In a filing in the Epic lawsuit, Apple says it “could charge a commission” if developers use a competing payments platform, following a similar Google policy
Developers considering competing payment platforms face the prospect that Apple’s commission would remain payable, reducing the immediate savings from bypassing in-app purchase.
Apple aligns its litigation posture with Google’s similar commission policy, preserving its claim to payment revenue even where it does not process the transaction.
Second-order effects
Alternative payment providers must compete against a residual Apple fee rather than against Apple’s in-app-purchase fee alone, making their pricing proposition harder to establish for developers.
Epic’s challenge shifts toward the terms Apple can attach to external payments, not solely the availability of external payment links.
Third-order effects
The later injunction and Apple’s effort to suspend it point to a broader contest over whether platform operators can retain a transaction-based take rate after payment processing is opened to rivals.
If courts constrain commissions on outside transactions, platform gatekeeper leverage will be tested at the level of commercial terms rather than only payment exclusivity.
The trend: App-store payment disputes are moving from exclusive checkout systems toward judicial limits on the fees platforms may impose when developers route payments elsewhere.
What I've come to assume is now in black and white in this filing from Apple: If the injunction goes into effect, Apple seems likely to charge a commission on any transactions that start in the app, even if they are completed on the web. https://www.scribd.com/... https://twitter…
Use New Amazon EC2 M1 Mac Instances to Build & Test Apps for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV - https://aws.amazon.com/... #AWS #reinvent - Awesome post, @sebsto ! https://twitter.com/...
@drbarnard I don't think we can call it ‘likely’ yet. It's just being used to support its argument for a stay here. commissions on non-apple IAPs (web payments) could make apple liable for the fraud taking place outside the app store. that's a big decision for apple to make
@sarahintampa Seeming like we won't find out either way based on the likelihood of the administrative stay being granted. I still think they should drop the rate so that linking out matters less (conversions are so much higher using IAP), but that doesn't fit Apple's MO
I think Google and Apple have both been pretty clear about this. The in-app purchase mechanism has just been a convenient way to charge for all of the services that they provide. The point has never really been about processing payments; indeed Apple outsources that. https://twit…
Apple has indicated that it's going to follow Google's playbook in South Korea and even if they're forced to allow alternate payment mechanisms for IAPs, they'll still require a cut. This basically defeats the entire point of the lawsuit and legislations. https://9to5mac.com/...
“Epic misled the district court into concluding that commission rates would affect licensee royalties, but Epic's own license agreement makes clear that royalties are based on gross sales, without regard to the amount of commission paid.” https://www.scribd.com/...
NEW: Apple says it may start charging commissions on in-app purchases made outside its App Store as it appeals injunction going into effect ~Dec 8. Tip @techmeme https://www.cnet.com/...