If I read that correctly, does it mean that Epic can now direct you to a website to buy in-game currency outside of the reach of Apple's 30% bullshit tax?
Not so fast. The court affirmed the following-Epic can direct users to a website for alternate payment. But they left it ambiguous on whether Apple is entitled to compensaton at 30% of revenues. The courts (both district and appeals) seem to believe that Apple is entitled to some compensation under IP compensation theory.
So, if the Netherlands dating apps case ruling is any indication (Apple discounted the 30% to 27% for dating apps in Netherlands for using alt payment methods in that suit), Apple is likely to do something similar here in cases where their In-app-payments are not used.
I've heard the Netherlands one mentioned, but I don't get at all how that nor the anti-steering provision here would actually function. Were the dating apps IOS-only? Were the alt-payments embedded in the mobile app?
In this case, anti-steering stops Apple from preventing mobile apps from mentioning the mere _existence_ of other platforms. This doesn't have to be an embedded "pay with Epic" link, it could be a text blurb that says "Save 30% by buying on epic.com", might not even be a link. How could Apple possibly demand a fee in that scenario?
The only possible way to handle this would be to renegotiate terms to split payments by-platform for players regardless of where they make the purchase. But why would Epic ever negotiate terms like that when a court just threw out the anti-steering provisions universally?
The app still has to be distributed to ios devices. The only permitted way for devs to distribute ios apps is through the app store. So, even if the devs now have choice on payment methods (apple in-app payments, 3rd party payment processors like Stripe or pay at website etc.,) after the court ruling, they still need to sign the Apple DPLA to get access to ios distribution through the app store.
The DPLA provides the devs with access to Apple IP.
The courts have ruled that Apple is entitled for some compensation under the IP compensation legal theory. The Appeals court left what some means as ambiguous.
Until some jurisdiction finds the Apple app store as a monopoly and forces Apple to open up ios app distribution to 3rd party app stores, the Netherlands situation is likely to continue where Apple takes the stance that the value of ios distribution for apps is 27% to 30%; 27% for alt payment methods and 30% for using Apple in-app payments. Apple's stance is ios distribution is worth at least 27% of app revenues.
As a very specific case, an app developer targeting the India market could now use the UPI payment method (which is free for up to approx. $1500 per transaction) and pay only 27% or use an alternate payment provider that charges 1.5% transaction fee for a total cost of 28.5% instead of 30% and being forced to use Apple in-app-payments. [This is assuming Apple amends their DPLA with the 27% similar to Netherlands for alternate payment methods around the world].
That sounds like a major win against Apple.