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

[spazzcat]

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.

Judge Gonzales Rogers agreed with Apple's contention that, "Epic has had apps on the App Store for a decade, and has benefited from the App Store ecosystem - including the tools, testing, and distribution Apple provides to all developers. Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely and we're glad they've built such a successful business on the App Store. The fact that their business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users.

As John Gruber posited yesterday, "Apple’s 30/15 percent commissions from App Store purchases and subscriptions are not payment processing fees. They include payment processing fees, but most of those commissions are, in Apple’s view, their way of monetizing their intellectual property. And they see the entire iOS platform as their IP. So developers who want to process payments on their own websites are still on the hook to pay Apple the same effective commissions, minus only 3 percent for the actual payment processing."

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I sure hope apple got sound legal advice for their yearly attorneys fees.

They have a massive contingency of the worlds finest lawyers. If you don't know that you've not been paying attention to Patent filings for the past 25 years.

 

[djphat2000]

I'd go as far as almost saying that Apple should give a share back to the developers every year to make the iOS platform what it is today. Imagining if Instagram, WhatsApp, Netflix etc. would band together and leave the platform

None of them pay Apple anything today. But, they would lose out on customers that DO pay them. Since they don't have their apps on the platform anymore. So, it would be a big loss for those specific companies.

 

[I7guy]

Then separate the two. Can I remove Apple's software? Why can't I do that, at least, when the device is no longer supported?

This all seems a little one-sided..

Why is it one sided? Can you insert your own microcode into an intel cpu?

 

[I7guy]

They have a massive contingency of the world’s finest lawyers. If you don't know that you've not been paying attention to Patent filings for the past 25 years.

Sure $1B in legal fees is where that comment came from.

 

[I7guy]

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.

Webapp.

Why is the end-user always left out? Apple doesn't give a sh*t what the users think.

That not true. There are all sorts of standards tied to jobs and positions in all walks of life.

Epic doesn't give a sh*t what the users think. Who is advocating, directly, for the consumer?

The consumers $$$. Piss me off enough and I’ll buy a Samsung galaxy.

 

[cocky jeremy]

This idiot is still whining?

 

[AppliedMicro]

None of them pay Apple anything today. But, they would lose out on customers that DO pay them. Since they don't have their apps on the platform anymore.

…and so would Apple, over the longer term.

Smartphones without native Spotify, Netflix, Instagram and WhatsApp will be less popular with consumers. Apple would lose out on customers.

 

[Hails09]

Epic should go pound sand. Don't like? Create your own phone and OS and then run **** the way you want. Use another company's software for free and pocket profit is ********.

But the purchase wouldn’t happen on apples servers but a separate website
Away from apple

 

[rp100]

The beef is that an iPhone (and any mobile device) is a handheld computer. It is not exclusively used for movies, or music, or video games. It is advertised and designed to do darn near anything. And Apple is intentionally preventing you from using it to do darn near anything. You pay $1200 for a portable device after which you (the consumer) continue to pay fees to Apple. The developer is not allowed to sign, market, or distribute software without Apple’s explicit consent. The consumer and developer are “privileged” to be able to participate in using the device.

Everything is planned, from device interoperability to advertising to management of in-group psychology, specifically to keep you in the Apple wheelhouse. Interactions with non-Apple devices are intentionally degraded to further nudge people in (or out) of the ecosystem. The psychology of this is so powerful that subcultures have popped up to explain and/or mock these phenomenons (think blue/green chat bubbles).

The company is known to budget in excess of $1b (billion) explicitly to undertake activities that are legal gray-area, sometimes successful, and sometimes spectacularly disastrous (Apple Watch losing blood ox functionality).

If I pay $1200 for a portable computer, yes, I expect to do whatever I want with it. If I want to develop software and distribute and advertise it on my own dime, outside the app store, with my own payment processing, and my own security risks, not on apple’s servers, that should be possible.

 

[code-m]

The change perfectly complies with the court order. The court said Apple has rights to collect fees for using its platforms for app development. The court also ordered Apple to provide a way to allow payment methods other the App Store payment mechanism. This change is perfect compliance.

One solutions is for Apple to offer a developer to advertise/market its app on the App Store with the option to either download via Apple or a link to the developers site. Whichever option is used the developer can offer the customer either pay through Apple or via 3rd party.

Option 2 is have an external website catalogue with links to developers to sideload apps and this register or catalogue can be monitored by all developers similar to an open license for general use.

 

[djphat2000]

Businesses operating how they want is the reason the environment is in shambles, the reason of economy almost collapsed in 2008, the reason healthcare costs are astronomical, the reason our personal data is marketed and sold around the web...the list goes on.

No, I absolutely do not think businesses should be able to operate however they want. They are not people, nor even citizens. They are non-living entities and should be treated as such.

"Businesses are People my friend." Mitt Romney US Senator.
We can certainly view this with how we feel instead. But, in the USA. Mitt Romney is right.

 

[BaldiMac]

But the purchase wouldn’t happen on apples servers but a separate website
Away from apple

So? The fee they charge isn't for processing the payment. As established at trial, it's a licensing fee for Apple's IP that they are entitled to collect, even when payments are made through a third-party website.

 

[jz0309]

“Epic tells judge” - that says it all.
Epic is entitled to their opinion, they can file another lawsuit but they are not the decision maker

 

[maxoakland]

Epic is right. Apple didn't comply and they didn't even allow sideloading since they require third party app stores. That's not what sideloading is

 

[BaldiMac]

Epic is right. Apple didn't comply and they didn't even allow sideloading since they require third party app stores. That's not what sideloading is

Wrong country. You're referring to the EU. This thread, and Epic's comment, are about a US court decision.

 

[poseidondev]

Will be interesting to see what Epic will argue in their substantive filing.
As it stands now, Apple's behavior aligns with both the District Court's decision and the 9th Circuit Court's affirmation. In fact, it's a little better; both courts assumed Apple would just charge 30% instead of the discounted 27%.

---

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.

It's all over both decisions. Some examples from the judgments:

In essence, Apple uses the DPLA to license its IP to developers in exchange for a $99 fee and an ongoing 30% commission on developers' iOS revenue.

As the district court noted, in a world where Apple maintains its distribution restriction but payment processing is opened up, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchasers. Apart from any argument by Epic, the district court "presume[d]" that Apple could "utilize[e] a contractual right to audit developers... to ensure compliance with its commissions."

Because the court upheld the app-distribution restriction, Apple would still be entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchases within apps downloaded from the App Store.

Suffice it to say, IAP is not merely a payment processing system, as Epic Games suggests, but a comprehensive system to collect commission and manage in-app payments.

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.

It's all there in crystal clear, plain language. Not just in the snippets I shared above but throughout both judgments, the courts have emphasized this in a variety of ways. Apple is entitled to charge the commission as payment for the use of their IP, even in the case of using external payment processing services (PSP). The only difference is that by using PSPs, the collection of the commission is more cumbersome, and Apple will have to exercise its right to audit developers to ensure they get their commission.

Sweeny knows this, as his legal team will have advised him of this. Otherwise, that team isn't worth the paper their degree is printed on.

So it'll be quite interesting to see what their arguments are going to be in this case, but even more interesting is if the court will grant Apple's inevitable motion to summary dismissal.

Here's the District Court's judgment

Here's the 9th Circuit's judgment

 

[djphat2000]

The beef is that an iPhone (and any mobile device) is a handheld computer.

This is true. You can argue that an iPhone or any mobile phone is a computer. But that would include something like the Apple Watch or any FitBit for that matter. Everything has a purpose for which they are built. So while they share similar or same characteristics. They are not truly the same thing.

It is not exclusively used for movies, or music, or video games. It is advertised and designed to do darn near anything. And Apple is intentionally preventing you from using it to do darn near anything.

Would you want your handheld computer to run virus scans in the background with such a limited amount of battery power? The chip certainly can do it. But, it would be a waste of resources for such a device to have to do.

You pay $1200 for a portable device after which you (the consumer) continue to pay fees to Apple.

You can avoid paying Apple anything. As updates are free. Web use is totally free. Most apps on the store are totally free. And many that do charge, are subscription based which you can subscribe to without Apple.

The developer is not allowed to sign, market, or distribute software without Apple’s explicit consent. The consumer and developer are “privileged” to be able to participate in using the device.

They are privileged as they don't have any rights to do so otherwise. Apple doesn't have to support any developer nor does any Developer have to support Apple's platform. Neither is forced to work together for anything. Something we see plenty of with AAA games.

Everything is planned, from device interoperability to advertising to management of in-group psychology, specifically to keep you in the Apple wheelhouse.

And if it works, they reap the rewards of more business (profits). If they fail, they risk losing all the capital invested into the effort. At no time is anyone forced into the ecosystem.

Interactions with non-Apple devices are intentionally degraded to further nudge people in (or out) of the ecosystem.

Apple is under no obligation to "work" with any 3rd party/vendor/developer for the technologies Apple creates or develops. Just as no 3rd party/vendor/developer is under any obligation to "work" with Apple.

The psychology of this is so powerful that subcultures have popped up to explain and/or mock these phenomenons (think blue/green chat bubbles).

I too find this hilarious. As sending a message to any "OS" works just fine. People are people I guess.

The company is known to budget in excess of $1b (billion) explicitly to undertake activities that are legal gray-area, sometimes successful, and sometimes spectacularly disastrous (Apple Watch losing blood ox functionality).

Research and Development (R&D). And they are most likely not spending the most compare to their peers.
Legal gray-area suggests that it's basically bad. It's legal or it isn't. These are binary not quantum choices here.
And yes, sometimes Apple gets it wrong. Far from the first time, and most likely will not be the last time.

If I pay $1200 for a portable computer, yes, I expect to do whatever I want with it.

You would be wrong if you're purchasing an iPhone. And you should know that by now. It's the 17th or so version of the iPhone (can't remember how many S models there were). The first iPhone didn't even have a store or any means in which to put something on the device. They said this then....

However, you certainly can do whatever you want with it. You just lose out on support from Apple for those efforts if you break the device. But, if you're able to program for an iPhone. You can do with it as you wish. Just don't sell it.

If I want to develop software and distribute and advertise it on my own dime, outside the app store, with my own payment processing, and my own security risks, not on apple’s servers, that should be possible.

It totally is now in the EU. Though you will have to cut Apple in on those sales and downloads (past 1 million).

 

[Hails09]

So? The fee they charge isn't for processing the payment. As established at trial, it's a licensing fee for Apple's IP that they are entitled to collect, even when payments are made through a third-party website.

So does that mean if I purchase tickets from ticketmaster using safari Apple will still get a cut because I’m using safari & that’s an Apple app?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

1) Amazon wants something that Apple provides.
2) Amazon doesn’t need to pay for it if it's physical goods but needs to pay if it's digital goods for the iPhone
3) Apple is a business which decided where to get their money and where not to geit their money

Sounds very arbitrary to draw the line for delivering physical or digital goods. Both are digital purchases.

 

[BaldiMac]

So does that mean if I purchase tickets from ticketmaster using safari Apple will still get a cut because I’m using safari & that’s an Apple app?

No.

 

[Hails09]

No.

So what’s the difference if I go on a company’s website & make a purchase
& the company doesn’t have to pay Apple their cut
But if I use the app to then go on said company’s website to make purchase the company then has to pay Apple their cut.
Even though the purchase has nothing to do with Apple

 

[I7guy]

The beef is that an iPhone (and any mobile device) is a handheld computer. It is not exclusively used for movies, or music, or video games. It is advertised and designed to do darn near anything. And Apple is intentionally preventing you from using it to do darn near anything. You pay $1200 for a portable device after which you (the consumer) continue to pay fees to Apple. The developer is not allowed to sign, market, or distribute software without Apple’s explicit consent. The consumer and developer are “privileged” to be able to participate in using the device.

Everything is planned, from device interoperability to advertising to management of in-group psychology, specifically to keep you in the Apple wheelhouse. Interactions with non-Apple devices are intentionally degraded to further nudge people in (or out) of the ecosystem. The psychology of this is so powerful that subcultures have popped up to explain and/or mock these phenomenons (think blue/green chat bubbles).

The company is known to budget in excess of $1b (billion) explicitly to undertake activities that are legal gray-area, sometimes successful, and sometimes spectacularly disastrous (Apple Watch losing blood ox functionality).

If I pay $1200 for a portable computer, yes, I expect to do whatever I want with it. If I want to develop software and distribute and advertise it on my own dime, outside the app store, with my own payment processing, and my own security risks, not on apple’s servers, that should be possible.

If you know ahead of time that you buy a intel based pc and you can’t load your own microcode, would you think that intel can be busted open to allow roll your own microcode?

Or buy a system that has a cpu where you can roll your own microcode.

 

[I7guy]

So does that mean if I purchase tickets from ticketmaster using safari Apple will still get a cut because I’m using safari & that’s an Apple app?

If this is a genuine question, then No because safari is not on the App Store.

 

[BaldiMac]

So what’s the difference if I go on a company’s website & make a purchase
& the company doesn’t have to pay Apple their cut
But if I use the app to then go on said company’s website to make purchase the company then has to pay Apple their cut.
Even though the purchase has nothing to do with Apple

Simply the licensing terms that Apple chooses to offer.