> Apple should receive no commission for the security and privacy features it offers to external links

I'm not versed in legalese, so maybe I misunderstand. Isn't it reasonable that Apple receives money for a service they provide, that costs money to run?

▲

zamadatix 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The case is really about the opposite: "what payment related services is Apple allowed to force people to use (and therefore pay for)". The court concluded that excludes both the payment service itself as well as the validation of the security of external payment services used in its place.

▲

lapcat 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A service to whom? Protecting users is a service to users, not to developers. This is a selling point of iPhone, and thus Apple receives money from users when they pay for the iPhone.

Think about it this way: totally free apps with no IAP get reviewed by Apple too, and there's no charge to the developer except the $99 Apple Developer Program membership fee, which Epic already pays too.

▲

cyberax 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Think about it this way: totally free apps with no IAP get reviewed by Apple too, and there's no charge to the developer except the $99 Apple Developer Program membership fee

Yearly fee. And about $500 a year in hardware depreciation, because you can reasonably develop for Apple _only_ on Apple hardware.

This is _way_ more than Microsoft has ever charged, btw.

▲

someguyiguess 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Protecting users is absolutely in the best interest of developers.

	▲	lapcat 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Forcing developers to go through Apple's arbitrary, capricious, slow review process is absolutely not in the best interest of developers.