That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of creating a new shell company for every million users. (Which would be not so ridiculous as it sounds, there is plenty of software you cannot buy directly but only through a reseller. Epic could become a pure b2b shop on paper and sell Fortnite clients to regional distributors, or something like that.)
Some time ago somebody made an alternative App Store for emulators, https://altstore.io . I think it works by having users get a developer's certificate and installing the apps like an in-development app. I think it would be really neat if this model got tested in court and declared completely legal.
> Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is illegal
I haven’t seen any statement in any jurisdiction by lawmakers or judges that supports that claim. It also would, to me, feel inconsistent with the rulings I read about:
- https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...: “Consistent with the interim relief ruling of the Rotterdam district court, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities”
The Epic ruling is in the US and are irrelevant to EU regulations. Dutch regulators have rejected Apple's response to the dating app ruling, and that matter is currently in the courts[1]. Lastly, these latest changes are in response to a new law, the Digital Markets Act.
This makes no sense. All that Apple would have to do to close this loophole is to count installs per group of associated companies or developer accounts.
It makes no sense for app vendors to behave like crime cartels or sanctioned regimes in order to avoid a 30% fee. The margins are not high enough. It's fraud. Executives could go to jail.
Also, this whole web of companies would have to distribute the same set of apps, which would make it relatively easy for Apple to spot. Contrary to a prosecutor, Apple doesn't have to prove anything. They just close the accounts without recourse if they have any suspicion. End of story.
And the app vendor would have to forego the benefit of accumulating reviews under one name. Or they could have the opposite problem, users gravitating to one of the clones that ranks highest. How would they make sure each clone has no more than 1 million users?
This is no way to run a company. It's totally bonkers.
>I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such a cartel.
No, Siemens is not a criminal organisation running a web of hidden shell companies. Siemens is a conglomerate comprising a large number of subsidiaries and associated companies that they publish right on their website [1].
I have no doubt that large companies use complicated structures in order to exploit loopholes. But there are limits to that, especially as Apple doesn't require a complex lawmaking process in order to change their ToS. They can close a loophole at the stroke of a pen. And they can close developer accounts at will if ToS are violated.
The speed at which apple can alter their ToS is indeed a key differentiator.
Any cartel instantly becomes a criminal cartel if governance over laws/EULAs is basically absent and biased against the cartel.
[added]
Not saying Siemens is nefarious, but they do seem to be subverting the spirit of law. The conglomerate sure makes it easy to "reorganize" without due process for firing lots of employees.
> I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such a cartel. Nicely distributed in small chunks to abide to the letter of (labour) law.
Siemens is not a good example. If you're looking for better examples, there's Aldi. It intentionally splits its structure to avoid triggering stricter labor and reporting laws.
Some time ago somebody made an alternative App Store for emulators, https://altstore.io . I think it works by having users get a developer's certificate and installing the apps like an in-development app. I think it would be really neat if this model got tested in court and declared completely legal.