From what I understand, ruling is saying: Apple can't block developers from displaying notification that the app can be bought cheaper elsewhere.

But it won't be cheaper elsewhere since developer still needs to pay the 30% commission.

How would that work? From my previous comment, let's say you add this message (no links): "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". Nobody knows how many users decided to visit the website instead.

It would work the same as many other revenue sharing agreements out there (including those for Epic’s own Unreal Engine). Yes, there’s no technical mechanism to keep you from screwing the other party (and small-scale fraud will likely go undetected), but there are contractual/legal mechanisms.

Total Installs - App Store Installs = Third Party Installs

And they know total installs from the notary service.

That doesn't work for in-app purchases, which is almost certainly the majority of revenue.

Pretty sure wrong. Apple cannot tax you for buying things on the game’s website. It’s just in app purchases that they have a monopoly on. So it’s annoying but it is possible. Hopefully developers make use of this and other regulation finishes the job

The argument was that Apple can use a business model similar to Epic's business model for Unreal Engine: no matter where / how you sell your game, Epic's licensing terms have you pay them a cut of your revenue.

So if I sign up for, say, Spotify on my windows pc on the browser, and then download the iOS client, Apple believes they deserve 30%?

Yeah they can piss off with that. It’ll go away with time.

No, it would only be if you made the purchase via clicking on a specific link from within the iOS app, which Apple allows via a certain API, called an "External Purchase Link".

So Apple's method of complying is:

- yes you can link to an external price, but you need to use our API (External Purchase Link) to do it, per our terms

- any purchases made via an External Purchase Link require Apple be paid the usual cut, per our terms

Seems to fairly clearly violate the spirit of the last ruling, but not the letter of it. I dislike Apple's behavior here, but it's actually kinda genius from a "malicious compliance" perspective. Doing the above is going to be more annoying and you will still owe them a cut, so everyone will just keep doing IAP via Apple if their implementation is allowed to stand.

Pretty sure that Epic will sue again over this, and quite easily win. If Apple has to allow you to advertise that things can be bought from somewhere else, it doesn't seem plausible they can mandate how exactly you advertise this.

"Apple has also confirmed that it will charge a commission on purchases made through alternative payment platforms. This commission will be 12% for developers who are a member of the App Store Small Business Program and 27% for other apps."

https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16/apple-revises-us-app-store-ru...

> The commission will apply to “purchases made within seven days after a user taps on an External Purchase Link and continues from the system disclosure sheet to an external website.”

Remove the link and offer a url ;)