←back to thread

432 points nobody9999 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bze12 ◴[] No.46245964[source]
I don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they tried to charge 27%
replies(2): >>46246043 #>>46247322 #
adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.46246043[source]
I think Apple will have a very hard time arguing that the "reasonable" amount is a percentage of revenue with no cap.
replies(2): >>46246246 #>>46247032 #
stockresearcher ◴[] No.46246246[source]
They absolutely will and they will absolutely get away with it. It just won’t be anywhere close to 27%.

There has been craploads of litigation about “Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” licensing over the last two decades, and fees that are percentages of revenue with no cap have survived and there is no reason to believe any of these legal standards will change.

In fact, I think it’s likely that Apple and Google will team up to create a standards body that defines the method for distributing/installing smartphone apps (because this is now in their best interest, not that I want them to). These standards are going to end up using a bunch of patents that you will have to license on FRAND terms.

Yes, the cost is going to go down. Yes, Epic is going to benefit a lot more than any indie developer. Such is life

replies(2): >>46246387 #>>46246662 #
1. zamadatix ◴[] No.46246387[source]
This isn't related to what's fair in licensing, comparing it as such is Apples to oranges.
replies(1): >>46246450 #
2. stockresearcher ◴[] No.46246450[source]
Just you wait
replies(1): >>46246674 #
3. zamadatix ◴[] No.46246674[source]
I'm not disagreeing on the conclusion, this argument of why was just not supportive of it.