Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use other payment systems

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by gruez on Saturday January 15, 2022 @10:25AM (#29947011)

>The ruling allows dating app developers to avoid the commission fee between 15 to 30 percent Apple charges

Was this actually confirmed? I remember in the epic vs apple lawsuit (in the US), the media reported something similar, but if you read the decision more carefully, it explicitly says that apple was still entitled to their 30%/15% cut. The logic was that the 30%/15% cut wasn't the fee paid for processing payments, it was also the fee paid for access to the ecosystem, SDK, and placement on the app store.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by smoldesu on Saturday January 15, 2022 @11:58AM (#29947956)

IIRC, the loophole gave Apple the right to bill you afterwards for the use of their services. I don't know if that means they tally the 30% and come back to collect later, or just pass the direct charges of hosting onto you, but in any case I doubt Apple would be ballsy enough to try that outside the United States.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by supreme_berry on Saturday January 15, 2022 @12:43PM (#29948422)

That’s not loophole. That’s common sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by smoldesu on Saturday January 15, 2022 @12:57PM (#29948581)

Which part? I think retroactively billing people for arbitrary values like "30%" is dumb, since it doesn't actually address the issues people have. I wouldn't be mad if Apple passed me an itemized bill for my hosting costs and whatnot, but without that kind of transparency it still feels like I'm being scammed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by gruez on Saturday January 15, 2022 @01:14PM (#29948737)

>I think retroactively billing people for arbitrary values like "30%" is dumb [...]

>[...] without that kind of transparency it still feels like I'm being scammed

It's not arbitrary because it was part of the developer agreement you signed.

>since it doesn't actually address the issues people have

Must all regulator action "actually address the issues people have"? Regulators/courts are limited in what they can do, so it's not surprising that the ruling isn't some sort of decisive victory for independent software companies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use ot... by smoldesu on Saturday January 15, 2022 @04:36PM (#29950541)

> It's not arbitrary because it was part of the developer agreement you signed.

The value is arbitrary, not the fee.

> Must all regulator action "actually address the issues people have"?

Not necessarily, I'd think "address the issues people have" is a good place to start when you're regulating American corporate policy in a modern democracy.

[ Parent | on HN ]