←back to thread

432 points nobody9999 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.281s | source
Show context
Someone ◴[] No.46246157[source]
> Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. That should be more than enough to compensate the employees reviewing the apps to make sure outside payment links are not scams

I would think making sure outside payment links aren’t scams will be more expensive than that because checking that once isn’t sufficient. Scammers will update the target of such links, so you can’t just check this at app submission time. You also will have to check from around the world, from different IP address ranges, outside California business hours, etc, because scammer are smart enough to use such info to decide whether to show their scammy page.

Also, even if it becomes ‘only’ hundreds of dollars, I guess only large companies will be able to afford providing an option for outside payments.

replies(14): >>46246330 #>>46246353 #>>46246590 #>>46246629 #>>46247273 #>>46247730 #>>46248914 #>>46248949 #>>46248984 #>>46249805 #>>46249816 #>>46250039 #>>46251064 #>>46251907 #
GeekyBear ◴[] No.46247273[source]
> CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees”

He seems to be ignoring the part of the ruling finding that Apple is entitled to "some compensation" for the use of its intellectual property.

> The appeals court recommends that the district court calculate a commission that is based on the costs that are necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, along with "some compensation" for the use of its intellectual property. Costs should not include commission for security and privacy.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/12/11/apple-app-store-fees-ex...

Apple wanted 27% and Epic thinks it should be 0%. The lower court will have to pick a number in between the two.

replies(3): >>46247692 #>>46249201 #>>46250562 #
1. benoau ◴[] No.46250562[source]
It's a little more nuanced than simply "some compensation" - and IANAL but it seems like the court is saying this fee should as Sweeney posits be very small:

> Apple should be able to charge a commission on linked-out purchases based on the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, but no more.

> In making a determination of Apple’s necessary costs, Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of its intellectual property that is directly used in permitting Epic and others to consummate linked-out purchases.

> In deciding how much that should be, the district court should consider the fact that most of the intellectual property at issue is already used to facilitate IAP, and costs attributed to linked-out purchases should be reduced equitably and proportionately;

> Apple should receive no commission for the security and privacy features it offers to external links, and its calculation of its necessary costs for external links should not include the cost associated with the security and privacy features it offers with its IAP;

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdqxweopo/...