It's called a monopoly...
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
Not according to the law or the courts in which that law has been tested. But you know that, right? Or are you just being hyperbolic?
I am not a dev. I am just saying Apple should be careful in terms of how they treat their clients, which bring them money and users to their platform. You can already kind of see a change in attitude by those devs / companies with the Vision Pro. The platform is new and the big players are already saying NOPE now, while they still have a chance.
Doesn’t Microsoft and Sony charge a commission for software sold on their video game consoles? Why such a big deal for Apple to do the same?
Rumors of Apple's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Here's all you need to know about this case.
1) Epic wants something that Apple provides.
2) Epic doesn't want to pay for it.
3) Apple is a business.
1) Epic wants something that Apple provides.
2) Epic doesn't want to pay for it.
3) Apple is a business.
I agree with most of this, but not the "cost pennies" inference. Whilst it might cost "pennies per app" most apps are free and generate no direct revenue to Apple, other than footfall into the App Store. So Apple's costs must be covered by the bulk of the fee earning Apps - the ones that charge. That doesn't translate to pennies. I think the alleged 27% fee Apple is trying to charge is disingenuous and too high. But they should look to make a charge, and the court has said they can. But not that much. And not pennies either.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Amazon can do that, then why not. They are identical in the use of apple resources when customers purchase goods
1) Epic wants something that Apple provides.
2) Epic doesn't want to pay for it.
3) Apple is a business.
This is the dumbest response. There’s a whole bunch of apps that Apple gets nothing out of that all take advantage of the above items.
Also never understood the difference in charging for digital goods vs physical goods.
Indeed I think Apple should compete on the merits and claimed superiority of their services.
If they genuinely believe in the value they provide then developers will continue to willingly pay Apple what they currently asks for…
BUT….and it’s a large disclaimer; if apple services actually aren’t worth what apple claim it is worth compared to competing services, then the undertakers will move away from the AppStore.
The term "undertaking" is a Eurospeak word for any person(s) or firms in an enterprise, and is used to describe those "engaged in an economic activity"
Apple’s engineers make major contributions to C++, and Apple drove the development of the modern LLVM/Clang C++ toolchain.
Similarly, Apple is the project leader for Swift. Their engineers design the new language features, implement them, test, debug, optimise them, and write new frameworks (both open and closed-source) in Swift.
That doesn’t happen for free. Part of the way Apple has chosen to fund that development is through fees for software distributed on its platform. It is also profitable, but there’s nothing illegal about that.
This was a part of the Apple-Epic lawsuit and Apple won on this argument.
The pizza shop down the street has two-for-one night on Sundays. But not on Fridays. Should I be able to demand they offer me the same deal on Fridays?
Suggesting that the only thing Apple are allowed to charge is the marginal cost of running the app store is naive because it fails to consider that Apple has spent countless BILLIONS to create the platform and acquire the customers for it.
You could test your logic at your local supermarket:
Just take your own brand of milk into the shop and suggest the only thing you'll pay the shop for the right of selling it to the shop's customers is the 1-2 cents it costs to refrigerate the milk.
Tell them the rest of the money should be yours, because only marginal costs count.
See how they react. Then report back.
Last edited:
Does Epic want something from Apple? If Epic doesn't want or need anything from Apple, then where's the conflict?
And this case isn't in the EU.
Well when you put it like that.
1) Amazon wants something that Apple provides.
2) Amazon doesn’t need to pay for it.
3) Apple is a business
Seems a little weird, Apple should take 30% on the Amazon store as well if they want to be consistent being payed for the services they use.
The pizza shop down the street has two-for-one night on Sundays. But not on Fridays. Should I be able to demand they offer me the same deal on Fridays?
Or, are you saying business shouldn't be free to operate how they want to operate?
Not quite true, please note that Apple also have the developer account program with an annual fee. While yes, one app does not equal one developer, but they receive some of the costs in form of those developer accounts. More information here.
And I pay an annual fee to Costco for membership. Should I then demand the products inside Costco for free?
They want the same privilege as other apps that don’t need to pay for in app purchases and can freely communicate with customers without Apple in the way, and to sell to users.
I know it’s not in EU, notice I didn’t mention any legal arguments and just described my preference of a competitive market.
Tim Sweeney believe Apple should pay Epic every time someone plays one of their games, anything less will not please him.
My local bar pays less for a bottle of whiskey than I can buy it for. Is that fair?
My child often eats breakfast for free when we go to a restaurant. Injustice?
This isn’t any different to how physical shops, like supermarkets operate. You think big brands get to put their stock on the shelf for free? Absolutely not. Any brand of supermarket has costs for stocking goods. You want a prime spot? Pay up. You want access to millions of customers? Pay up. The difference here is that there is a choice of supermarket And they compete broadly on price (sometimes on quality).
However, with Apple the deal is: our store or nothing. And this does seem unfair. There should be other stores that can compete on price. But, don’t forget all stores are going to charge! Nice try Epic.
And, with Epic the ask is: our product direct to your customer base, just give me your client list. And this is unfair too. Why would any business offer their assets to enable undercutting?
However, with Apple the deal is: our store or nothing. And this does seem unfair. There should be other stores that can compete on price. But, don’t forget all stores are going to charge! Nice try Epic.
And, with Epic the ask is: our product direct to your customer base, just give me your client list. And this is unfair too. Why would any business offer their assets to enable undercutting?
1) I never claimed such a thing, don't drag me down to a conversation I am not involved in and indirectly put word in my mouth. I just gave additional context. You should treat it like that.
2) I would say hosting an App would in your analogy would be more a vendor that brings their wares to a shop for the shop to sell, not a customer buying, that would be the iPhone users, so please don't compare apple to oranges. Feel free to argue on this merit... but with anyone else but me.