Apple Becomes a Debt Collector With Its New Developer Agreement 28
Apple released an updated developer license agreement this week that gives the company permission to recoup unpaid funds, such as commissions or any other fees, by deducting them from in-app purchases it processes on developers' behalf, among other methods. From a report: The change will impact developers in regions where local law allows them to link to external payment systems. In these cases, developers must report those payments back to Apple to pay the required commissions or fees.
The changed agreement seemingly gives Apple a way to collect what it believes is the correct fee if the company determines a developer has underreported their earnings. [...] In its new developer agreement, Apple states it will "offset or recoup" what it believes it is owed, including "any amounts collected by Apple on your behalf from end-users." This means Apple could recoup funds from developers' in-app purchases -- like those for digital goods, services, and subscriptions -- or from one-time fees for paid applications.
The changed agreement seemingly gives Apple a way to collect what it believes is the correct fee if the company determines a developer has underreported their earnings. [...] In its new developer agreement, Apple states it will "offset or recoup" what it believes it is owed, including "any amounts collected by Apple on your behalf from end-users." This means Apple could recoup funds from developers' in-app purchases -- like those for digital goods, services, and subscriptions -- or from one-time fees for paid applications.
Lol antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forwards to the posts where because Apple is not an absolute monopoly they are somehow immune to any accusations of anti-trust.
No one would ever sign up to such insane terms if Apple wasn't in such a powerful position that they could dictate such terms. In other words, their position and size in the market is such that they can enforce things that no one would be able to do without that kind of size, regardless of product quality.
Them demanding this is 100% confirmation that anti trust action is entirely warranted.
Re: Lol antitrust (Score:3)
A bit telling is that they seem to give themselves discretion of the fee amount, which implies that they believe they have some sort of proper accounting for how many external purchases made and what their amounts were.
How would they even do that in the US? The injunction explicitly denies apple the means of tracking this. Might be the same in other jurisdictions as well.
Re: (Score:2)
by deducting them from in-app purchases it processes on developers' behalf,
If Apple is collecting money on your behalf, then they know how much you made. And they already have that money in their account, held on your behalf. So such an agreement is not a big stretch to imagine.
among other methods.
Smart people are not going to ask Apple to handle in-app purchases for them, now that courts have told Apple to f*k off. I wouldn't even link the same bank account, at the same bank to Apple's payment system. Keep a small account linked to satisfy Apples automatic deduction systems and manage your revenue s
Re: Lol antitrust (Score:3)
If Apple is collecting money on your behalf, then they know how much you made. ...
Smart people are not going to ask Apple to handle in-app purchases for them, now that courts have told Apple to f*k off.
Not exactly. The 9th circuit gave apple permission to charge something for the privilege of using the app store. Just how much they can charge is another matter. They did not, however, permit apple to force apps to use tracking links, or transaction auditing, or anything to that effect, which the lower court took away from apple.
So that's the rub -- how does apple determine how much money changed hands? This could be the first move towards a malicious compliance scheme. Which is pretty bold if so, because t
Re: Lol antitrust (Score:3)
You still think that you have to have a monopoly, absolute or otherwise, to violate antitrust law?
Re: Lol antitrust (Score:2)
Most iFans do.
OP (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Monopolies aren't illegal either.
Re: (Score:1)
can confirm, i have zero iShit in my life.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP seems to think so.
What he said was:
A person who can read and understand English can understand that he didn't say that they had an absolute monopoly, but was anticipating stupid arguments about it not being antitrust if they don't have one. You are not that person, apparently, but you are a person whose knee would jerk and result in a defense of Apple's actions.
It's incredibly easy to not use any Apple products at all.
It's easy if you know ahead of
Re: (Score:2)
What monopoly does Apple have? Developers don't have a right to developer for Apple's OS running on Apple's hardware. And if they do have that intrinsic right, then we need to talk about Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for the same reason.
You have to remember it's an Apple ecosystem - Apple software on Apple hardware, and to imply otherwise would mean I should be able to demand a Tesla with a big-block Chevy V8 in
Re: Lol antitrust (Score:2)
Hey idiot
Read before replying
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Your scenarios aren't similar. You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. None of your examples are monopolies.
If you don't agree with Eufy storing the images on their server for the security camera you purchased you can buy security cameras from someone else that don't do that and are based on local storage (and there are plenty out there if you look). Eufy are not the only manufacturer of security cameras out there and there is plenty of consumer choice. They can't prevent you from buying someon
Understanding (Score:2)
Your scenarios aren't similar. You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. None of your examples are monopolies.
Yes. Exactly. That is my point. Behaving badly or in a manner that disadvantages others is not evidence that you are a monopoly.
On the other hand if as a software developer you want to sell software for Apple phones
Antitrust laws are there to protect consumers, not manufacturers or corporations. Are there viable alternatives to an iPhone? Yes? A lot of them? And Apple is making it more difficult to develop for their platform? Sounds like a self-solving problem.
Re: (Score:2)
GM dropped CarPlay and Android Auto from all their EVs. No customer wanted or asked for this. Are they an absolute monopoly?
Subaru is popping up ads in their in-dash displays. Nobody wants this. Are they an absolute monopoly?
If you already made one of the largest purchases in the average life, one that generally takes a non-trivial amount of time and effort to undo or change, and maybe impossible to sell if they're underwater on the loan, then it at least functions as a monopoly to at least some of their existing customers. GM and Subaru know this, if it were just simple and not financially terrible to return or exchange cars, they never would have tried it. The number of customers that have enough free time and can afford to
Oh, yes. Quite! (Score:3)
I'm quite sure Apple will NEVER make a "mistake" in collecting fees it believes it's due from developers, or those that produce apps they really, really don't want on the market but can't otherwise remove.
I'm sure I'll get moderated down for expressing my opinion that I do not like Apple, never have, and consider them about as welcome as a bad case of the clap. I've a few corporations that I absolutely detest, not because of their tech, but because of their arrogance. Bad tech abounds, and is frequently the result of either bad management or grasping for profit (or both), but the arrogance is simply a case of "because we can". And Apple is not the worst of them in my opinion, but bad enough they aren't a consideration for private purchases, and needs a compelling and strong case when I'm making choices for my employer.
I do understand some love Apple. Those that really have a good case for using it will have me on their side, but "good cause" is not "because I said so!", it's facts based evidence that Apple solves a need they have that is not met elsewhere, because I have facts based evidence where Apple cost the employer unneeded expense and hardship.
"All your accounts are belong to us." (Score:2)
So, this is Apple saying that they can arbitrarily make up a number that they believe is a developer's income from an app, then charge them fees based on that vapor-based number, rather than charging based on actual revenue generated?
Can't wait to see which court is the first to give them a legal beating for this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Apple has to make anything up. Since the purchase of the app, plus in-app sales have to be reported to Apple*, they know what you make. As it stands now, Apple is the IRS of their own walled garden.
*Barring an uncucessful challenge of recent court decisions [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Apple has to make anything up. Since the purchase of the app, plus in-app sales have to be reported to Apple*, they know what you make. As it stands now, Apple is the IRS of their own walled garden.
*Barring an uncucessful challenge of recent court decisions [slashdot.org].
My assumption here, and I know what they say about assumptions, but I'm assuming this is about making sure they can collect fees on those apps that are sold in other parts of the world where they've been forced to allow apps loaded from outside the app store. They have insisted, after all, that they still deserve to collect fees on those apps not installed through their app store. Which strikes me as about as legally shady as anything a big corporation has tried to pull, but still seems to be swirling the t
Re: (Score:2)
My assumption here, and I know what they say about assumptions, but I'm assuming this is about making sure they can collect fees on those apps that are sold in other parts of the world where they've been forced to allow apps loaded from outside the app store.
And that is the assumption you made. The article specifically mentions "affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries” accounts. The way I read it, if you owe Apple money, Apple is not asking Epic Game Store for the money. If you have multiple accounts, Apple is not limiting withdrawing from the main account. Banks have done this where overdrafts on checking gets pulled from savings or other accounts. I would assume if the amount owed exceeds money in all accounts, then Apple would use a third party debt colle
Re: (Score:2)
So, this is Apple saying that they can arbitrarily make up a number that they believe is a developer's income from an app, then charge them fees based on that vapor-based number, rather than charging based on actual revenue generated?
The actual text in the Apple Developer Program License Agreement [apple.com]:
If You fail to timely and fully pay Apple any or all amounts due and owed by You to Apple under or in connection with any agreement in effect between Apple and You, to the extent permitted by law, Apple has the right, at any time and from time to time, to offset or recoup those amounts against any amounts (including any amounts collected by Apple on Your behalf from end users) owed under this Agreement, whether contingent, liquidated or otherwise, by Apple to You.
TL;DR: If you owe Apple money due to any agreement, Apple may deduct what you owe them from the money Apple would otherwise award you under the ADPLA.
Whether Apple can just "make up the number" without a court decision is probably dependent on jurisdiction. Whether they can just deduct the amount owed under an agreement to pay a debt from another agreement through a license agreement clause is also likely dependent on jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
So, this is Apple saying that they can arbitrarily make up a number that they believe is a developer's income from an app, then charge them fees based on that vapor-based number, rather than charging based on actual revenue generated?
Where in the world did you read that Apple "can arbitrarily make up a number"? The article says that IF a developer owes Apple money, Apple can pull the funds not from the developer's primary account but other accounts the developer might have. For example if a developer has a separate account for two apps and one of them is in the red, Apple can withdraw money from the other account.
Apple claims commision on external payments (Score:2)
When Apple says you owe them money... (Score:2)
A very loose interpretation of "debt collector" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a debt collector again which is normally someone recovering debts for a third party?
It's not. The headline is clickbait. Apple is simply imposing a right to offset, which is normal when dealing with small accounts. Offset means: we owe you $1000, and you owe us $50. Instead of you paying us $50, we'll reduce what we owe you to $950.
Government accounts and large customers have accounting codes and other rules that make offset too messy to impose.