Only if Apple doesn’t find a way to make their payment functionality worth using. They have options. They can keep the rate competitive, make the payment functionality easier and more efficient, add a new “revenue-producing app” tier that charges a lot more if you produce revenue from means outside of their app.
They’re definitely not powerless, but definitely will want to make adjustments to their process.
Apple has made changes to its App Store practices, now allowing developers to include a link to an external payment portal in their iOS and iPadOS apps in the US, following a legal case with Epic Games.
Despite this change, Apple will still charge a commission of 12-27% on payments made through these external links, and in-app purchases (IAPs) must remain an option in the app.
The new policy imposes various restrictions on developers, such as not discouraging the use of Apple’s IAP system and including a system disclosure sheet for external payments, making the overall impact on pricing and user experience minimal.
I don’t think we can know for sure, but the typical reason SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal is that they do not feel the case represents a significant question of law. As SCOTUS generally sees it, they’re not about “swooping in to right injustice”. They’re about being the final arbiter of actual questions of law. If there are no actual questions of law worth addressing, there’s no reason to take the case whether the verdict was just or unjust. There is more than one defensible outcome to a lot of trials, and SCOTUS is often not trying to “find the one right outcome”.
I think the exception to that would be if appeals courts go rogue and rule in direct contradiction to established law. Well that, and if SCOTUS wants to go rogue and themselves rule in direct contradiction to established law (like Dobbs)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Isn’t that a devastating loss for Apple? Every developer just makes their app free with unlocks hosted on their website.
Only if Apple doesn’t find a way to make their payment functionality worth using. They have options. They can keep the rate competitive, make the payment functionality easier and more efficient, add a new “revenue-producing app” tier that charges a lot more if you produce revenue from means outside of their app.
They’re definitely not powerless, but definitely will want to make adjustments to their process.
Apple has made changes to its App Store practices, now allowing developers to include a link to an external payment portal in their iOS and iPadOS apps in the US, following a legal case with Epic Games.
Despite this change, Apple will still charge a commission of 12-27% on payments made through these external links, and in-app purchases (IAPs) must remain an option in the app.
The new policy imposes various restrictions on developers, such as not discouraging the use of Apple’s IAP system and including a system disclosure sheet for external payments, making the overall impact on pricing and user experience minimal.
Does anyone know why they won’t hear this case?
I don’t think we can know for sure, but the typical reason SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal is that they do not feel the case represents a significant question of law. As SCOTUS generally sees it, they’re not about “swooping in to right injustice”. They’re about being the final arbiter of actual questions of law. If there are no actual questions of law worth addressing, there’s no reason to take the case whether the verdict was just or unjust. There is more than one defensible outcome to a lot of trials, and SCOTUS is often not trying to “find the one right outcome”.
I think the exception to that would be if appeals courts go rogue and rule in direct contradiction to established law. Well that, and if SCOTUS wants to go rogue and themselves rule in direct contradiction to established law (like Dobbs)