There is way to little talk about this. Apple might still be entitled to the 30% (of gross purchase price paid by the customer) even if the developer is not using the IAP mechanism. The ruling did nothing to invalidate that.
Apple would be playing with fire if they attempt that interpretation. It would detooth the ruling, and could force the judges hand to impose stricter or more vague requirements. The judge certainly not have an issue with the api design...
“In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.”
Because it's a cherry picked example that ignores a lot of factors.
I could easily make the statement "Microsoft gets a cut of everything purchased on Xbox, why shouldn't Apple?"
To which I suspect your response would be waving your hands around something that is ill defied (General Purpose Computing), and then trying to define it to fit your narrative.
A more cogent and principled response would be that there is an effective duopoly in the phones market, and this creates incentives for and actually realized anti competitive practices on the part of both google and apple. Apple both builds a market and regulates that market in its own favor, and consumers don't have an especially plausible alternative to participating.
Microsoft chose to create Windows as an open platform where they didn't get a cut of application sales.
Microsoft chose to create XBox as a platform where developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell software.
Microsoft attempted to convert Windows into a platform where developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell software with Windows RT, but it failed in the marketplace.
Hey FDSGSG I see you used my comment to implement your reply. As you no doubt know my API usage policy is 30% of your gross.
Note, you cannot deduct the 30% your electric utility charges you, nor the 30% your PC monitor maker charges you, nor the 30% your desk maker charges, you'll have to figure out how to finance your development out of the other -40%.
If this is not acceptable obviously you could have written your reply to my comment under any other comment. There are many other comments you could freely leave your reply to me under. You choose to use my comment to base your reply to no doubt because that's the only one I read. Still of course, I do not have a monopoly on replies to me under all posts on the internet. Replies under my comment are of course not a monopoly because you can freely reply to me anywhere else. For example, you could have replied to my post on your grandma's Facebook.
