Ah yes blame the victim. Who cares that Apple has solved this issue for their customers?
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 and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah yes blame the victim. Who cares that Apple has solved this issue for their customers?
Yeah that’s not particularly true baldimac
Society has changed and it’s not the 2010’s anymore Apple’s rules and regulations have not changed but society has in relation to smartphones
I remember when Apple made the argument that users shouldn't be products put up for sale to advertisers. Here they are leveraging us as if we’re assets to which they have the right to charge for access to developers. If Microsoft pulled this crap they’d be rightfully lambasted.
This will go down as one of the most anti-consumer cases of all time. Anybody arguing in favor of Apple doesn’t mind paying 30% more on all your purchases is a complete idiot. Apple owning the ‘platform’ and the ‘ecosystem’ is highway robbery. It’s not about protecting consumers or privacy. It’s about taking 30% of every transaction which costs consumers more and lines the pockets of already rich companies and executives.
Please point where all the prices went down when Apple lowered the commission for 95% of apps. I’ll wait.
So are consumers who buy their games through the steam store also paying 30% more for their purchases?
Apple gives developers access to hundreds of millions of customers that have proven they’re willing to pay for digital content. The developer has to bring their skills/ideas, the price of a Mac, and $99. Beyond that, if the developer doesn’t make a sale, Apple also doesn’t make money. If the developer does end up actually creating something desirable (which depends on their skills/ideas/code abilities of course) and makes, say $20,000 in one month, they get $17,000. Offsetting $3,000 in order to have $17,000? I don’t know too many people that would turn down that cut.
Now, here’s the real question. Are they actually able to take advantage of the opportunity and eventually make a living wage or much, much more? The truth, for very many developers (the vast majority of developers, in fact), is no. You could direct hundreds/thousands of dollars in their direction (there’s no way to make it any easier) and they just wouldn’t be able to profit from it.
They’re most certainly free to keep trying as long as they like, but, and some may find this part hard to believe… everyone doesn’t become a star in athletic pursuits, everyone’s not an intellectual powerhouse, and not everyone has what it takes to be a developer with the abilities to make a profit when given access to hundreds of millions of people who, again, have spent considerable sums previously. If their idea of being a developer is “guaranteed payday made easy for me”, reality would like to sit them down and have a heart to heart.
Yes i do because if it’s to good to be true then it is
Plus look at the countries that were targeted in your article by this scam
It’s just like your fellow apple fan says do your research before you purchase or does that only work in relation to apple and the iPhone?
You can point to video games & Microsoft and say it’s not fair why only apple however the big point you’re deliberately leaving out is this in today’s society the smartphone is viewed differently to any other tech product because of how society is.
Now about 15 years ago society was different in how the smartphone was in relation to individuals day to day lives
That’s why it’s fundamentally different and that is why the rules and regulations for iOS is getting challenged one step at a time.
That’s not the way it works. Apple is spending to protect its turf.
It's sort of a non-answer, but it is (probably) the 'correct' answer: Because.
A slightly longer but no more helpful answer: Epic didn't challenge from an antitrust perspective (in the underlying case that it lost) the categorical distinction between McDonalds-like and Spotify-like the two pursuant to the App Store guidelines. As quickly as I can tell, it simply wasn't an issue the Court decided, but I suspect, because Epic lost the federal antitrust case, it's even less likely to win the categorical distinction argument.
The most helpful (or maybe not): Apple indicated, in part, it was because its a different fulfillment and risk structure from physical goods to digital goods.
The bold portion: Between the lines, this is probably because the Court wanted to gauge how likely a decision would be (one of) the last they'd need to make. So the follow up to the Courts inquiry, after Apple's Response [below], was to confirm the Apple would have a strong incentive to move forward with determining a "reasonable fee." I don't think the Court really cares how the fee is calculated, I *think* they care about whether or not the 'games' are over. And to infer (far more than I should on inference within inference) I think it's likely there will ultimately be modification proceeding granted to determine a 'reasonable' commission.
[Apple's Response] Apple says 'put a pin in that' let's measure it from the value developers receive for the tools and technologies, the value of a safe and secure market place, and Apple's vast user base, and come up with a commission based on what is fair and appropriate.
But I don't think: (a) the Court gave up enough information to determine the method of distilling what a reasonable commission would be, or (b) (on your bold 2) that the Court questioned the commitment per se.
Your unbold portion: This is derived from the injunction preventing universal injunctions. Whether or not a district court can issue an injunction over non-litigants across the country. The Supreme Court says, more or less, these types of injunctions are not appropriate anymore, and every aggrieved party must file their own lawsuit to obtain an injunction, or form and certify a class. The issue is so new however, the Court might be eyeing this case as the perfect one to "test" the boundaries of that rule, since both Epic and Apple have the resources to exhaustively argue it.
McDonalds-like v Spotify-like: This wasn't challenged by Epic, as best I can quickly tell, in the underlying cases (or this Appeal) the federal antitrust focused solely on the digital goods. It is probably safe to infer: this distinction is perfectly lawful, so it would require an anti-trust law change to make it unlawful.
Net neutrality was gone in 2017, returned in early 2024, and was killed again in 2025. It's unlikely it will return with out a different selection of justices, or an act of congress.
I am shocked no one used a laugh emoji in response, even I wanted to use one. I feel baited... I want to add one right now.
Yeah that sounds like a PR statement from apple but that’s not the reality for most developers
I disagree. It’s Apple then regulators are after. They aren’t regulating the smartphone. If they did the regulations would look totally different.
And what turf is that
We are apple defenders of castle greyskull and we are here to stop the evil forces of bad governments & judges who try to stop us from bringing peace and harmony to the world.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. You keep saying "society has changed" as if it means something.
So has society not changed since 2010 in relation to the smartphone?
So let Herman Miller design a chair that requires people to pay them when they make purchases from it. See who buys the chair.
Folks in the EU that would like to play Fortnite on their iPhones would likely disagree on this point. They’re forced to use the Epic Games store or some other non-Apple Store. Customers in the EU that would prefer to use the App Store? It would appear they no longer have that choice.
That has already proven to be true.
Yes, if they’re able to get that deal. Absolutely, no question. I DON’T think that the government should force ISP’s and cellular providers to get a cut of hardware sales.
You DO realize that every company doing business with Apple agrees to terms prior to deploying an app to the App Store, right? Apple does not “deserve” it, Apple is contractually obligated to receive it. The companies working with them agree to adhere to the terms of their agreement. They don’t just start deploying apps to the App Store without an agreement. And, any company that doesn’t like the terms can just say “good day” and cut Apple out of their plans.
Who knows, maybe by avoiding Apple and building their own thing, they become the next internet powerhouse where NOT making their app available on the App Store becomes the thing that eventually takes Apple down.
Society is always changing. I just have no idea what your point is. Or what it has to do with what I said.
Epic, that wants to pay no commission to Apple wants to pay a commission to Apple. Got it!
All they “deserve” is to have their contractual obligations met. No contractual obligations, nothing to “deserve”. And, here’s the thing, I can say that about ANY company in the US. The content of what I’m writing doesn’t change because it’s Apple. Epic also deserves to have their contractual obligations met. And, they’re also free not to enter into any contracts that don’t suit them.
The person that didn’t do research before buying the device? It’s pretty common knowledge, is widely communicated across the internet and if they had ANY questions at all, they could always call Apple’s support line and ask, very plainly, “Am I able to sideload and have 3rd party app stores on the iPhone?”
No excuse to not know BEFORE they buy.
Scams wouldn’t happen on cell phones!Not disingenuous - it's reality on Android. Coming soon to an iPhone near you!
Android users lose $2.4 million to malware scams that use Facebook and TikTok ads as bait
At least 128 cases have been reported since February. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.www.straitstimes.com
8 Million Android Users Hit by SpyLoan Malware in Loan Apps on Google Play
Over 8M users affected by SpyLoan malware in Android apps exploiting trust for financial scams.thehackernews.com
Companies wouldn’t lock users to their own App Stores!
Things that are already happening are, apparently, not happening at all!
I look at it like this, a wide group of people want what Apple’s offering, and a wide group want what Google’s offering. Then there’s a smaller group that want things, but not enough of them would be happy with the same set of features. It becomes financially difficult for one company to meet such a disparate set of needs across a non-profitable number of people. So, as “not turning a profit” is not viable for sustaining a manufacturing, OS crafting, app store hosting business, no one offers it.
Then you could use your same logic if individuals get scammed then by apps so it’s the individuals fault then because they didn’t do the research