←back to thread

432 points nobody9999 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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. satvikpendem ◴[] No.46246662[source]
Yep, there's no reason to believe the fees will only be a few hundred dollars as Sweeney is saying, Apple will absolutely try to extract as much as possible without being sued again. The zero commissions for external links was the right approach.
replies(1): >>46247261 #
2. g947o ◴[] No.46247261[source]
> ... without being sued again

I'm not even sure about that. This very ruling shows that Apple blatantly violated the law (the previous ruling) and tried to collect as much fee as possible while the case goes through the system.

And Apple isn't afraid of being sued. As long as they can earn more money in revenue than paying for lawyers, that's a net profit for them. They can certainly afford all of this.