stops Apple from:
IAP commission: 15%
Outside of App Store commission: 15%
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Still seems silly. What stops Apple from:
IAP commission: 15%
Outside of App Store commission: 15%
They can and will use apple pay and google pay for a higher turn over rate
And there are already standardized payment platforms that will be used. I don't think we will see developers baking their own as it is risky and very costly
Absolutely nothing. But it gives developers the choice of different payment providers. No one said it would be cheaper to use a third party payment processor (seems logical to me it would cost more with more companies involved).
It is kind of bizarre how so many want to blame Apple for wanting to take a profit from sales through the safe and secure app store, while not being concerned that the only reason the plaintiffs are pressing this case is because they want more profits from their apps. What if you end up paying the same price as via the app store, but are receiving less quality of service and possibly exposing yourself to identify theft and the other hazards already mentioned?
Could you do me a favor and point to where the judge said this? Maybe I need more coffee this morning but I'm not finding it.
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 tosome compensation for use of its intellectual property
The Apple v. Epic Decision
Understanding Apple’s victory in Apple v. Epic, and the limitations of the injunction on anti-steering provisions.
stratechery.com
Exactly. If you look at what happened in September, the judge did rule that Epic had breached their contract with Apple and still owed the 30% commission on the $12 million they had collected outside of the app store. So presumably, this will still apply regardless of how the payment gets processed. Just like shopping at the grocery store, check out with whatever payment you want but you still pay the store their profit.
Bingo. You don’t get to bypass the store charges by choosing to pay via a different merchant otherwise you’re effectively getting a free ride at someone else’s expense, and that’s definitely not fair ?
Ok, I def missed that. And as fas I can tell, the Court never ruled that 30% was too much.
This seems like a silly ruling. Apple can charge 30% across the board LOL. And this would seem to open the doors for Apple to start taxing Netflix.
Last edited:
Thank you for your good arguments and I am convinced that the AppStore would be unchallenged, if they adopted the non-profit model for the AppStore. That would make the AppStore a completely different story.
Free ride? Not sure about that. What cut does Apple get on Mac apps purchased outside the Mac App Store?
And you even can get your gas from Shell, BP or wherever you want. There is no technical limitation that forces you to buy gas from Peugeot.
The same thing that stops them from taking 90%. The app store would not work, and the iPhone would be less appealing, because too few developers would be interested, and Apple would make less money.
This is just how capitalism works. The "right" price is the price that the market will bear. If the 30% take wasn't worth it everybody would be making web apps.
Oh, of course it would be challenged. Companies like Epic would love to use Apple's infrastructure to host their own for-profit stores without paying Apple anything. This is what this entire joke of a lawsuit is about.
Macs purchased outside the App Store do not use Apple's distribution network or cloud services.
They owed the 30% because the purchases were still made in-app. Linking out to a website and making the purchase in a browser would no longer be an IAP.
Certainly is a fine line, isn’t it?
What I want to know is: is Apple allowed to define a rule that says developers who want to link to external must ALSO offer in app purchase? Because that sounds like something they would do. Are they allowed? The fact that they even have to ask is wrong.
Lol
Oh look here you are again pretending you have a clue about law and championing punishing a corporation for success.
Personally I think Apple should just allow them to do whatever they want. It’s a 30% commission using Apple IAP and it’s a 25% commission if you don’t.
It's far from clear that would apply to purchases made in a browser. What exactly is the difference between a someone clicking on a link in an email from a dev that takes them to a website to make a purchase versus clinking on a link in their app that takes them to a website to make a purchase?
Making sure companies aren't using their success to act anti-competitively isn't punishing them for their success. It's making sure they don't abuse said success.
If you are a small developer do you want the added burden of providing your own support when your non-Apple IAP is not working and your customers are bitching because your non-Apple IAP is charging your customers every day instead of every month? Chasing down faulty charges is very time consuming.
Hence the judge has ruled the anti-steering provision is gonna have to be removed.