Yeah I don’t see that happening. The buck stops with Cook. This was his choice and he still believes he’s in the right.
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 Appeals Court-Mandated App Store Payment Rule Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That may be, but we’ve been surprised here at MacRumors on some of the interesting judgements that have come down from the courts. We may be surprised again…or not.
I guess we will just to see how the appeal plays out then. Not sure what else can be said here.
Everyone seems to forget Apple had to create the App store and all the tools first.
It doesn't really change the reality of what I've said. Was Apple the prime mover? Absolutely. Do they need devs? Absolutely. One need only look at the AVP store to see what the long-term effects of their chilling behavior has done to that fairly new platform, it's not a thriving ecosystem like the phone app store, it still has yet to reach critical mass
Let's hope Tim Cook gets a 6 month jail term for contempt. It shouldn't matter how much money one has if they commit a crime. The jail term will also certainly force the board to fire him, which is something that's about a decade past due.
I don't get why some people like Cook so much. There's literally nothing special about him. Profits hit the trillion dollar mark... Anyone could've predicted that with the Mac, iPhone, App Store cut, and iPad. A real innovator would have Apple would've had the company valued at $5 trillion USD by now.
I don't get why some people like Cook so much. There's literally nothing special about him. Profits hit the trillion dollar mark... Anyone could've predicted that with the Mac, iPhone, App Store cut, and iPad. A real innovator would have Apple would've had the company valued at $5 trillion USD by now.
There's never a right to appeal unless a death penalty sentence is imposed. While I agree that a panel of judges can make a more informed, unbiased decision than a single judge, and that opinions/rulings should have the option of being challenged -- the fact is, appeals are indeed an option the courts make if they feel like a ruling was based on judicial or legal errors. I don't see any legal or judicial errors here, so I doubt Apple will get the chance to appeal.
The legal system should leave spots open on the appeals level for more serious cases with more pressing needs (i.e.: immigration, constitutional violations, and criminal trials).
Agree -- my point is only that now that the case is tainted by perjury, Apple may not be able to realize what they would have under the law otherwise. Also, I doubt any appeals/etc court will want to set new precedent in a case so tainted.
That doesn’t warrant 30% of every purchase of a platform
A prosumer hardware launching a new device category is apples and oranges to a mainstream product that debuts a product m category.
The target audience of prosumer hardware don’t need or depend as much as from consumer devs supporting the hardware
This is what every online store changed at the time and what most still charge today. Also, most only get charged 15%.
If they don’t fight it they lose the right to fight it in the future.
Customer don’t know what the fee and commissions are. Unless the payment sent so, customers don’t know what the commission is on the iap.
You have may missed that Epic are going to offer setting "Store Webshops, a feature that will allow developers to launch digital storefronts that are hosted by the Epic Games Store":
Epic Games Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases
Epic Games today announced plans for Epic Games Store Webshops, a feature that will allow developers to launch digital storefronts that are hosted by...
www.macrumors.com
So will Paddle:
Third-party payments for apps | In-app payment processing | Paddle
With Paddle’s third-party payment solution for apps, you keep more revenue and grow faster. Go live fast with our web checkout tools & unlock external payments.
www.paddle.com
Both may conveniently streamline the user experience for both third-party developers and consumers.
This is entirely speculation, but I suspect developers that aren’t “big names” will find they lose more in not converting sales on link outs than they save in fees not paid to Apple.You have may missed that Epic are going to offer setting "Store Webshops, a feature that will allow developers to launch digital storefronts that are hosted by the Epic Games Store":
Epic Games Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases
Epic Games today announced plans for Epic Games Store Webshops, a feature that will allow developers to launch digital storefronts that are hosted by...
So will Paddle:
Third-party payments for apps | In-app payment processing | Paddle
With Paddle’s third-party payment solution for apps, you keep more revenue and grow faster. Go live fast with our web checkout tools & unlock external payments.www.paddle.com
Both may conveniently streamline the user experience for both third-party developers and consumers.
Do you want me to name every single subscription service in the world that doesn't offer app store billing? Those three services account for three quarter of a billion paying subscribers between them.
Accept it most people don't need Apple's billing system, it's a grift.
The same can be said for consoles as well.
Can you imagine if Epic or any other company were able to get developers to insert a link into every game in the switch App Store that would redirect customers to an external payment option at the very last instance, and hijack the 30% commission that would otherwise go to Nintendo?
It’s one thing if customers navigate to the website on their own. I don’t think there is any shop owner who would tolerate an external party standing at their payment counter and telling would-be customers that a cheaper price can be had by shopping at Amazon instead.
Whatever the justification the judge may have had for passing the ruling that she did, I maintain that it is illogical, and it needs to be overturned on appeal. 0
Whether it will, though, we will just have to wait and see.
Why lose sales?
Those customers can subscribe through Apple instead, can't they?
The comparison is inaccurate and misleading.
Because third-party apps are not doing at the Apple Store Check-out counter.
Consumers will check out their apps from the Apple App Store as they've always done - at the prices displayed by (only) Apple. Nothing says Apple has to allow developers to include links in their App Store description or something.
👉 A more appropriate comparison would be:
- You buy something from the store owner and pay the (only) price displayed on store.
- You carry the product out of the store and drive home
- You open the product retail box at home (or, say, on the store's parking lot, at the earliest).
- The box includes a little flyer from the manufacturer "Hey, do you know about our other products or acessories? You can buy them from brick & mortar store or directly from our web site".
👉 Again, your purchase from "shop owner" is a done deal. Only then are you confronted by "external party".
And yes, shop owners do tolerate it. I'm pretty sure I've bought tech products that included links to the manufacturer's web site - and that web site having direct purchasing options for accessories or consumables.
Last edited:
If the developers continue to offer that option, and users don’t get hung up by it being more expensive, sure.
But each step you add is more of a chance something will go wrong and the sale won’t get converted. Maybe customer will say “yeah I want to pay less”, click on the link then realize “oh I don’t have my wallet, I’ll do this later” or “I should wait for pay day” or whatever and then never go back and complete it. Or there’s a technical issue with the payment processor, or the credit card Company goes “this transaction is weird, deny it”
Whereas if they just double-tapped and looked at the device it’d be easy-peasy.
Again all speculation. We’ll see what happens.
Apple‘s own products are in fact a good example.
I just inspected my last iPad‘s retail box, and of course there’s paperwork referring me to https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/ to learn to get the most out of my new device purchase. And of course Apple are trying to sell me a Pencil as an accessory there.
So does my local electronics store (that, let’s say for the sake of the argument, recommended and sold me the iPad) receive a 30% commission from Apple on the accessory purchases made their web site? Or for that bloody Music subscription Apple has been pestering me about in the settings app for months and years?
See rule 4a.
Perhaps you’re thinking about an appeal of an interlocutory decision.
I haven’t taken a look at this case, I would be surprised if Apples lawyers didn’t preserve any arguments for appeal… and even more surprised if they filed notice of an appeal without an actual issue preserved.
In any case, whether there’s a legal or judicial error isn’t the “thing” to determine whether an appeal is granted, and it certainly doesn’t determine whether Apple will have properly preserved an issue to appeal.
While the judicial system could probably use more funding, I wouldn’t worry about the docket being over burdened by this. And criminal trials don’t happen on appeal.
I maybe see where the confusion is.
We’re talking about a right to appeal a decision, not a right to a reverse, remand, or I guess, win on appeal.
That’s what Epic seems to be doing for any app developer who wishes to take them up on this offer.
Instead of paying with iTunes, consumers can presumably click on a link which would redirect them to an external payment option that eschews Apple’s 30% commission.
In my opinion, this is no different from me standing at the cashier of a computer hardware store and telling people they can purchase the same thing cheaper via Amazon, and that they should not buy from this shop instead.