Steam processed the payment themselves. Also the software you bought there can't be downloaded into iOS.
Or maybe just special dealing? Who knows.
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 Failed to Comply With App Store Court Order, Epic Tells Judge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or maybe just special dealing? Who knows.
You have alternative app stores on android. Developers remain on the iOS ecosystem because iPhone owners are more likely to pay for software.
But yes, in the end it’s all about the money. I very much doubt there’ll be some kind of mutiny of developers.
Apple has a way to separate in-ecosystem and out-of-ecosystem charges, using in-app purchasing. Epic said they don't want to use that.
So Apple's new system says you can use whatever payment you want, you get to save 3% on the commission, but now any payments made via the linked payment system over the next week also are subject to apple's commission. Also, potential audits if Apple's numbers for approximate links out for payments don't match up with what the company reports.
If it sounds more convoluted, then you might guess why Apple went with the first system when designing the App Store.
You worded it as "asking Apple to modify their IP, so you can do what you want" ... I would rephrase that to "asking them to stop modifying their IP to prevent me from doing what I want"
Some people apparently are fine with unbridled greed and other excesses of unchecked capitalism. Good for them. Live in Apple's walled garden. Have others decide what is appropriate for them to see, do and think. Pay a premium to make Apple's shareholders happy and be proud on all these accomplishments of the free economy. That's their prerogative, and Apple's too.
I am actually not asking Apple to do anything; I made my choice and I made it with my wallet. I am just sharing my opinion on their way of doing business, which as a decades long Apple user I do not appreciate. They are free to limit their users in whatever way they deem fit as long as it is legal. Apple would however be wise to take note of the comments many made here in this thread (both by users and developers). With their behavior they are more and more distancing decades long Apple users and fanatics. There is a difference between legally permissible and doing the right thing as someone else here also noted. Apple seems to forget they need the developers perhaps more than developers need Apple. Platforms come and go and iPhone could easily one day become the new Blackberry.
By the way; I do pay for my hardware (as a developer). Currently counting around 16 Macs and a sh*tload of iPhones, iPads and even iPods Touch from old to latest. All paid for (but tax deductible). If you know a way to get stuff for free, please share with the rest of us.
You can sign up for a Prime Video account through in-app subscription. Apple then gets a 30% cut.
The arguments made in court by the other side really can't be "Apple charges to much commission" - partly because Apple has only added additional options or decreased how much they charge over the years. Abuse would be hiking up rates as the iPhone became more successful and apps became more essential.
Instead the argument tends to be that they are bundling different categories of services together, and thus limiting competition in the other market.
What's the good faith approach to get Apple to lower their fees - a game company like Epic saying "If you charged us less, your customers would still pay the same amount but we'd make a lot more profit and be *almost* as happy as if you charged us nothing?"
Are you proposing a third option where your lawyer starts exchanging red-lined versions of the EULA with corporate?
Not loop holes. They were told to allow for other payment providers to operate in a competitive manner. They've done so.
It is extremely difficult to legally tell a company they must offer services, and that the government will set the price. Apple continues to have the ability to determine their own commission, and to make sure it is paid.
I don't understand how this SHOULD be different in the monetization way.
Simple make, go to any store pick anything go to the cash desk, and demand that you want to pay not through their system ... then see what happens ... then you sue them :-D
Yes, and yes. To be more precise, Apple is free to run their business as they see fit but that doesn't make it right. I can be as obnoxious as I see fit. Does that mean that I should be?
"Why should Apple be allowed to charge Epic for transactions made outside of the Apple ecosystem?" and where do you think Epic will pay Apple for using the App Store ? Developing new Tools for the iOS cost for running the Server / Contracts with Cloud Providers etc.. Why go to work and demand money if you could just do it for free :-D
Apple has stated publicly that Epic is allowed to return as long as they abide by App Store policies. Epic is the one who decided that selling Fortnite DLC through iOS wasn't worth it.
My suspicion from the trial is that mobile just wasn't worth it when you saw the free to paying customer mix and factored in most users buying DLC credits using in-app purchasing rather than the Epic website. The consoles had a higher mix of paying users and were willing to negotiate lower rates. (Again, the in-app purchasing terms say you aren't allowed to steer people to your website specifically because Apple didn't demand any percentage of payments made outside of the app).
The timing of the stunt and getting their apps pulled from mobile also seemed to coincide with a big launch of third-party brand DLC (I think it was either Marvel or DC). That could mean they were paying another party royalties for the DLC, leaving Epic with a sliver after Apple/Google's 30% cut.
True, Apple is causing a LOT of bad faith with developers by trying to grab every last cent that goes through their platforms.
So 12 to 27% is every last cent ? yes everyone can argue if it is legitimate or not, so you can over everything that you we are paying for, if you want it for free then start with yourself, go and do your work for free... Everyone has a business model, even Epic is not providing the games for free isnt he, and what games do we gen buggy and the prices are going up, and for a complete game you have to pay several extra where before 10 years we got game and extra stuff for free ... so yes let sue game companies too for ripping people, why not.
"Apple plans to continue to collect a 12 to 27 percent commission on content bought this way."
Not quite that way. More like you go to a store and pick an item and go to the cash desk. The cashier tells you that you have to pay an extra 30% for the privilege of shopping there. You then say, I'll go to another store and buy the same item without paying the extra 30%. However, even if you do, you still have to pay that 30% to the store you decided not to buy from them.
Exactly.
And for all the arguments that they ask too much, the easiest argument that they figured out a workable rate is... 15 years of success of the App Store.
You're not paying 30% extra using the Apple store. You pay the price on the button which INCLUDES a 15%-30% cut to Apple for non Apple apps.
Buying content from outside will only work with the app you've already purchased (or obtained free) from Apple servers. It relates to the original app and only works with it.
If you think Epic are going to sell you cheaper DLC outsidem you are kidding yourself.
They simply wanted to keep the 15-30% themselves. Now they have to handover 12%-27% to Apple for the gateway access. After all their complaining and legal fees they've won nothing.
Epic started this fight by deliberately breaking the rules. They knew they did it. It backfired. Epic failure.
Perhaps people should look at how much they pay retail stores for providing goods they can walk out with. 30% is cheap.
People's morals (and outrage) are all over the place.
Why is it OK to pay someone 10 cents to sew clothing that retails for $100?
If the App store didnt work to dev and consumer benefit it also wouldn't work to Apples...
I agree, Apple should take a cut from Lyfts and Uebers profit. Maybe not a 30%, but something similar what credit card companies charge.
...and Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Russia, and the United States of America.
Among others, probably. You seem to be living in denial.
The EU is just the front runner to actually have passed dedicated legislation.
In case you aren’t aware all of this has to play out. “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit”, comes to mind. People were in denial that the government could lose.
Last edited:
I wish I was an Epic lawyer - this is a gift that keeps on giving...
Apple’s justification is that the fees are for use of IP and platform access. The court order on the one count they lost struck down the anti-steering clause of the developer agreement. It explicitly confirmed Apple’s right to charge commission as before.
Epic is on record as stating they cannot make their storefront a break-even venture, let alone profitable, charging 12%. We can all argue what the “right” number is. But it is obviously more than 12 or 15%.
Apple has had in place the 15/30% tiered commission fee structure for years. They adjusted the fees downward by 3% for anyone wanting to use a third-party payment process. That is fair as everyone here screams about how it only costs a couple of points to run a credit card transaction. That leaves the same 12% (base) left for Apple to run the storefront that Epic said is not sustainable.