1
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

It’s funny how people assume that alternative app stores would mean they can get around paying their cut.

As was established in Epic v. Apple, it’s not a payment processing fee, it’s an IP fee:

Indeed, as the Court has found, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others.

This applies to sideloaded apps, alternative app stores, external payment processing, etc. The fee is to be payed for using the platform, its tools, and technologies, and having access to the user base generated by Apple via their hardware. That’s what you’re paying a 30% cut for.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

If sideloading is allowed, how would they enforce that?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Sideloading does not mean that you’re not subject to a ToS or that you will get full access to system frameworks.

This would potentially still require you to have an Apple developer membership to properly codesign binaries (like on macOS) if you distribute binaries and thus Apple could ask for financial audits to determine your income made with iOS customers.

This was explicitly mentioned in the court ruling: If a payment provider outside of Apple is used, Apple is entitled to such an audit to determine the size of the fee.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

That’s not an enforceable policy though. If you allow any form of sideloading, people will get around that quickly. Jailbreaking is already possible, sideloading will make it easy.

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Apple

107 readers
2 users here now

A place for Apple news, rumors, and discussions.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS