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

[Exception0x0e]

What does the price or estimated manufacturing cost have to do with anything?


As long as you don't interfere with the rights they have to their IP and services, then it isn't.

But similarly, the contracts that Apple enters into with developers should not be any of yours.

Well actually their profit margin on just the hardware alone clearly shows they are far from offering anything for free like some commenters here seem to suggest (it's not like the game consoles that are/were sold below cost price).

Second (other than the fact that I actually am also a developer, and have apps in the Apple Appstore), who is Apple to decide that I cannot do X or Y on my iPhone? If I want to install (or offer via my website) an app that shows wiggling boobs if you shake the phone, I or my customers should be able to do so without any of the hurdles Apple has now in place. I do not need their moral policing. If they do not want that on their OS or store, then give me the opportunity to install Android ( 3....2....1.... ********* starts now ) or to sideload it.

This is of course a theoretical discussion, as I do not use an iPhone (for above mentioned reasons) as my daily driver (just for development and testing) and am happy with the fact there are perfectly suitable alternatives that do fit my expectations for hardware I own.

 

[MacFarmer]

You know what, I think Apple should allow epic to do what they want, charge users what they want, etc. But at the same time Apple should ban all epic products on all Apple platforms.

 

[MacFarmer]

Imagining if Instagram, WhatsApp, Netflix etc. would band together and leave the platform

I would approve this move. These apps are cancer to society.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You know what, I think Apple should allow epic to do what they want, charge users what they want, etc. But at the same time Apple should ban all epic products on all Apple platforms.

I don't think Apple should decide that a consumer can use Epic's software. The consumer, and the consumer only, should decide what they want to do.

Why is the end-user always left out? Apple doesn't give a sh*t what the users think. Epic doesn't give a sh*t what the users think. Who is advocating, directly, for the consumer?

 

[spazzcat]

Well actually their profit margin on just the hardware alone clearly shows they are far from offering anything for free like some commenters here seem to suggest (it's not like the game consoles that are/were sold below cost price).

Second (other than the fact that I actually am also a developer, and have apps in the Apple Appstore), who is Apple to decide that I cannot do X or Y on my iPhone? If I want to install (or offer via my website) an app that shows wiggling boobs if you shake the phone, I or my customers should be able to do so without any of the hurdles Apple has now in place. I do not need their moral policing. If they do not want that on their OS or store, then give me the opportunity to install Android ( 3....2....1.... ********* starts now ) or to sideload it.

This is of course a theoretical discussion, as I do not use an iPhone (for above mentioned reasons) as my daily driver (just for development and testing) and am happy with the fact there are perfectly suitable alternatives that do fit my expectations for hardware I own.

How much to you make on iOS vs Android?

 

[BaldiMac]

Except Epic does pays Apple. They pay Apple $99/yr for Apple's services, just like Uber, Lyft, McDonald's, Starbucks, Bank of America, Walmart, etc. do. And Apple doesn't get a cut from their transactions.

$99/year is not the same as $99 per year plus a percentage of revenue under certain terms.

The issue is Apple thinks it deserves a cut of a transaction that Apple plays no part in as it's processed outside of Apple's App Store. This is like Visa or Mastercard wanting a retailer to pay them a transaction fee even for transactions made using cash, American Express, or Discover card.

No, the issue is that you are pretending that Apple's cut is for processing a payment, despite clear evidence that it is not.

Apple doesn't get a cut of Netflix subscription transactions processed through Netflix's website. But suddenly Apple thinks it should be able to collect a fee just because there's now a link within the app that directs you to the developer's website?

Yep. It's not really that strange when you acknowledge that Apple is entitled to charge for access to its IP and services. As the judge made clear in the ruling.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

I would approve this move. These apps are cancer to society.

I like to see something like the top 25 app developers, from every category, form a union of sorts to have barging ability, instead of Apple having 100% of the contract power.

It won't happen, but it would bring some balance.

Yep. It's not really that strange when you acknowledge that Apple is entitled to charge for access to its IP and services. As the judge made clear in the ruling.

You surmise that it's fine just because it's legal. I say it's wrong, because it's unethical, even if it's legal.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well actually their profit margin on just the hardware alone clearly shows they are far from offering anything for free like some commenters here seem to suggest (it's not like the game consoles that are/were sold below cost price).

No, it doesn't. Developers don't pay for the hardware.

Second (other than the fact that I actually am also a developer, and have apps in the Apple Appstore), who is Apple to decide that I cannot do X or Y on my iPhone? If I want to install (or offer via my website) an app that shows wiggling boobs if you shake the phone, I or my customers should be able to do so without any of the hurdles Apple has now in place. I do not need their moral policing. If they do not want that on their OS or store, then give me the opportunity to install Android ( 3....2....1.... ********* starts now ) or to sideload it.

But your not asking to be able to just do whatever you want on your own phone. You're asking Apple to modify their IP, so you can do what you want. That's a big difference.

 

[Rogifan]

Hmm

No idea about Epic but in the case of say Spotify, who have also been a vocal critic, you don't think they would've been fine without Apple?

If iOS never existed there wouldn't be a market for streaming music?

I would argue Uber and Lyft are more likely to not exist without the smartphone. But Apple doesn’t take a dime from them. So everyone arguing Apple deserves a cut, why don’t they deserve a cut of Uber and Lyft? It’s not a business Apple competes with either.

 

[Rogifan]

The logical end of your argument is not that Apple would then charge nobody for these things, but that they'd then charge everybody for these things. I'm not sure it's the "gotcha" argument you and others think it is.

But the bottom line is that Apple has chosen a model to fund their business. It's well known. Epic lost in court.

If you're just here to talk about a fantasy world in which Apple operates how you want them to, that's a different discussion.

Games and indie developers who charge for apps/services basically subsidize everything else in the App Store.

 

[laptech]

The logical end of your argument is not that Apple would then charge nobody for these things, but that they'd then charge everybody for these things. I'm not sure it's the "gotcha" argument you and others think it is.

But the bottom line is that Apple has chosen a model to fund their business. It's well known. Epic lost in court.

If you're just here to talk about a fantasy world in which Apple operates how you want them to, that's a different discussion.

Actually it is the 'gotcha' moment, you just do not want to realize, understand or accept it and thus try to come up with some phooey so you do not have to accept what you seen posted.

 

[ethanwa79]

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.

 

[laptech]

Not only did Epic not win, but the Judge ruled Apple can charge a commission on transactions outside of their processor.

Where did you read that? because I followed the court case and I do not remember seeing the Judge write that Apple can do that.

 

[BaldiMac]

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 his order to be more clear, and Apple will be forced to:

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

2. Not be allowed to take a cut from the outside purchase.

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

Shouldn't you read the judge's order before you claim to know what they really meant? The judge was clear that Apple would still be entitled to charge its fee for outside purchases.

"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I would argue Uber and Lyft are more likely to not exist without the smartphone. But Apple doesn’t take a dime from them. So everyone arguing Apple deserves a cut, why don’t they deserve a cut of Uber and Lyft? It’s not a business Apple competes with either.

Oh I agree it's completely inconsistent.

I don't think Apple shouldn't be able to monetize their platform but there is a limit to how much other business owe them.

We know that when iTunes launched on Windows it boosted iPod sales for Apple and help turn the their fortunes but does that mean Apple owe Microsoft a 30% cut of their business in perpetuity?

 

[frenchcamp49er]

So Epic wants Apple to do everything for free to them, why doesn’t Epic make their entire platform completely free. We all no why. If you believe Epic is doing this for the consume, I’ve got a great deal on ocean front property in Arizona, cheap.

 

[macconservative]

Epic are right on this, Apple basically think they have done the minimum they think they can get away with

Did you expect them to do more than the minimum for compliance?

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Oh I agree it's completely inconsistent.

I don't think Apple shouldn't be able to monetize their platform but there is a limit to how much other business owe them.

We know that when iTunes launched on Windows it boosted iPod sales for Apple and help turn the their fortunes but does that mean Apple owe Microsoft a 30% cut of their business in perpetuity?

Not the same. Microsoft doesn’t have a phone.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

We know that when iTunes launched on Windows it boosted iPod sales for Apple and help turn the their fortunes but does that mean Apple owe Microsoft a 30% cut of their business in perpetuity?

What agreement exists between Apple and Microsoft? That's the only metric. And the market place.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not the same. Microsoft doesn’t have a phone.

More to the point, Microsoft chooses not to charge.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Not the same. Microsoft doesn’t have a phone.

What agreement exists between Apple and Microsoft? That's the only metric. And the market place.

More to the point, Microsoft chooses not to charge.

Confirming what we already knew that, for some, anything goes as longs as Apple wins.

 

[Remy149]

Well actually their profit margin on just the hardware alone clearly shows they are far from offering anything for free like some commenters here seem to suggest (it's not like the game consoles that are/were sold below cost price).

Second (other than the fact that I actually am also a developer, and have apps in the Apple Appstore), who is Apple to decide that I cannot do X or Y on my iPhone? If I want to install (or offer via my website) an app that shows wiggling boobs if you shake the phone, I or my customers should be able to do so without any of the hurdles Apple has now in place. I do not need their moral policing. If they do not want that on their OS or store, then give me the opportunity to install Android ( 3....2....1.... ********* starts now ) or to sideload it.

This is of course a theoretical discussion, as I do not use an iPhone (for above mentioned reasons) as my daily driver (just for development and testing) and am happy with the fact there are perfectly suitable alternatives that do fit my expectations for hardware I own.the only game console currently sold at a loss is the Xbox series consoles. Nin

Well actually their profit margin on just the hardware alone clearly shows they are far from offering anything for free like some commenters here seem to suggest (it's not like the game consoles that are/were sold below cost price).

Second (other than the fact that I actually am also a developer, and have apps in the Apple Appstore), who is Apple to decide that I cannot do X or Y on my iPhone? If I want to install (or offer via my website) an app that shows wiggling boobs if you shake the phone, I or my customers should be able to do so without any of the hurdles Apple has now in place. I do not need their moral policing. If they do not want that on their OS or store, then give me the opportunity to install Android ( 3....2....1.... ********* starts now ) or to sideload it.

This is of course a theoretical discussion, as I do not use an iPhone (for above mentioned reasons) as my daily driver (just for development and testing) and am happy with the fact there are perfectly suitable alternatives that do fit my expectations for hardware I own.

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.

 

[PsykX]

And they are right... Apple "followeing" the orders is a joke. So greedy for Content they have nothing to do with.

Apple probably has one of the best lawyers team on Earth. I'm pretty sure by doing what they do, they will comply to everything the EU asked. And I agree that it's... not the change everyone was expecting to happen.

I used the calculator Apple provided myself, and honestly, it will benefit small players who won't really have time to bother with selling it outside of the App Store anyway, and big players will really want to stay in the App Store based from the core fees costs I've seen. So basically, most if not everyone will want to stay in the App Store.

Everything has to do with how the EU asked what they wanted. What words they used, what sentences expressed their requests. Honestly, I suspect the EU is at fault here, Apple has just been smart.

I'm not defending Apple, I actually also think their solution is a joke. But I don't think they're the ones to blame.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple probably has one of the best lawyers team on Earth. I'm pretty sure by doing what they do, they will comply to everything the EU asked. And I agree that it's... not the change everyone was expecting to happen.

I used the calculator Apple provided myself, and honestly, it will benefit small players who won't really have time to bother with selling it outside of the App Store anyway, and big players will really want to stay in the App Store based from the core fees costs I've seen. So basically, most if not everyone will want to stay in the App Store.

Everything has to do with how the EU asked what they wanted. What words they used, what sentences expressed their requests. Honestly, I suspect the EU is at fault here.

It could also benefit anyone who makes more than a couple euros per user per year and currently pays the 30%. Or anyone that could make more than a couple euros per year per user by adding third-party IAP. Or anyone that could make 0.5 euros more per user per year on advertising by avoiding Apple's App Store rules.

 

[Taipan]

If I were forced to to comply with an order that I don‘t stand behind, I wouldn’t do anything more than the bare minimum, either. Would anyone?