The difference is in publicly available web standards vs apples apis, which are apples ip.
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
Absolutely. And I kind of support Apple on doing so - it only encourages judgement calls from judicators and legislators to say “that is or is not what we meant or want”.
They aren't "their" goods at all. They are entirely created with Apple's APIs and tools. Want access to the core technology? Pay up.
The examples are not relevant in any shape or form.
You take up customer relations where zero rules of engaging the market exists.
While the AppStore have rules of what can and can’t be sold in their store and for what fee.
I’m pointing out that what epic wants and Amazon wants is exactly the same thing and both have value and the same resource usage.
But only one of them pays a fee for no objectively measurable way
So? I don't need a reason to charge for ice cream and give yogurt away for free.
If you're just business unfriendly at your core, that's fine. But you're arguing as if businesses don't practice in this way every day. You don't have to understand it. It doesn't have to make sense to you. It's not your decision to make.
In my business, I can make all sorts of deals and side deals or raise the price or lower the price. I can quote one person one fee, and turn around a quote a different fee to another person.
If you have a problem with that, you're not really arguing about any legal activity. You're arguing about your general preference as to how businesses should run, not how they do run.
And, again, since we're discussing US law here, can you back up your idea, in law, that a business can't contract differently with different clients?
You might well own the hardware but you do not own any of the software and firmware that runs on that hardware. That software is owned by Apple and they sold you a licence to use it. That licence comes with conditions, set by Apple. You agreed to the terms of the licence and all the conditions.
One of those conditions is how apps are installed. That is why Apple has the right to decide. And you agreed to it.
If some ice cream brands can keep all their sales but others can’t, I think you a
Oh I do know businesses does it every day, I just perceive it as long term harmful to any undertaking who participate in the market in the long term for short sighted interests
Well I’m not as knowledgeable in common law, as with European civil law, and that everything isn’t codified in one spot.
But I would say Cartels and collusions where they practice Excluive dealing are considered illegal.
Google and Spotify cut a separate deal for the Play Store, where Spotify pays no fees. OK?
Sales and negotiations are so fundamental to business, I don't really understand the idea that it is short-sighted.
That's a bogus argument. Of course there are laws to followed, and his statement is not a call for an anarchistic society. And as an aside, the actual causes of the complex issues you are claiming to be tied to his statement are much more complex in themselves.
Yes, and it's legal.
AFAIK. AppStore costs have come down over the years. Nothing has gone up. So what's being extorted?
iPhone came without a store. It sold without any developers help. Developers "wanted" to be on the iPhone. Apple created an SDK and rules for that to happen. It exploded and grew to what it is today. If it was a bad idea, why did they develope for it? And why did they stick with it?
No Apple. No development for the iPhone. No money for those developers. Any developer could have the best world changing idea for the next app on a Mobile phone. But, its useless if there are no mobile phones.
The complaining that we get from companies like EPIC. Is that they are maxing out what they can make with what they produce. And when that happens. They all start to look for ways to save money. One way to save is to not "pay" so much for the services and 3rd parties they have to deal with. EPIC saw a way to save money (lower Apple tax) by moving it to their existing infrastructure (EPIC app store) and increase profits. While they are at it. They can offer other companies a potentially cheaper alternative to Apple, while making some extra money for themselves too.
EPIC doesn't care about you any more than any other company. They just wanted more of the money for themselves. They thought they could bully Apple and Google into giving "them" a better deal and it backfired.
But it’s still on a website that has nothing to do with Apple
Who in their own words take nothing to do with.
But it’s on a website that Apple in their own words take no responsibility for if anything goes right or wrong
So? Lots of businesses sell through third party websites. Xbox and Playstation developers pay a platform fee whether they sell through Target or their own site.
They take no responsibility for the payment. Again, they aren't charging for the payment. They're charging a licensing fee for use of their IP and services.
This was all covered in court. The judge affirmed that they are entitled to collect their fee on outside purchases.
No they are taking no responsibility for it at all yet Apple want all the benefits of fees
Even though nothing happens on Apple side to warrant that fee no money is changing hands on Apple servers.
Did you bother to read what I said? Developers still benefit from Apple's IP and services even if Apple doesn't process the payment. This isn't just my opinion. It was established at trial and affirmed by the judge.
Google and Spotify are Competitors to each other, so it makes sense they pay no fee.
Sure they are fundamental to business, and when businesses engage in their own self interest for short term gains it always leads to long term har to the market, the environment and citizens.
That’s why we got company towns with company scrips as payment only usable in the same business.
A business never have the consumers or anyone else’s interest at heart
Copyright © 2024 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
Swift and the Swift logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
Terms are ruffly the same on Android. And those developers know where the money "IS". They would only leave if it cost them too much to stay.
Anybody can develop a website and solicit a subscription. As long as no app is involved apple isn’t involved either.
Want to deliver digital goods via an app, then apple gets involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, but the judge typing it in their ruling certainly does in the context of whether Apple is complying.
