You have to do this before a product category becomes popular or else it becomes almost impossible to force your way into existing business models.
If Microsoft wanted this they should have startet around 1990.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have to do this before a product category becomes popular or else it becomes almost impossible to force your way into existing business models.
If Microsoft wanted this they should have startet around 1990.
The experience is not so detrimental to Netflix, Kindle or Spotify as these are likely services that you would have signed up for anyway. In my case I already have a Spotify and Netflix accounts. The apps are nothing more than mobile media players.
But for freemium in-app, whim, micro purchases, the likelihood is that moment you leave the app you are already considering if you really need the add-on.
Once you reach the point of filling in your Name / Password / Credit card and whatever other details are required those instant gratification endorphins are dwindling and the chances of a final sale lowered immensely. You are starting to feel buyers remorse before you even make the purchase.
The real value of IAP's is the fastest route between clicking "buy" and product delivery. The IAP model is wet dream for anyone who gives half a damn about total number of sales.
True, but if you do choose to put your app in the Mac App Store, then Apple takes 30%, same as on iOS.
I don't think it needs to be said it would be optional. The problem is developers like EPIC will only ever release on third party stores that have lower fees if they could. It can create a situation where you feel pressured to install third party stores to get access to important (to you) software. So it becomes not required but an obligation.
Facebook is already moaning about fees they pay to Apple. Imagine they move Whatsapp to a third party store or the main Facebook app? - I use neither but literally billions of people use these. It's the sort of strong arming that would make people feel obligated to engage with other stores if these kinds of apps are gatekeeped behind them.
It's this kinda thing that makes me want Apple to keep control, I don't wanna have to install any third party stores for x y or z app. I'm already exhausted from having to use Steam, Origin, XBOX Games, uPlay and EPIC Games Store on my PC for computer games. The most annoying aspect there is trying to play a game with a friend and needing to add them to all these stores just to send game invites etc
Watch apple announce at the update next week that they will lower the cut to 20-25% but if you have sued us for any reason 35-40% to cover our lawyers lavish life style.
Agreed, though how high Apple’s rate is does slightly affect Epics relative position in the court of public opinion.
No higher, or lower than anyone else in the same market, a profit margin should not be the deciding factor in this case.
We, being simply bystanders in all this actually don't even know if it's possible to reduce that price, keep the existing infrastructure, review processes, shoulder free apps and still make a profit.
30% may be the lower end of the spectrum for all we know which is why the rest of the industry also charge similar rates.
I can't help thinking this is mostly because the general public has absolutely no idea how the money they pay to other retailers is distributed. At least, if this thread is any indication.
some services or products want you to use separate payment and sign-up methods
I agree with you mostly though with one change which I highlighted above. I agree it makes the whole system forreader apps not seamless. The whole reader app issue is a big one and I'm not sure how Apple will deal with it going forward.
This is exactly epic and epic's supporters are in favour of suing Apple. They want seamless IAP and keep 100% of the proceeds while mooching off apple's backend which cost a lot of time and money to develop.
Epic’s assertion that Apple is Monopolistic is simply projection because they are in fact their own Monopoly.
This idea that all companies must be open and free to allow others in is a non-congruent idea. Should all companies be considered open platforms? It’s a choice companies make, and consumers make their choice by buying into what they like. People choose to spend time on Facebook, yet Facebook is often criticized by pundits. Why? People have (or did have) a choice to use other services but they chose FB. People could’ve chosen Windows Phone, any number of thousands of Android-based phones, or simply staying with a flip phone but they chose iPhone—just like others choose Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo. Should the consoles open up and operate an AppStore, they’d have to reduce their costs to developers dramatically!
Epic is either part of a CCP conspiracy to take down the USA, or they’re simply drinking too much of their entitled Kool-Aid. They clearly entered into an agreement to place their product on someone else’s platform, and then started complaining when they reached a high pinnacle of success and couldn’t get their way. Then the spoiled kid of Epic had a fit, in the name of saving developers from Apple’s long-standing rules and fees, when really it’s a huge PR stunt that puts a large percentage of their customer on the front lines of war. If I were a shareholder of Epic, I’d be furious that it’s leadership would be so brazen as to use its customers as pawns in their crusade. It’s really irresponsible behavior.
My kid stopped playing Fortnite suddenly just a few weeks before all this broke out. I asked him why after spending hundreds on vBucks. He said he and his buddies are over it and have moved on. Epic should spend their time innovating or go the way of MySpace, a forgotten digital relic, rather than fighting crusades.
This idea that all companies must be open and free to allow others in is a non-congruent idea. Should all companies be considered open platforms? It’s a choice companies make, and consumers make their choice by buying into what they like. People choose to spend time on Facebook, yet Facebook is often criticized by pundits. Why? People have (or did have) a choice to use other services but they chose FB. People could’ve chosen Windows Phone, any number of thousands of Android-based phones, or simply staying with a flip phone but they chose iPhone—just like others choose Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo. Should the consoles open up and operate an AppStore, they’d have to reduce their costs to developers dramatically!
Epic is either part of a CCP conspiracy to take down the USA, or they’re simply drinking too much of their entitled Kool-Aid. They clearly entered into an agreement to place their product on someone else’s platform, and then started complaining when they reached a high pinnacle of success and couldn’t get their way. Then the spoiled kid of Epic had a fit, in the name of saving developers from Apple’s long-standing rules and fees, when really it’s a huge PR stunt that puts a large percentage of their customer on the front lines of war. If I were a shareholder of Epic, I’d be furious that it’s leadership would be so brazen as to use its customers as pawns in their crusade. It’s really irresponsible behavior.
My kid stopped playing Fortnite suddenly just a few weeks before all this broke out. I asked him why after spending hundreds on vBucks. He said he and his buddies are over it and have moved on. Epic should spend their time innovating or go the way of MySpace, a forgotten digital relic, rather than fighting crusades.
"As Seen on TV" stickers are on boxes everywhere. The major big-box stores get packaging (and even items) specific to a store, but lots of smaller companies do mention their competitors (even on their own YouTube channel) if they don't make a product that a competitor does. At least, that's how things work in the hobby I'm involved in.
No it wouldn’t. The answer was only filed yesterday. The case can’t “be over” for many months, at least until Apple files a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Federal district court cases don’t just go away after a couple of weeks, no matter how little validity they have. It took months for the case of the guy who sued Apple for a trillion dollars for allegedly stealing his property to go away.
It's a great analogy to GE, similar to the "everyone thought Blackberry was invincible" argument. And the outcome is still the same. A company today that is worth almost $2T. Still waiting for Apple to implode after almost 10 years.
And I'm sure you can qualify and prove that "most of Apple's services are failures".
Mooching off Apple’s backend? Is every free app in the App Store mooching off Apple’s backend?
You may be confusing motions to dismiss with motions for summary judgment. Hard to move to dismiss because everything in the complaint would be deemed true, and the bases for moving to dismiss are pretty strict. And by answering the complaint, many of those bases are no longer available. Given that Apple couldn’t really dispute jurisdiction, it most likely argument would probably have been failure to state a claim. If one assumes that everything epic says is true (including its story about how the change in the code got into the App Store, which seems to differ from apple’s explanation), then it doesn’t seem like a court would say epic didn’t at least make an argument that they could be entitled to relief. And courts often sit on motions to dismiss when the basis isn’t jurisdiction, anyway.
Apple will almost certainly move for summary judgment, but the date for that is months away. Courts won’t entertain such motions at this stage.
Two related reasons:
- Sharks smell blood in the water: lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and talk of regulation attract more lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and talk of regulation.
- Companies of course would like to pay less in commissions to Apple. Their ideal commission would be 0%. They sense an opportunity here to pressure Apple to lower commissions, either on their own or with the help of anti-trust regulators and courts.
Let this also show that anti-trust complaints are almost never brought by the customers the laws are supposed to protect. They are nearly always brought by competitors or other corporate players that want a bigger slice of the pie.
Yes they are. Though this is 100% free games that have zero IAP of any kind. The 30% from IAP helps pay for iOS and the app store so that's not mooching.
Though the number of totally free apps is way smaller compared to the larger number of free to download but stuffed full of IAP apps.
Yes, and Apple it seems to me, is fine with that. The same way Apple is fine, if one mooches off their free icloud 5gb tier without purchasing an upgrade for more storage. But you have to realize a dev that uploads a free app to the app store, still did pay $99/year so in essence there is no mooching. It's a $99 buffet of all you can eat apps for upload, with potentially additional revenue through IAP.
Last edited:
The time to file a motion to dismiss is usually before answering the initial complaint, not after answering the complaint and countersuing. Unless Epic tacks on more claims, that ship has sailed.
A motion to dismiss would generally be due when the answer and counterclaims are due. In fact, some bases for motions to dismiss are deemed waived if you don’t move before answering. So I agree. That ship has sailed. But, again, the basis for motions to dismiss are very narrow - lack of jurisdiction, failure to serve process, etc. I assume you would think apple should have based its motion on failure to state a claim. But that’s very hard to win because the standard requires the court to assume everything in the complaint is true.
So apple made the right move here - they will instead file a motion for summary judgment. That’s where these sorts of complaints are dismissed.
Well, like I said, they should have moved to dismiss if this case is as open-and-shut as the other person was describing it. But it’s not actually quite that simple.