Apple Files Appeal in Epic Games Lawsuit, Asks to Delay App Store Changes

[Sophisticatednut]

The problem precisely is that the market has decided. And some people (most notably the big players) aren't happy with that.

FALSE! The market have coalesced with two options, that doesn’t mean those are good. Same reason republicans and democrats as the duopoly doesn’t mean people are happy at all

People by and large have signalled (via their wallets and spending habits) that they don't dislike walled gardens, because many of the rules, while onerous on developers, actually benefit the end user. And developers have no choice but to go to where the money is, even if it means giving Apple 30% of their earnings, because 70% of something is still a lot better than 100% of nothing over on the android side.

You can signal you like walled garden, doesn’t mean you accept the terms.
oh you like law and order? Well North Korea fits that. Customers simply have no choice

There has never been a genuine debate about the App Store, and the competition has no interest in having one. Notice how none of the recent lawsuits involve us consumers giving our testimonials about how we prefer the iOS App Store model?

Because it’s about the developers, not you. same with windows and internet explorer

If the debate were to boil down to one’s experience using the App Store, Epic and other App Store critics would lose. Every single time. This is nothing short of guerrilla warfare being waged by Apple's competitors, with the intent of slowly wearing down Apple's defences via a non-stop barrage of lawsuits.

Customers experience of the store would improve if apples tax was decreased

Except I wouldn’t call Apple a monopoly. The courts have also ruled that the App Store isn’t one either.

Eu courts seem to disagree, thankfully.

Rather, I think the proper term is aggregator. Similar to Amazon and Facebook, an aggregator controls demand (ie: the end users) by providing a user experience so good that they flock to it, which draws supply (ie: developers) who in turn have to agree to Apple’s terms if they want to be able to access Apple’s user base.

Sounds like an abusive relationship.

And the reason why so many people continue to use Amazon, Google and Facebook for all the issues they cause is precisely because the underlying service is that good. Same for the App Store. It’s a problem for developers, not end users.

If this is how you explain it, it sounds like a domestic abuse case, and I hope the government rains down hellfire.

Which is why, as the end user, I am not against how the App Store is currently being operated, even as I acknowledge that some developers have issues with it. It comes down to my earlier argument - what’s good for me not being good for the developer, and what the developer wants may not be in my best interests as an Apple customer.

Lower prices and more options are good for me and the developers

To me, buying an iphone is like joining a union. There are annoying parts, but as a whole it gives users a collective voice to force app makers to behave. If there are rival app stores, then the user base can be divided, losing power to app developers.

You know what you also do in unions? You force the union to change according to its users. Not the other way around.

No as consumers we shouldn't care who gets paid, only how much we pay.

Why not? If I see that 80% of the price is caused by the seller I can put pressure to lower it. If I see 5% of the price goes to the seller I can know more of my money goes to a great app I like.

When I buy coffee I don't want a list containing how much a plantation worker in Brazil got from that coffee. I just want to pay for the coffee and drink it.

Well you could see that how big the cut on the coffee goes to the one who made it? Would you really be happy to know 95% of your expensive drink doesn’t go to the one who made it? You could easily use customer pressure and better informed decision to lower that price.

So if an American got screwed over by a developer from Poland, how should they proceed?

Don’t you have customer protections in USA? If a Swedish gets screwed by an American developer I just call the customers protection agency to look at my case. And if they broke Swedish law they will be forced to compensate me or go to co

Would you even take it to small claims court (or similar) for $5 or even $10 in your own country?

Fraud is still fraud. If the developers lose they pay all legal fees automatically as I go home happy

If that's really the case Apple will have an opportunity to defend itself in a fair trial? Correct?

Yes, and they seem to be losing badly. Apple should have followed the law. Small business and big business follow different rule

 

[kiv.atso]

And how exactly does that help you if a developer changes business models and the old web app is no longer available?

I won’t use them because I hate web apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You cannot go into a business and make the people you do business with change their model to suit you.

This is the same for any business owner in any market worldwide

If the business is abusing its market power by acting anticompetitively, you can go to the courts and make them change by court ruling. Or to the government and let them introduce a law.

This is what's currently happening (though Epic has failed on most accounts in the US so far)

I've said this before, but I'll state it again. Why does this matter? Business A is not in business to make business B exist. If it works out that way, great. But, it's not just because they're aren't a lot or many doesn't mean it's unfair. Other companies "can" create a mobile phone, OS, and app store if they so choose. Neither Google nor Apple is blocking them from doing so.

If having too few businesses in a relevant works out to the detriment of competition and society as a whole, the government can intervene and make Business A change their ways - or break them up. It has happened before.

This requires Apple to build something for this to work. Something that doesn't currently exist. They would have to support its functionality across OS upgrades, and secure it whether you "customer" wanted it or not

It doesn't. You can happily sideload apps today. It's just that Apple arbitrarily enforces a "kill switch" by severely limiting the time you can sign an app.

I think they solved this whole issue by having a walled garden of approved App Store apps. How would they have any control over the app if it was not coming from the AppStore? Let alone sandbox it. What would they be sandboxing it from? Would the app even work if Apple sandboxed it?

No, sandboxing apps has little to do with App Store approval. Apple has sandboxed apps even for and between approved apps on the App Store. And approved apps have been found to sneak past Apple in gathering data around the system.

You can absolutely sandbox apps with sideloading. Sandboxing puts individual apps into a "sandbox" on a system level. There's nothing that requires them to be approved by Apple or not for sandboxing to work.

Looks like, I’m glad these type of people are not in charge of anything society/government speaking anywhere near me… there’s something that really truly rubs me the wrong way when there’s clamoring of “forcing” companies to do or work in a certain way.

It happens all the time.
Aircraft manufacturer are being told how they build airplanes and what they can sell.

You want to allow companies like Amazon and Netflix the freedom to run their business as they see fit and generate a profit, but you will force Apple to not run their business as they see fit and loose profit?

I want companies regulated - and being made to change particular policies - if and when there is a lack of competition that they're exploiting.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple offers. As a consumer, you must agree to Apples iOS licence agreement before you can even set up your iPhone. If you don’t agree with it, Apple give you a 2 week period in which you can return the device, no questions asked. Here, it is fully explained to the user that the hardware is theirs but the OS and software running on it is licensed to them. The OS and all services belongs to Apple. The user has a choice at this stage to accept the terms, or go elsewhere.

On utilising ANY business, the customer is bound by the terms and conditions of that business. If they don’t agree with them, they can go elsewhere.

Haha, Good luck enforcing that agreement. It’s null and void. I already bought the product, no agreement can stop me from using something I already own.
at least in EU, don’t know I’m the backwards legal territory you live in.
I’m glad illegal contracts aren’t worth the electronic inc it uses.

 

[mrochester]

Haha, Good luck enforcing that agreement. It’s null and void. I already bought the product, no agreement can stop me from using something I already own.
at least in EU, don’t know I’m the backwards legal territory you live in.
I’m glad illegal contracts aren’t worth the electronic inc it uses.

There might be no practical way for an EULA to stop you from trying to do whatever you want with a piece of software but there's also no requirement for the software developer to create the software to let you do what you want, unless it is legally required for them to do so.

 

[Abazigal]

You can signal you like walled garden, doesn’t mean you accept the terms.
oh you like law and order? Well North Korea fits that. Customers simply have no choice

I like a good user experience, which is precisely what I pay Apple to provide me, which is in turn made possible by their control over hardware and software (which includes the App Store).

Because it’s about the developers, not you. same with windows and internet explorer

US antitrust law looks at harm done to customers (as opposed to EU antitrust law which looks at harm done to businesses).

Whether developers are getting the shorter end of the stick here is irrelevant because they are not Apple's customers here. We are, yet it's weird that nobody has asked us, the end users, for our thoughts and opinions on this matter.

You must be insane to believe that. Customers experience of the store would improve if apples tax was decreased

I don't think that the price of apps is going to decrease (or decrease significantly) to result in any noticeable benefit for me. What is more likely to happen is that developers will simply absorb the difference.

Sounds like an abusive relationship.

Not for the end user.

If this is how you explain it, it sounds like a domestic abuse case, and I hope the government rains down hellfire.

See above.

Lower prices and more options are good for me and the developers

As I explained above, I doubt we will actually see app pricing decrease. And I only care for more options insofar that they offer me more of what I want. Expecting me to navigate an external link and key in my payment details on a separate website just so the developer can earn a few more dollars seems like it's simply saddling me with more issues to have to contend with.

You know what you also do in unions? You force the union to change according to its users. Not the other way around.

I guess it's just as well that my interests are aligned with Apple's then.

Why not? If I see that 80% of the price is caused by the seller I can put pressure to lower it. If I see 5% of the price goes to the seller I can know more of my money goes to a great app I like.

Because the price of a good is more than just the cost of the labour and raw materials that went into it; it's also a function of the value the customer derives from it. That's why you have people willing to pay a premium for branded bags like LV or Hermes, despite their insane margins. It's why I buy an iPhone over a cheaper android phone.

Well you could see that how big the cut on the coffee goes to the one who made it? Would you really be happy to know 95% of your expensive drink doesn’t go to the one who made it? You could easily use customer pressure and better informed decision to lower that price.

I would say that I would be indifferent to how much of the value of that cup of coffee is captured by every aspect of the value chain. The only thing that matters to me is whether I feel the value derived from that cup of coffee is worth the $4 or $5 I pay for it. If it is worth (for me), I will pay. And if it's not, then I won't.

Yes, and they seem to be losing badly. Apple should have followed the law. Small business and big business follow different rule

The law isn't as clear cut and straightforward, and it's not yet a given that Apple will lose.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So we all where born yesterday and everything that happened is irrelevant to what exists today? That doesn't sound right to me.

In the eyes of the law? Yes. A market with 100 equal competitors are regulated differently from a market with two powerful companies.

That doesn’t work out like you think it does. The courts weigh precedents that have accumulated over the years that really pull in the reigns and scope of antitrust laws. Companies are gaining more and more rights under the laws. Markets are now capable of being defined as multi-sided with the interests of companies and consumers being weighed to the detriment of suppliers. Remedies are no longer extreme. Breakups and reorganizations are almost entirely off the table. Regulators are very cautious about pressing too hard because they run the risk of having established regulatory powers overturned. It basically takes one case before SCOTUS that grants corporations equal protection under the law (and there are a lot of good candidate cases out there) to gut all but the most general of regulations on the books.

Well the good thing is that US insane freedoms and rights companies have are limited to the Borders of the USA. South Korea, Japan, EU etc do not have a Scotus or such stupid laws to even care about such things

 

[hans1972]

1. True.
2. What are the other “multitude” of mobile platforms? There’s only one other one.
3. That’s a different market. This relates to mobile phone platforms. Read what the judge said.
4. See number 3.
5. See number 3.

The fact that people could find work in other markets or fields is irrelevant. That’s not how anti-trust law works at all.

Anti-trust law in the US is foremost concerned about consumers, not businesses.
It's not there to protect businesses making a living or protecting people's jobs at those businesses.

One small part of Apple's developer agreement was found to be illegal in California. It wasn't illegal because it hurt developers, but because the judge opined it hurt customers (consumers).

And I disagree that business don't have a choice. Having to choose another market is still a choice.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There might be no practical way for an EULA to stop you from trying to do whatever you want with a piece of software but there's also no requirement for the software developer to create the software to let you do what you want, unless it is legally required for them to do so.

There no legal way to enforce it. It’s unenforceable even if I filmed my self buying the iPhone, setting it up, jailbreak if it or breaking every clause in the agreement and send the video to apple lawyers. They could do absolutely zero actions. For the simple fact the agreement was shown after the purchase.

I like a good user experience, which is precisely what I pay Apple to provide me, which is in turn made possible by their control over hardware and software (which includes the App Store).

Me to, but apple have a terrible user experience. They just happen to be the least bad. I want to excerpt legal force to make it more customer friendly

US antitrust law looks at harm done to customers (as opposed to EU antitrust law which looks at harm done to businesses).

I live in EU and we do the same thing. Harm to business is always harm to customers.

Whether developers are getting the shorter end of the stick here is irrelevant because they are not Apple's customers here. We are, yet it's weird that nobody has asked us, the end users, for our thoughts and opinions on this matter.

In US context perhaps. And no need to ask customers anything as Epic had to prove this harm. In the rest of the world the customers opinion have me merit on the laws to be fair for businesses

I don't think that the price of apps is going to decrease (or decrease significantly) to result in any noticeable benefit for me. What is more likely to happen is that developers will simply absorb the difference.

Well there is a benefit to me. The developers can compete more effectively. Same reason software in the past had to pay 70% to the stores had an expensive price before apple came with their 30% fee. Why wouldn’t the same thing happen if this fee is lowered even more?

plus I’m able to pay apple even less money for their user hostile services and perhaps they will change.

Not for the end user.

See above.

How isn’t it an abusive relationship? If users go back again and again to companies that treats them like trash? Facebook, google, Verizon, AT&T, comcast? But you return because you like the product as they piss on you. Sounds very abusing when you refuse to then stop using the product or go to the cops.

As I explained above, I doubt we will actually see app pricing decrease. And I only care for more options insofar that they offer me more of what I want. Expecting me to navigate an external link and key in my payment details on a separate website just so the developer can earn a few more dollars seems like it's simply saddling me with more issues to have to contend with.

Well you won’t necessarily need to put in any information. PayPal button or Apple Pay buttons can be used. It would be better if apple just allowed them to use different payment in the app directly and compare the price clearly.

50$ IAP option + 8-15$ apple fee( depends if the developers have made 1million yet)
Or
50$ Apple Pay + merchant fee 1~$
Or PayPal 2$ fee
Or if the developers are greedy

50$ iAP + 8-15$ apple fee
Or
55-60$ Apple Pay + merchant fee 2~$
Ether way it becomes transparent to me.

I guess it's just as well that my interests are aligned with Apple's then.

Let’s see if the rest of the members aligns with you.

Because the price of a good is more than just the cost of the labour and raw materials that went into it; it's also a function of the value the customer derives from it. That's why you have people willing to pay a premium for branded bags like LV or Hermes, despite their insane margins. It's why I buy an iPhone over a cheaper android phone.

Of course and I agree with you, but I would like to know how much of that premium I’m willing to give to apple for providing a subpar App Store.
Remember this is not the price of goods. We both agree with it and buy it according to our perceived value.

The disagreement is with their store where we buy programs

I would say that I would be indifferent to how much of the value of that cup of coffee is captured by every aspect of the value chain. The only thing that matters to me is whether I feel the value derived from that cup of coffee is worth the $4 or $5 I pay for it. If it is worth (for me), I will pay. And if it's not, then I won't.

I’m not talking about the whole chain. Just the last one. The one selling the goods and he who made the goods. I want the information to separate those who try and rip me of and make me feel there is value to those who actually give me objectively measurable value.

The law isn't as clear cut and straightforward, and it's not yet a given that Apple will lose.

well they have already lost, they just don’t know it yet and by how much. EU recently voted for a bill that was close to unanimously passed.
Eu digital rights bill

 

[hans1972]

You say devs aren’t forced to do business with Apple if they don’t like the rules. Similarly, Apple isn’t forced to do business in countries where it doesn’t like their rules. The point being, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We want Apple to withdraw from countries they don't want to operate in because it's non-profitable or otherwise not worth it.

We want developers to drop the iOS platform for exactly the same reasons.

We don't want Apple trying to change other countries laws. We also don't want developers to change Apple's rules for iOS.

We want everyone to be passive aggressive. Just leave (or never enter) when something doesn't suit you.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If a market is lucrative enough, Apple will happily bend over and adapt to local rules.

That's why part of iCloud is operated by AIPO Cloud (Guizhou) Technology Co. Ltd. (rather than Apple themselves).

 

[I7guy]

Well, yes and no, terms and conditions must comply with laws and regulations, and that’s what many countries are after now. You can’t simply set any terms and conditions you want. Laws and regulations are slowly catching up the new digital age, it’s a must, specially because most of them was set up in a time far before computers existed, and made for non-digital business.

Well here in the US they were found to not haven broken any laws. One point wasn't overturned and now is being appealed. Things are not working the way you think they are.

Yeah I’m an optimistic person, Thanks! 😜
I know this is a U.S. centric site, and non-U.S. topics tends to fall under the table. Anyway, I would not underestimate the power of the EU and Asian countries, Apple and other big corporations will get hit hard. The Epic trial is just the tip of the iceberg, but it was very important to get things rolling faster.

Remind me again how the Ireland "tax evasion" trial went?

[...]


Yes, and they seem to be losing badly. Apple should have followed the law. Small business and big business follow different rule

Why and how are Apple losing badly?

 

[I7guy]

If the business is abusing its market power by acting anticompetitively, you can go to the courts and make them change by court ruling. Or to the government and let them introduce a law.

This is what's currently happening (though Epic has failed on most accounts in the US so far)
[....]

And that should say something about Apple's business practices. Of course in the US new laws could be introduced, but most likely would be met by court challenges up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Rogifan]

Yes, but as every app is using Apple's intellectual property, Apple has the right to get money from every app. How, is pretty much up to Apple.

IAP is one way for Apple to get a commission.

What is Facebook paying Apple for use of it’s intellectual property? The app is free to download and the majority of users will never do an IAP inside the Facebook app. Or is the argument Apple needs Facebook so Facebook is allowed to be a free rider but some indie app wouldn’t exist without Apple/iOS so they have to pay?

 

[Rogifan]

It still wouldn't violate the injunction. Apple could increase it to 2 million percent if they wanted.

This injunction has nothing to do with government regulators.

 

[Rogifan]

so an app update is not coming through the App Store?

An app update, yes. But what about IAP? If there’s some creative/drawing app that’s free with a limited set of drawing tools but allows you to upgrade in-app if you want a more complete set of tools why does Apple deserve a piece of that transaction? Presumably the free app is using the same IP as a more feature rich app would. It’s Apple who decided the best App Store model for them is free + taking a cut of IAP. It’s pretty clear the majority of App Store revenue comes from IAP micro transactions. I think a better model would be every app costs something or the cost of providing the App Store, iOS, dev tools/support, a billion people with an iPhone etc. would be calculated differently than via IAP. That way every app on the store would be contributing instead of a very small number of apps subsidizing every other app in the store.

 

[hans1972]

Developers would also like the option of distributing their apps outside Apple's app store. That would solve the problem of developers getting a free ride from Apple. But wait, Apple doesn't allow them to do that either. Apple thinks they should get a cut of every app made even if Developers distribute it on their own and don't use any Apple corporate resources. Now who is the one asking for a free ride now?

Developers are using iOS APIs and thus Apple's intellectual property which they have to pay for.
Or else they are using other company's property without compensation.

 

[Ethosik]

Due to iOS‘s success Apple’s walled garden is basically acting as a monopoly (network externalities).

The actions of:

1) Becoming a monopoly through innovations and developing a new product.
2) and then using that monopoly to hinder competition, destroy other business, and exploiting its customers base.

Is not the same thing, and should not lumped under a “the market has decided“ statement.

A monopoly is bad for competition, innovation and consumers. And than is why competition and monopoly laws need to exists. People rightfully complain when Facebook, Google and Telecommunications companies etc abuse their power. Just because Apple has a image as a “good company” and people really like their products Doesn’t make everything they do the right thing. There is a big difference between being an Apple Fanboi and an Apple sheep - don’t be the sheep

If the protection of the Apple store, Apple pay, Apple decided which content is okay for you to use, Is a superior product, then consumers will prefer it even if other options are available to them. The walled garden on a mature product such as iOS only exists to fill the pockets of Apple, not to protect their customers.

You can't have a monopoly of your own product. This was proven when someone wanted to make a business out of OS X devices (Pystar) and the was also decided in the case here. A monopoly of your own product is pretty much 100% guaranteed and expected. Your goal as someone wanting to create a company is to create something unique. If you really want to make your argument THAT NARROW, then everything can be considered a monopoly. Microsoft and Sony have monopolies on what games are allowed on PS5/Xbox. I cannot fire up Visual Studio, write a game, put it on my website and direct PS5 and XBox users to download it. It needs approval and licensing fees from Sony/Microsoft. Therefore, they own the Game Distribution in their respective consoles. Regardless if I can sell it at Target or not because I still need to go through Sony/Microsoft no matter what I do.

Its so ridiculous to have people constantly call Apple as being a monopoly, yet my friend has an Android phone, can get the same critical apps and have NOTHING to do with Apple AT ALL.

Why don't you people put at least 10% of the effort here that you want to bring down the big bad Apple and go after the true monopolies here - ISP. I only have one choice Spectrum. And it is HORRIBLE. Why not go after them huh? Gigabit internet and its just a joke, rarely works, constantly needs to be restarted or the cables outside repaired or dealing with their own messed up issues on THEIR side.

Apple is in no way a monopoly, it was confirmed by legal cases twice now including this one.

 

[Ethosik]

Let's not pretend that there's a many relevant alternatives, shall we?

I keep brining this up but - Jitterbug. Standard flip phone with maybe 1 or two "smart" features. That is it. My grandparents use it and get by just fine.

 

[Ethosik]

I still find it surprising how emotionally involved some people become with this. These are two rich companies fighting over how they’re going to split the money we give them, it’s hard to side with any of them.

I don't care about the money distribution. But if this ends up being "turn iOS into Android" then this is essentially taking away my choice as a customer. I chose iPhone because its walled off, because it can't offer side loading, because its secure. Having governments force Apple to turn into Android will be absolutely a death sentence for them really. All my friends and family feel the same way. Why spend $1,000+ on an iPhone when you can get an Android phone at $500 that has the same capabilities? Well, its because its walled off and no side loading. Take that away, I will leave iPhone behind and save more money. I think Apple also realizes this is not just common with me and my circle of friends and relatives. But it will be a large impact on their sales.

Apple has never been the best when it comes to these types of devices. Their selling point has always been user experience. Take that away and what's left? An overpriced piece of crap honestly. iPhone would become hated with being so overpriced.

 

[I7guy]

Developers would also like the option of distributing their apps outside Apple's app store. That would solve the problem of developers getting a free ride from Apple. But wait, Apple doesn't allow them to do that either. Apple thinks they should get a cut of every app made even if Developers distribute it on their own and don't use any Apple corporate resources. Now who is the one asking for a free ride now?

Sure I would like to get a list of Apple customers, google customers, facebook customers for free and then use their platforms without compensation. (in the case of facebook, no ads) I think that is fair, don't you? Let's give our platforms away. Right? Or, a dev could respect the TOS, since it's an opt-in agreement anyway. In the case of apple's platform, devs aren't forced to develop for IOS if they don't like the TOS. In the case of customers, if the iphone doesn't have the feature set wanted by the majority, vote with your dollars.

 

[Ethosik]

If you go into a shop and buy a newspaper and in that newspaper you see an advert for a product. So then you buy the product. Do you then go back to the shop and pay the shopkeeper 30% of the price for being a part of that sales chain? Do you also pay 30% to the newspaper printer? And 30% to the service station that provided the fuel that helped you travel to that shop?

If Apple deserves a slice of my Netflix subscription because I sign up on iPhone why not also if I sign up on a MacBook Pro?

You are missing something with your analogy. You buy the item you saw in the newspaper FROM the shop. You take time with the cashier paying for the item. Any billing issues you contact the shop and so on.

What you described was people downloading Netflix and then going to Netflix website to sign up for a subscription (as in we are not going THROUGH the shop). So Apple gets nothing from that transaction.

Same can be said with Fortnite. I can go get a VBucks card and load up my account and Apple will receive nothing from it.

 

[I7guy]

What is Facebook paying Apple for use of it’s intellectual property? The app is free to download and the majority of users will never do an IAP inside the Facebook app. Or is the argument Apple needs Facebook so Facebook is allowed to be a free rider but some indie app wouldn’t exist without Apple/iOS so they have to pay?

For devs that don't have IAP embedded in their apps, Apple is granting a license to use their platform for a mere $99. You may not like this, or think this is subject to some legal challenge, or is unfair, but that is the way it is. If your app has IAP you pay Apple a commission. It's really that simple.

 

[Ethosik]

Here's the thing: Once an app has been downloaded to your iPhone, it has been delivered by Apple. Any in-app "unlocked" functionality will basically be delivered by the app's developer.

Has this been confirmed? Wouldn't it be like Steam where the DLC (costume packs and items and things) is provided by Steam's servers? When I buy DLC on Steam, I have to then have it downloaded on my system via Steam's download manager. Sometimes they are kilobytes but I have had some as megabytes.

 

[hans1972]

Why not? If I see that 80% of the price is caused by the seller I can put pressure to lower it. If I see 5% of the price goes to the seller I can know more of my money goes to a great app I like.

I never bargain for a lower price on almost anything and certainly not on small amounts less than $100. I don't care about who gets the money.

And how would you suggest doing price negotiation online?

Let's say I wanted to subscribe to Spotify and I know they keep 60% of their revenue. How would I in practise even attempt to do price negotiation with them? Should I email them and ask "Eftersom ni behåller 60% av eres inkomst kan ni ge 30% rabatt på min prenumeration?"

And you don't haggle about the price in Sweden for small stuff either if you enter into a proper store. I have never seen it.

Well you could see that how big the cut on the coffee goes to the one who made it? Would you really be happy to know 95% of your expensive drink doesn’t go to the one who made it? You could easily use customer pressure and better informed decision to lower that price.

I wouldn't care and I usually don't even know where my coffee comes from. Also I don't think if I got cheaper prices at Espresso House, someone working on the plantation in Brazil or Guatemala would get better paid either.

I don't care if Epresse House gets most of their money. I have no way of getting it cheaper by knowing how much their profit. I don't care that Spotify keeps most of the money themselves, letting artists starve. I can't pressure Spotify to lower their prices either.

I only care about the value I get from the goods or the service.

Don’t you have customer protections in USA? If a Swedish gets screwed by an American developer I just call the customers protection agency to look at my case. And if they broke Swedish law they will be forced to compensate me or go to co

Fraud is still fraud. If the developers lose they pay all legal fees automatically as I go home happy

I am not sure Konsumentverket would go to court in Poland to get €5 back. I'm not even sure they would go to court with a Swedish company for such a low amount?

But let's say it was a developer outside EU. How would Konsumentverket or other Swedish authority force an American developer to pay $5 back to a Swedish consumer against the developers will?