So you feel that it's ok to just willy-nilly break contracts that you willingly agreed to (and made millions of dollars from) signed on for and then portray yourself as the victim? Got it.
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 Faces Developer Lawsuit After Defying App Store Injunction
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except Apple does not now nor has it ever had a monopoly on anything
I wouldn’t say ungrateful. They don’t have anything to be grateful for. They don’t know about the days when cellular carriers would take a 90% cut of developer sales for smart phones. I WOULD say killing the golden goose, though.
I think people will look back on this like “Remember with the dev fee was $99 a year? How cool was that. Why did they raise it again? Ohhhh, right. We had it good, huh?”Scare screens? Given how awkward some companies make it to cancel a subscription through their own service, as a consumer I welcome those screens and Apple’s centralised subscription management on its platforms.
The crazy thing is that some people here hate Phil for being the marketing guy. Crazy to think he was the wisest in this case
So top-bottom-squeezers are okay (what Apple did all the years), but vice versa not? Ok then.
Another legal trouble for Apple. It will be interesting to see how this one will proceed. Looks like a long battle will start.
And of course the only real winners here like with 90% of class actions is going to be the lawyers!
They should be forced to bring CASH in the court to repay developers plus more millions as fee for being a big company using its power against small developers.
Why a$$le doesn't pay AWS or Microsoft Azure services? Because in ten minutes they shutdown the services (it's just an example, I don't know if they are customers).
If you believe you are above the law... yes, it is hard.
In my opinion, all the problems started with a$$le music. After that, they moved from "platform provider" to "competitor" and that's not acceptable if you don't clearly split the business and if you have a strong share in the "platform provider".
You know, these bottom-feeders have at least a real case and are not sueing someone else for using never-seen-before "round corners"
Look at these Robin Hoods🤣
As a result, I think developers will lose. Apple still has an army of qualified lawyers and technically, Apple is not undercutting anyone: they all using AppStore to make their apps available on iPhone. It’s all in the game, and they decided to play it.
Probably Apple will have to spread their EU alternative app marketplaces policy to US or even worldwide, but that would be it. Nothing like “give my money back” or zero-tariff policy in actual AppStore will probably never happen since it may set precedent for every company, including Steam and Google Play.
___
People in comments defending developer’s right for “free” in-app purchases, i.e. so they wouldn’t have to pay a cut to Apple. Well it is wrong because developers are the ones who pushed Tim Cook for this morally ugly subscription policy.
I dunno about y’all but I am tired of every app being subscription service, and if they want to continue that I would like Apple to squeeze every last cent out of them. Because it is wrong: they use Apple service to rob Apple customers (often with deceptive “continue” buttons inside the app so you can accidentally subscribe or start a free trial) and then they come and tell “you know, I don’t wanna pay these taxes!”. That’s not how it works in real life, sorry.
Best way for Apple to get out of all of this is FORBID all subscriptions and in-app purchases, we will see that every developer will start scratching their head and making 5€ apps again like it is 2013
Strongly agree on everything you wrote.
Apple should make profits, sure, but I think they took the wrong approach on how to handle third-party software sales. Others have pointed out that software isn't the same as selling a music single like the iTunes Music Store. It requires constant maintenance, especially on Apple's platforms where they're a more deprecation happy than Microsoft tends to be. They should have revised this eons ago, and while I agree with you that a judge dictating how they run thier business is over-reach, I mean geese it's at least some reason to get them Thinking Differently again?
It's up to them how they react. I really hope they Think Different and come up with a better system for all parties - themselves, developers and end-users.
Last edited:
Apple were doing something illegal. Lol. That’s all America does these days. Defy international law. Pretty rich hearing complaints that “apple is doing something illegal”. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
People have such short memories. The entire reason digital music became a viable business to begin with was the iPod and iTunes.
The entire mobile app business and the idea that and random person with a laptop can make an app and start making money is all because of Apple. Now the market is mature and saturated, developer profits are fixed and the fees are the easiest target to raise them.
TBH I fully agree 30% is excessive BUT even the judge in this case ruled that Apple does not have a monopoly. The injunction itself doesn’t make a ton of sense.
I do think it’s insane that Apple was charging a percentage for people who linked out and paid externally, but I also fundamentally disagree that they should be forced to allow other app stores or external payments. What the court should have done is ruled the fee itself was excessive, and written an opinion that the ftc or fcc should regulate the rates much like we do with the credit card industry. Perhaps there should be an agency focused on digital markets, I don’t know, but this ruling makes no sense.
Also a lot of people here don’t seem to understand that Apple WAS NOT around for have a monopoly nor violated the Sherman act. The law that Apple was ruled to have violated was California’s state “Unfair Competition Law” (UCL).
Compare this to the Durbin Amendment which did not require merchants to bypass visa/mastercard but capped their transaction fees and supporting different routes. It explicitly did not mandate options to bypass their networks.
Apple definitely fought the injunction dirty, charging 27% for linking out is excessive, but the injunction DOES NOT prevent them from charging a fee, it simply can’t be punitive. Apple will likely fight the injunction remove the warnings, drop the entitlement requirement and lower the fee to like 10-15% for linking out, but there is pretty much no way they will abandon the fee entirely as they legally are allowed to control their platform.
They may also jack up the cost of the dev licenses and split them into indie, small business and enterprise dev licenses required at different scales of sales and functionality.
None of this is going to end the App Store because there is no monopoly and without the Sherman act’s powers they can’t use antitrust rules to break it up.
They have that system in some countries. The end result has been only the rich can afford to sue and millions of ordinary people are denied justice.
Oh, and Apple could also just up and leave California and reincorporate out of state then push to vacate the injunction for violating the dormant commerce clause.
And they would have precident to back them in cases like Healy v. Beer Institute (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that regulated pricing set outside the state, saying it had impermissible extraterritorial effects.
Would they go that far, probably not, but everyone needs to realize this isn’t as simple as some are making it out to be.
And they would have precident to back them in cases like Healy v. Beer Institute (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that regulated pricing set outside the state, saying it had impermissible extraterritorial effects.
Would they go that far, probably not, but everyone needs to realize this isn’t as simple as some are making it out to be.
Hahahaha what? He’s glad he didn’t have kids, and you agree with what he says about lawyers being greedy. Sure, they are. But the issue here is APPLE. It’s clear as day. Or, hey, what the hell, might as well throw the whole legal system out the door as well then? I’m also glad he didn’t have kids, and I’m glad someone’s doing something about big corps acting like they can do what they want, when they want. And I’m an Apple fan to the bone. But I’m sick of this kind of BS.
I wasn’t but this system does apply in the U.K. The courts in the U.K. are only available to the very rich.
What exactly is “international law”?
America is acting extremely stupid right now, but there is no such thing as international laws, only treaties between nations for how to handle international issues.
I feel stupid: I thought that a company like that had an army of engineers and developers but now it seems to stay ahead of competition you need lawyers...