Apple Failed to Comply With App Store Court Order, Epic Tells Judge

[gregmancuso]

I’m siding with Epic on this one.

Apple is following orders as written, but I have doubts this is what the judge’s intent was.

The judge will most likely reword and reissue their order to be more clear, and Apple will be forced to:

1. Allow devs to put in as many links, and types of links, to outside payment that they want.

2. Can’t punish developers for pushing people to outside payment systems.

With this and the EU stuff, Apple’s interpretation of the laws is going to piss off a lot of judges and people with power, and they are playing with fire in my opinion.

1. Ok. A single link may be too restrictive. But I can see it as a way to ensure apps don’t present incessant nags (pop ups or ad-like messages) to push payments elsewhere.

2. Apple is punishing how? By charging fees based on the current structure less the cost of CC processing? By presenting a clear disclaimer the user is leaving the Apple ecosystem for the purpose of payment processing? The first is allowed and reasonable. The latter is legally advisable if not flat out required. Liability shifts to the developer for all payment issues. Most people will still expect Apple to deal with issues and refunds - probably even after reading and agreeing to the notice.

 

[gregmancuso]

Only Xbox is currently selling consoles at a loss. Nintendo hasn’t done so since the GameCube and Sony announced the ps5 was no longer sold at a loss 6 months after launch.

And the business decision to ever sell hardware at a loss was just that - a business decision. And that decision is completely irrelevant to whether fees could or should also be collected.

 

[CarAnalogy]

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?"

I don’t think the real core of the argument, and certainly not the thing that should be decided in court, is the amount of commission Apple deserves. I’m talking about better developer relations in other ways. That’s why I wish it was someone other than Epic. Sweeney talks about a lot of things but really it’s just about the money and there are longer term more important issues at stake here like the future of software distribution itself.

 

[31 Flavas]

Why should Apple be allowed to charge Epic for transactions made outside of the Apple ecosystem? It's not like Apple allows them to just go and use a different store to sell their "goods"! Also, what are they (devs) paying the 99 bucks for? The whole thing is kind of ridiculous. Apple needs App Developers and App Developers need Apple. Both are nothing without each other.

They're using the iPhone as part of the sales process. So, instead, use the link to tell consumers they can get a "EPIC Direct" 30% discount on their IAP or subscription if they buy the content on their own website, entirely outside of the iPhone or iPad.

But, this court case was never about the principle of the matter - it's only been about pocketing that 30% cut for themselves. I mean, if it were we'd be breaking up the monopoly that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have over their videogame hardware.

 

[djphat2000]

No I mean steam the store you can get in the AppStore allows you to buy steam games on my iPhone using the steam app I downloaded from the AppStore. Steam takes 30% on sales View attachment 2343759

Can you play those games on the iPhone?

 

[MRxROBOT]

OMG still with this app sideloading nonsense? Sick of hearing about this whiny complaining Sweeney guy. Go away already.

You're on the wrong forum then.

 

[djphat2000]

I don’t think the real core of the argument, and certainly not the thing that should be decided in court, is the amount of commission Apple deserves. I’m talking about better developer relations in other ways. That’s why I wish it was someone other than Epic. Sweeney talks about a lot of things but really it’s just about the money and there are longer term more important issues at stake here like the future of software distribution itself.

I don't think you will get better if it was someone other than EPIC. Unless it was an indie shop or small developer. Any large developer will take the savings if they could get it with little resistance. The issue here is that Sweeney is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's playing a small indie developer looking to revolute against the machine of big tech. But, he is big tech. And just as greedy. He gambled because he's a big shop and could afford to. But, failure was inevitable.

 

[djphat2000]

From what I have gathered on this. The "way" for a new 3rd party store to exist and be somewhat profitable. Is for someone such as Google or Amazon or Microsoft to start a new store. They have to have deep pockets to invest in this and infrastructure to deal with it. Which they all do.

They have to already be trusted (which for the most part they are). And they have to offer better rates than Apple does to attract developers.
The only thing is, even though one or all of them could do that. They could only offer somewhat better terms to developers. They could get creative and add it to an already existing subscription they sell people today. So say Amazon could include access to the store because you're a PRIME member. This would offset their costs of $.50 per download. Because it's their existing customers that are already paying for it. IF you just want the store and not PRIME then you can subscribe to it for say $9.99 a year or something. To help pay for the store. Same for Microsoft and or Google. If you subscribe to Xbox live or something, it's included if not its a fee on its own, and Google could include it with YouTube Premium and or TV. And on.

This way everyone gets a 3rd party store that is reputable. They have a vested interest to keep it safe and secure and offer competitive rates to the Apple AppStore. While keeping it profitable enough to justify it.

 

[31 Flavas]

I don’t think the real core of the argument, and certainly not the thing that should be decided in court, is the amount of commission Apple deserves.

Whoo hoo! Someone who gets it. But, boy are you ever going to be unpopular with everyone else and the court of public opinion.

I’m talking about better developer relations in other ways. That’s why I wish it was someone other than Epic. Sweeney talks about a lot of things but really it’s just about the money and there are longer term more important issues at stake here like the future of software distribution itself.

Seriously, you'll want to learn about the Atari vs Activision case from the late 1970's / early 1980's - it ultimately was about "better developer relationships". It's the legal case / presedence underpining all of this Epic v Apple brouhaha.

And what you want here: "better developer relationships" isn't unwarranted. Neither is being concerned about the, "longer term more important issues at stake here like the future of software distribution itself."

But, it's necessary to understand how we've gotten here. And ultimately, why the district cort, appellet court, and the US supreme court didn't elect to side with Epic games and only granted Epic relief on the anti-steering rules.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I don't think you will get better if it was someone other than EPIC. Unless it was an indie shop or small developer. Any large developer will take the savings if they could get it with little resistance. The issue here is that Sweeney is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's playing a small indie developer looking to revolute against the machine of big tech. But, he is big tech. And just as greedy. He gambled because he's a big shop and could afford to. But, failure was inevitable.

From what I have gathered on this. The "way" for a new 3rd party store to exist and be somewhat profitable. Is for someone such as Google or Amazon or Microsoft to start a new store. They have to have deep pockets to invest in this and infrastructure to deal with it. Which they all do.

They have to already be trusted (which for the most part they are). And they have to offer better rates than Apple does to attract developers.
The only thing is, even though one or all of them could do that. They could only offer somewhat better terms to developers. They could get creative and add it to an already existing subscription they sell people today. So say Amazon could include access to the store because you're a PRIME member. This would offset their costs of $.50 per download. Because it's their existing customers that are already paying for it. IF you just want the store and not PRIME then you can subscribe to it for say $9.99 a year or something. To help pay for the store. Same for Microsoft and or Google. If you subscribe to Xbox live or something, it's included if not its a fee on its own, and Google could include it with YouTube Premium and or TV. And on.

This way everyone gets a 3rd party store that is reputable. They have a vested interest to keep it safe and secure and offer competitive rates to the Apple AppStore. While keeping it profitable enough to justify it.

They already have the small business program, but I would love to see them to a lot more for smaller developers without being forced, while keeping larger companies and games on different rules. I think they are making an attempt at that with the Core Technology Fee and the rules about third party Stores. I still think a lot of their proposed solutions come off as a little hostile and purposely overcomplicated and burdensome.

 

[Hails09]

Sure, but the judge typing it in their ruling certainly does in the context of whether Apple is complying.

And judges have never been wrong

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Can you play those games on the iPhone?

No, and why should that matter?

 

[diamond.g]

No, and why should that matter?

If the content you buy within the app can be consumed on your phone (or iPad) Apple wants their cut. Otherwise they don't care.

 

[BaldiMac]

And judges have never been wrong

That's just FUD. You can disagree with the ruling, but that doesn't change the fact that the ruling is the ruling.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the content you buy within the app can be consumed on your phone (or iPad) Apple wants their cut. Otherwise they don't care.

Well it seems that if you purchase the content in safari without using any information from inside the app then apple doesn’t take a cut ether. Apple just wants to make it inconvenient for developers and users so they just purchase using IAP.

 

[dwaite]

I don’t think the real core of the argument, and certainly not the thing that should be decided in court, is the amount of commission Apple deserves. I’m talking about better developer relations in other ways. That’s why I wish it was someone other than Epic. Sweeney talks about a lot of things but really it’s just about the money and there are longer term more important issues at stake here like the future of software distribution itself.

While being forced by regulators' hands, the focus is going to be on protecting the user reputation of the platform (against a potential future of scammy side-loaded apps) and on protecting their existing revenue sources.

One could look at the App Store and core tech fee changes and Europe for instance and possibly see it structured as a way for Apple to justify their current App Store as an independent entity operating with its old terms as a marketplace independent of Apple, e.g. using up-front sales, in-app purchases and subscriptions to subsidize the core tech fee.

 

[2010mini]

This is the rub. Epic and others disagree with Apple that their success is because of Apple.

Here is how I look at it.

You have a store in an ideal location with lots of foot traffic. I ask you if I can set up a table to sell my product in your store. You agree and charge me a percentage. Just by being in your store, I get traffic that I would otherwise have to spend money to develop. Now that I have made a lot of money, I now don’t think I should pay you the same percentage. BUT… I still want to get access to the foot traffic that comes to your store. I still want access to your customer base.

That about sums up Epic.

 

[Cunir]

Most games have a shelf life when they're the most popular thing around... thinking of angry birds and candy crush... by the tine epic finish this court case they'll have missed the window. I would suck as much money out of fortnite as i can