Hacker News Reader

> it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods

They won that for other developers but not for themselves. Epic failed to win an injunction that would see Fortnite return to the App Store; their singular victory is of no use to them.

>it seems like the only thing Epic won here is the right to tell customers about other possible payment methods, including being able to link to external sources in order to give that information.

I don't see even that as a clear win. It would be quite straightforward for Apple to require devs to mark all such notifications or links under an 'external promotions' category, and then give users the choice to disable promotional notifications. All users will disable them.

It’s worse than that, Apple already agreed to this just last month as part of a different settlement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/26/apple-a...

> I really don't see how Apple would successfully bill for their 30% cut

Very simple. Apple adds such language to the developer agreement. "We get a 30% cut of revenue for any services used on iOS devices." Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%" "iOS device XYZ paid via IAP, we don't owe you" etc etc etc etc down the line.

Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books. Apple adds provisions whereby being off by more than X% results in penalties. Apple adds provisions whereby they can request an independent audit of the companies books (quite reasonable with a "you're honest, we paid, you lied, you pay" provision). If all else fails Apple obviously retains the right to sue to enforce and a court can require a company to provide apple financials as part of discovery.

It's really not HARD per-se. I imagine the only reason apple doesn't do this as that it's just so much complicated than the IAP route.

Probably the thorniest issue here is that it would create some perverse incentives. Netflix might chose to remove their app from the app store in favor of telling you to just go to the website again avoiding the 30% cut.

Furthermore, what would entitle apple to their 30%?

I just bought and installed a card control badge access system at our office. I downloaded/installed the app on my phone. Should apple get 30%? If so, 30% of what? 30% of the total system cost including install? 30% of what I paid for the hardware? 30% of just the controller hardware cost? 30% of the annual support maintenance cost? I don't even KNOW most of those costs because they aren't even enumerated to me. I just paid a big lump sump. Super messy.

> Apple requires companies to submit some form of user-level payment data. E.g. "iOS device XYZ paid via our website, we owe you 30%"

A company could just, y'know, not do that. Or vastly under-report. Apple has no way of knowing, especially if the developer has apps and/or customers on other platforms. Because:

> Apple also adds provisions where they can audit your books.

I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court. Especially for any company that has any significant non-Apple-related business. That information is proprietary and confidential.

I think it is hard to enforce. And agree on your card control system example, though I think the 30% cut is already not in play when it comes to physical goods... consider that otherwise Amazon couldn't have an iOS app: a 30% cut would bankrupt them, and raising prices by 30% would mean no one would buy from them.

> I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court.

See footnote 617 on page 150 of the ruling where the judge suggests exactly that:

"In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers."

> Netflix might chose to remove their app from the app store in favor of telling you to just go to the website again avoiding the 30% cut.

I wish every app had the balls to do this.

It's not really about having the balls to do this, but more about having the budget and name to be able to get your income without it.

Netflix will still have the potential subscribers signing up because the name will simply bring ppl in.

MyNiceService that has 0 budget and benefits from every subscriber, even if I have to bring 30% (which is 15% in the beginning until I get big) to apple is simply not able to do that.