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

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Well that’s your loss.

And how would you suggest doing price negotiation online?

It’s not price negotiations. It’s competition. If I as a consumer can see the price I can chose what to support. For me I would rather pay apple less money.

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?"

The exact same way we pay VAT. It’s shown when you purchase it. This they would just chose a price. Same or different and then just show it in percentage and dollars and allow me to chose apples IAP system or their competition

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.

You can, try it in Elgiganten. Ether way not what described

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.

Try and understand I’m doing an imperfect comparison to an online store.
only that developers can’t sell things for cheaper price on their website and a higher price on the apple store to make up the difference.

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.

Of course you can. You can go to coffe house or Apple Music etc. artists are free to sell their music on both platforms at whatever price they want and tell the customers about it.
developers on apple store aren’t.

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

Me too, and I would like to have the option to pay zero dollars to apple for their crappy apple store system. I refuse to support it a single krona until they improve it with some of those trillions they have

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?

They will just relocate it to the europe court or you can just sent an inkasso request etc. you have many avenues to take. Or just report them if they did something illegal. Consumentverket is kind of just interpreting the laws and contracts.

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?

How? They would get get a notice by the Swedish tax authorities for tax fraud. I/ the state would sue said company.
you as a company aren’t allowed to sell goods to EU customers without following the law. Sweden and USA have agreements that are legally binding.
Same reason EU or Sweden can sue apple or any other bigger company for breaking European laws online?

it’s just not easy to do, but all the legal remedies exist.
Example valve, can’t legally remove your account if you use a VPN or proxy to try and buy goods cheaper. Even if it’s against the Terms of service it’s not legally enforceable in Sweden.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Amex, visa master card are banks. They loan you money. You people really need get your stories straight.

That’s incorrect. Visa and Mastercard are just payment processing companies that sell their card networks to banks to use.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

They are in europe.

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

It went perfectly just because of apple. EU have forced Ireland to close its loop hole by simply making every point of sail the ones who gets the taxes instead of Ireland and an agreed minimum tax rate of 15%. So we got great legislation from this misuse of tax law.

Why and how are Apple losing badly?

How? Well Eu is quite literally drafting new legislation to force apple to be less abusive as they have refused to play fair, and it’s loosing legal battles with the law as it’s currently written. Example apple have Ben deemed an illegal monopoly in EU and misusing it’s market position.

True but what do you do if an app you really want is only in a third party store?

Download it on my computer? And install the app? Or use their App Store? How is this even a question? We already have apps not available on apples App Store but on other stores, such as Cydia, you just can use it because Apple say so…

1) You install and configure an additional app store and get the app

2) You don't get the app

3) Today: You get the app without installing an additional stores because developers feel forced to be in the App Store

#3 is the better choice for me. I don't even want #1 and #2 be possible.

Well then you need to allow competition on the price if not with the store. And why can’t I jailbreak my phone because I want to? And install difrent apps from it that aren’t allowed on the store or simply to restricted to be usable.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You missed the whole point. You do NOT own the OS which is built into the device. Apple does.

Nope, the OS is now my property to with as I wish. Apple quite literally sold me a device with it already installed.
And there is absolutely nothing apple can do to stop me doing anything with it. not even if I jailbreak my device in front of Tim Cook and modified the OS. I would be allowed to sue apple if they actually tried to stop me from using it.

the contract is null and void. Toilet paper have more legal power.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

I agree that the laws existed pre digital stores. But, the stores are setup the same as any physical store.
Manufactures have an MSRP. They want a "store" to retail their goods at say $10. Ok, well that "store" physical or digital have to make a cut, say 30%. So the manufacture will sell that good to that store at a price under the markup, $7. There isn't anything new happening in the digital realm vs the old brick and mortar. If the manufacture/developer wants MORE than that, they charge MORE. The cut goes to the store all the same. The store can offer discounts, sales, buy one get one, blah blah blah. So can the manufacture/developers do the same.

The only thing that really is different is the perception that it's SO MUCH CHEAPER THAN A STORE! So therefore it must cost less to run the store. And people think the internet is inherently free. Or so cheap it's practically free. They pay no mind to the benefits the store offers as part of being in the store.

 

[I7guy]

That’s incorrect. Visa and Mastercard are just payment processing companies that sell their card networks to banks to use.

Partially correct. Amex lends their cardholders money.

They are in europe.

And?

It went perfectly just because of apple. EU have forced Ireland to close its loop hole by simply making every point of sail the ones who gets the taxes instead of Ireland and an agreed minimum tax rate of 15%. So we got great legislation from this misuse of tax law.

It did go perfectly also from apples perspective.

How? Well Eu is quite literally drafting new legislation to force apple to be less abusive as they have refused to play fair, and it’s loosing legal battles with the law as it’s currently written. Example apple have Ben deemed an illegal monopoly in EU and misusing it’s market position.

Okay. Let me know when something changes.

Download it on my computer? And install the app? Or use their App Store? How is this even a question? We already have apps not available on apples App Store but on other stores, such as Cydia, you just can use it because Apple say so…

Well then you need to allow competition on the price if not with the store. And why can’t I jailbreak my phone because I want to? And install difrent apps from it that aren’t allowed on the store or simply to restricted to be usable.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

it’s not pathetic at all. Apple has a right to appeal in order to protect what it can gain most from the appeal

they did say after the ruling that they will appeal that decision and wallah they did

Just a tip to avoid potential targeting in the future, it's "voila", not "walla".

 

[quarkysg]

[deleted]

 

[quarkysg]

Nope, the OS is now my property to with as I wish. Apple quite literally sold me a device with it already installed.
And there is absolutely nothing apple can do to stop me doing anything with it. not even if I jailbreak my device in front of Tim Cook and modified the OS. I would be allowed to sue apple if they actually tried to stop me from using it.

Well, I guess you do own the bits stored in the device, but you do not have IP rights to the OS. If you do manage to sell the OS to someone else and not get into legal trouble, do let us know so that we can also do it and make some extra cash.

I do not think Apple cares if you change the OS of the devices Apple sells once you bought them. You have every right to do it, since you own the device. You are not allowed, from what I understand, to re-distribute your changes. You are also not allowed to make a business of the those changes, because, you do not own the IPs.

If you think you owned the OS once you bought the device, I suppose you also feels that you owned the movies that you bought the movie DVDs? If you owned them, that means you can make copies and sell it for profit? That's the meaning of ownership correct?

 

[dumastudetto]

It is a trillion-dollar company that cares 0 about you. Quit being a simp for huge companies. This should have been allowed years ago.

Apple has always been a big family. The company might be a heck of a lot bigger than in the good old days, but our sense of belonging and thinking differently will never go away.

 

[hot-gril]

It's not silly, it's been that way for DECADES, and they aren't any less secure than Apple, who do you think Apple uses? And Apple card? It's not Apple, it's a THIRD PARTY COMPANY 🙄🙄🙄🙄

For decades there's been CC fraud, and for that reason, it's been difficult until recently for individuals to accept CC payments. This insecurity is well-known and thoroughly priced into the market. Merchant fees are significantly higher if they don't take customer signature and/or billing info.

And I'm not talking about the Apple Card; that's just a regular credit card with some gimmicks. I mean the App Store purchases, where you're not trusting random devs in any way when you pay for things.

 

[hot-gril]

Apple has always been a big family. The company might be a heck of a lot bigger than in the good old days, but our sense of belonging and thinking differently will never go away.

Mine did. They can call me when they cancel the CSAM detection plans and put back the headphone jack.
Also, Jobs thought differently, not Cook. I'd probably be working for Apple otherwise.

 

[hot-gril]

It is a trillion-dollar company that cares 0 about you. Quit being a simp for huge companies. This should have been allowed years ago.

I disagree with much of what Apple does and don't wish them well, but I still hope for their rights not to be infringed.

 

[Rogifan]

Facebook is probably paying Apple (close to) zero for their apps.

That's the nice thing about property. The property owner can discriminate and decide how they get paid for the use of their property. It's not up to the user of the property to decide.

Apple probably considered multiple ways to charge, but landed on something simple and enforceable. Go back to 2008 and you would see almost no complaint about the App Store with regards to the payment model.

IAP didn’t exist in 2008.

 

[Rogifan]

Facebook is subsidised by the apps that do pay a commission.

And how is that fair?

 

[Rogifan]

What you are describing has certain elements from communism, and is certainly socialism. Everyone should contribute their fair share.

What you describe is a far cry from capitalism and property owners having control of their property.

So you think there’s nothing wrong with a business model where a small, indie developer has to pay a 30% commission to a $2T company but a near $1T company pays nothing even thought they both access the same App Store, same IP, same customer base?

 

[TiggrToo]

So you think there’s nothing wrong with a business model where a small, indie developer has to pay a 30% commission to a $2T company but a near $1T company pays nothing even thought they both access the same App Store, same IP, same customer base?

Who's this "$1T" company - and can you prove they don't pay anything?

 

[I7guy]

So you think there’s nothing wrong with a business model where a small, indie developer has to pay a 30% commission to a $2T company but a near $1T company pays nothing even thought they both access the same App Store, same IP, same customer base?

No. Because the market cap of a company is irrelevant to the Eula. as long as the $1T does not charge iap there is no commission.

 

[vipergts2207]

and Epic cares about you how?

They don’t. No company gives a crap about anyone. It’s all just marketing and some people fall for it. They care about money, that’s the long and short of it.

 

[bb9]

Apple has opted to appeal the ruling meted out by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit back in September, and today filed a notice of appeal with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Cupertino company is planning to appeal the ruling that would require it to change its App Store rules to allow developers to add in-app links to outside websites, which would pave the way for alternate payment options that do not require developers to use the in-app purchase system. While the appeal is ongoing, Apple has asked the court for a stay on the permanent injunction that requires it to implement those changes by December.In the original ruling, Rogers said that Apple's anti-steering rules prohibiting links to outside websites illegally stifle consumer choice. She prohibited Apple from restricting developers from including "in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms."

At the time, she gave Apple 90 days to implement these changes, but Apple is asking to wait to make any updates to the App Store rules until all of the appeals in the case have wrapped up, which could take years as Epic Games has also filed an appeal.

According to Apple, making changes to the App Store rules could "upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store," resulting in irreparable harm to Apple and consumers. Apple says that a stay will allow it to safeguard its platform while it works through "the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues that any revisions to this Guideline would implicate."

Further, as grounds for appeal, Apple said that Epic Games barely mentioned the anti-steering claim during the trial, and offered no evidence that it was harmed by that particular App Store rule. Apple claims that it is likely to succeed on appeal, and that Epic will suffer no harm from a stay on the injunction. Apple also said that it is working on "enhancing information flow" without impacting the consumer, and that App Store changes could be coming that would eliminate the need for a permanent injunction at all. The permanent injunction is currently scheduled to go into effect on December 9, but if Apple wins, it will not have to make changes at that time. Rogers is set to hear Apple's case on November 16. The full text of Apple's appeal can be read here.

The original lawsuit went largely in Apple's favor with the exception of the anti-steering injunction, with Apple calling it a "resounding victory." Epic Games has appealed the ruling and Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that the judge's decision "isn't a win for developers or for consumers."

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

What is stopping Apple from charging developers 30% of their annual profit - regardless of payment system?

 

[vipergts2207]

But nothing about apple’s business stops a competitor to iOS from emerging. Apple doesn’t prevent developers from making apps for a multitude of different operating systems if another manufacturer decided to compete with apple in that regard. The remedy is not to penalise apple, it’s to increase competition in the smartphone operating system market so that no one platform has control and developers have a number of different platforms to develop for.

You can’t force there to be more competitors in the market than the market will support. We used to have several and the market decided only two could be supported. This isn’t all that different than the desktop market, Windows and macOS. Yeah there’s Linux, but it’s quite niche. It makes sense why markets don’t support a wide range of OS’s. Popular developers aren’t going to spend the time putting their apps on six different OS’s. They’re probably going to pick the one or two most popular. A lack of important apps then kills off the less popular OS’s. At this point, all governments are left to do is regulate the ones that survive since new competition isn’t going to be coming in to disrupt the market. Windows and Mac have been the only two significant desktop platforms for decades and that’s almost certainly going to be the case in smartphones with iOS and Android as well.

 

[Admiralbison]

Who cares about Apple‘s App Store?

all this trouble to change their store, when the better thing to do is allow multiple App stores on iOS devices and give users the ability to purchase and install from elsewhere.

This way Apple can do whatever the hell they want on their App Store, if devs don’t like it they can choose better deals from other app stores or supply themselves, and for users they have way more to choose from.

imagine you can get your games from Steam, Gog or even Epic besides just Apple’s App store.

can stream from various provider apps - Disney plus, Netflix, HBO max etc…

Office and productivity from Microsoft, Adobe, etc…

 

[hot-gril]

So you think there’s nothing wrong with a business model where a small, indie developer has to pay a 30% commission to a $2T company but a near $1T company pays nothing even thought they both access the same App Store, same IP, same customer base?

There's something wrong with it, but it's Apple's decision.

 

[hot-gril]

What is stopping Apple from charging developers 30% of their annual profit - regardless of payment system?

Devs would hate it, that's what stops them.

 

[hot-gril]

Deleted