lol it's ok, apple doesn't care about you. You're not "a family"
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 Files Appeal in Epic Games Lawsuit, Asks to Delay App Store Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, as I’ve noted your deflections and moved on.
What has changed again? Not what might change…what has changed?
Just allow people to side load apps
i guess we will reconverse in a few weeks considering South Korea have already outlawed apples apps fire practices. They now have only a few weeks left to implement the changes. Apple already lost
Well, I never mentioned them anywhere on this planet, making your point kind of pointless to the original premise.
Yes, it was. And it still ended with Apple not using it anymore. Apple won the battle but lost the war.
i guess we will reconverse in a few weeks considering South Korea have already outlawed apples apps fire practices. They now have only a few weeks left to implement the changes. Apple already lost
Apple will not allow sideloading. We’ll see where this goes. There’s a famous saying by yogi Berra: it’s not over till it’s over.
There’s no might or maybe about this. Something is happening and that something is Apple no longer being allowed to prevent devs from using third-party IAP payment systems in South Korea. You can read more at the link below. If you want to know the how of Apple’s plans for compliance, those plans are due within days. If you want to know the nitty gritty, just wait. What we don’t need to wait for is recognizing the reality that Apple in South Korea is no longer going to be allowed to bar third-party IAP.
Apple and Google Given Mid-October Deadline in South Korea for Filing Plans to Allow Outside Payment Systems in Apps
Apple and Google have been asked to provide compliance plans for a newly amended law in South Korea that bars both tech giants from forcing...
www.macrumors.com
Apple doesn't allow side loading on iOS. And I have not seen any law or regulation that is going to force Apple to allow that to happen.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?
You have the ability today to purchase from EPIC as much digital game currency as you like outside of the Apple Store. It will show up in your iOS device (when it was allowed) just the same. What you are not allowed to do, just like in any physical store anywhere I have ever been. Is advertise that you can do that WHILE in the store your currently shopping/browsing in. You don't see Amazon advertising the same exact product in a Target or BestBuy for less. As they compete with those stores, Store A will not allow Store B to advertise or sell within their building.
Same holds true for online "digital" stores. If store A agrees with store B to allow them to sell items within stores A building, that's a different thing. But, for EPIC or anyone to say that it's not fair we "can't" reach customers on iOS directly and that isn't fair. Is total BS. You couldn't do that anywhere else either. Physical or digital. Now, if you want to email said customers, I have no issue with that (with consent!). And that should have been allowed from the get go. But, if your in the store, your in the store. You pay at the register that belongs to the store! If you want to buy from another store, then you should also have the ability for that purchase to be linked to your account you setup with the apps you buy. Which "IS" the case already.
Netflix and Spotify don't even allow in app subscriptions. That is TOTAL BS to me. It should be available EVEN AT THE HIGHER PRICE. If I want to pay it, it's my right to. If you want to shop at Sax Fifth Ave and pay top price vs going to TJ Max and waiting for it to show up there years later. It's your choice.
All EPIC or anyone else had to do was to setup their online stores (WEB) and advertise on say TV and the "internet" saying you can setup your accounts online with us anytime. While on the iOS and or Google play stores they could just sell at the price that includes what they want to make and the 30% cut to Apple. And be done with it. People that look online and see the ad will know it's cheaper to setup directly with EPIC (or other company). If they go to the app stores directly, they can setup a new account OR sign in with their account they made with the developer directly. No need to any of this legal crap. All digital currency would be purchasable via the app (with the 30% added for the difference) OR the user that signed up online would know it's cheaper ONLINE. They could do it that way too.
EPIC could have made a web app that just handles the IN-APP transactions. Yes, you would have to leave the app to do this, but it would not have been all that difficult to setup. It would have been the right way to do this, no legal fees or lawyers or a judge that feels one way today and another judge that will feel one way tomorrow. This was the biggest waste of money and time and energy for EPIC. They got practically nothing out of this effort and are going to continue it further. Its bazaar.
- the law prohibits the operators of the app markets (apple/google) from leveraging their positions to force specific methods of payment to mobile content providers (i.e., app developers),
- Should Apple or Google fail to comply with the new law, the government will fine them up to 3% of all of the revenues that the company earns in South Korea, including hardware sales.
- The new law doesn't mean there will have to be alternative app stores, but it does mean Apple can't automatically take its cut from app sales.
- Developers will have the option to use the IAP system with apples 15-30% fee or implement their own payment system and apple will be bared from taking a fee of any kind
Do you have a citation for that? My understanding is that Apple/Google are still allowed to have a revenue source.
EUs digital rights bill will force apple to allow users to side load their apps.
im sorry but the second i buy an app it’s no longer in the store. For the same reason the second I buy my iPhone from my operator apple can advertise whatever they want the second I have purchased my property
False equivalencey. If you buy an Amazon tablet they can advertise the same product as target sells.
It’s not ********. Apple have already managed the sale, forcing concurrent sales on my device that I own to go through their store is wrong.
Imagen when you bought a computer in Walmart and everytime you makes any additional purchases on your new computer you would need to pay Walmart a cut or go back to Walmart to buy things.
I guess the online store is a downgrade in ownership then
I absolutely agree but why the **** do you constantly argue that the store follows the app on my phone? Do you want target and Walmart to follow you to the door?
Well they actually allowed it before, untill apple told them they must have the same price in the app and on their website. They weren’t allowed to have a higher price to compensate for the apple tax.
Apple don’t allow this. It’s been tried already by other developers who promptly was kicked of the store.
See above
See above
Apple doesn’t allow this. Same price must be everywhere. Ether they increase the price every where or they lower the price everywhere.
It’s true, unfortunately apple don’t allow this ether. Otherwise this would be widespread. But as you can see. Not a single developer use this brilliant system you described
The devs made a choice to make those apps. Apple didnt force them. They didnt put a gun to their heads. And also, apple sold quite a lot of phones before there were third party apps. In fact, the mac had existed for a long time with a fraction of the apps that windows had.
You make it sound like the iphone was useless without a third party app? History would beg to differ.
Doesn't mean they are bad either. All that matters is if the law is broken. Which they haven't. Past or present law. Some countries are trying to create new laws that will then force Apple and Google to comply with. Again, "new" law of which isn't in affect to stop the current stores from working as they have been.
No shots fired in North Korea for many decades now. No new wars over their rules. Whether they are right in "their laws" or not. They still exist as a country. And yes, you accept the terms. If you choose to not accept the terms, you don't get to use iOS or Android. You don't get to shop on the play or app stores either. You accept the terms or you don't.
Developers didn't have a place to develop before the App or Play stores? I just went to a BestBuy yesterday. Seems like there are plenty of "apps" or "games" and or gift cards I could buy from a range of developers. Nothing to stop me from paying BestBuy my money for those items. While giving even less of a cut to those developers. Internet Explorer is only recently being depreciated. It took some time to get it somewhat disconnected from the operating system (explorer for files internet explorer for internet). I still don't get Chrome or Firefox installed by default on any installation of Windows. It's not an option to have it, I have to go get it using either Internet Explorer and or Edge.
this is at best a guess. You have no idea if that will or will not happen. It's just as likely to have no meaningful impact one way or another. The tax is not a tax, it goes to running the store and profits for doing so. Tax is collected for any local governments of course, which is also part of the "cut" that Apple provides. Developers don't have to worry about what place in the world their app sold in and what they "owe" in real taxes to said locations. If they have got a problem with that, they can make their own device, OS and sell it directly. Who wouldn't want an EPIC phone that played all the games they distribute AND had the added benefit of being a phone? They could create their own AppStore and sell all the apps developers wanted to sell through them, and charge them a cut of the sales... Oh wait....
We will all be waiting for the end results of it.
Depends. I don't feel as if I'm in an abusive relationship.
I think I'm being abused by all this nonsense.
Lower prices are always good for the consumer. For the developer? Don't they control the majority of the price? There are a ton of apps on both stores that are free. How much cheaper you want it to be? Developers have options. They can write for whatever platform they want. They can even make a new platform if they want.
If the majority of it's members want change. One person in a union is just as useful as one person not in a union. We don't know what the majority of developers want out of the App or Play stores. The majority could be fine with it as is. And you have EPIC, Spotify and some others that want the stores to be darn near free for them to exist on. Or the ability to bypass the stores that made them popular in the first place.
From start to finish the physical and digital stores work the same. There is supply of a product. Those whom own that supply sell it to a distributer, which puts it in a store for consumers to buy. The owners of the supply "could" also sell direct, a la a farmers market or EPIC games store. They can charge closer to what it costs them vs the add-on or markup costs being added to it. However, they still pay for the location they sell the product (farmers market) or digital online store. Unless you go to the farm or EPIC to buy direct. They still have to setup something in order for you to purchase from them. They have to handle everything that goes behind the sale (Taxes, rental space, or land taxes, server farm/cloud etc.).
That is if they are even allowed to do so based on the terms and conditions they may have signed and agreed to if they sell to a distributer. Maybe they can't sell within 100 miles of the nearest store that carries the same stuff? Whatever the rules work out to be.
Not everyone can do this, and not everyone wants to. App stores operate the same as any physical store. Which is why changes will be at best small. If you make a digital store operate differently than a physical store. You will change how physical stores work as well. Someone will state that they want to sell their goods at a Target or BestBuy direct to consumer. Even-though they can via the web they already operate a store front out of. They will say it will save the consumer money and be better for everyone. Why can't I see my Fortnite game for 10% less in that Target or BestBuy store and pay that store nothing? Why can't I have a register that only my stuff gets sold from? If you let it go that way for a digital store, nothing stopping it from working it's way down to the physical.
And who wants to do that? Is it not easier for the consumer to contact Apple or Google for help in this issue? As a customer I don't care who made the app or where they are located. I just want my issue resolved as soon as possible. Not fight in court.
I would not be happy to go through all of that and "chance" it not going my way.
Losing badly? If we could all be so fortunately to lose so badly.
Just read on the South Korea ruling.
Apple can have a revenue stream in 3 ways ways.
the purchase of the app(30%cut)
Apples IAP system (15-30% cut)
And the developers fee.
but if developers implement their own payment system such as PayPal or Apple Pay etc apple aren’t allowed to take a commission as long as the developers don’t use apples IAP system.
And apple can’t force developers to use their IAP system.
if apple does this anyway they can be fined 3% of all their revenue in korea(this includes hardware sales)
korea have given apple and google untill the middle of this month to prepare so we will se in the coming days
Until apple changes something it’s not over till it’s over. As far as not getting a cut from alternative payment options, at least in the US the courts affirmed apple is entitled to charge for its IP.
As I said you’re debating a point on which you don’t know the outcome. Apple might capitulate; pull the App Store; eliminate iap or who knows what. Remember it’s not over till it’s over; ask epic.There’s no might or maybe about this. Something is happening and that something is Apple no longer being allowed to prevent devs from using third-party IAP payment systems in South Korea. You can read more at the link below. If you want to know the how of Apple’s plans for compliance, those plans are due within days. If you want to know the nitty gritty, just wait. What we don’t need to wait for is recognizing the reality that Apple in South Korea is no longer going to be allowed to bar third-party IAP.
Apple and Google Given Mid-October Deadline in South Korea for Filing Plans to Allow Outside Payment Systems in Apps
Apple and Google have been asked to provide compliance plans for a newly amended law in South Korea that bars both tech giants from forcing...
I got a new smartphone for the same reason I got a Maserati, cause it's nice to have. Those are the two least necessary things I own. Nothing depends on a smartphone any more than in 2007, and I still have a modern PC and all that. If I had to farm for food, I'd probably starve.
Smartphones were revolutionary in third world countries where people couldn't afford PCs with home internet, and these cheap Android copycats were their first and only computers. In the US, they're an upgrade over various single-purpose tech like alarm clocks and Garmin navigators, and otherwise just gadgets for consumerism.
Last edited:
I don't care about their business model cause I'm on Android now. It's their decision, though, so idk why you're saying "should" and "no more." Like someone's supposed to tell them how to run their business?
What about when there was no sale, but the app was put up by the author for free? In this case, would Apple have a right to the "eventual" transaction?
This is typical. Stores do not want to carry products if the upgrades aren't also available through them. Often if someone wants to include say a pamphlet in their manual to go buy additional stuff directly, they need it approved or risk having physical product returned at a cost.
When you see a vendor like AT&T or Comcast inside a store like Walmart or Best Buy selling service, it is by giving the store a cut. It is called customer acquisition and is big money.
You said it. You don't own a physical product, you are buying into into an ongoing service. It's the difference between buying a car and renting one.
Apple absolutely does NOT engage in most-favored nation clauses anymore. This stopped right around the iBooks/Amazon antitrust action. Apps are free to allow for cheaper purchasing directly. Under certain conditions, they may skip in-app purchasing as an option altogether (aka reader apps).
That said, anti-steering is Apple saying you can't advertise to customers how to buy direct - if you aren't using the App Store for customer acquisition, then you already have and maintain a relationship with them. The actual outcome of the Apple v Epic trial is that Apple has an injunction against such anti-steering rules.
Anti-steering is why Amazon Kindle and Netflix just dump you to a login screen without a way to sign up and without in-app purchases (in the case of kindle). They can't, without giving Apple a cut.
Note that Apple tries very hard not to have a special case for a company, although they sometimes only market a program or document an entitlement to a specialized audience - sometimes you have to join a program to get access. An example is the Video Partner Program https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/
I don't care what Apple did or didn't do, without those developers Apple would be nothing 🙄🙄🙄
We will see how that goes.
You license the OS, the device is yours. They can advertise, but you "could" put anything you want on the device if you have the know how. You could put another self built OS on it if you know how. You can't do what you want with the operating system Apple supplies. The second you purchase an App on the store, it's running on the OS. Just like EPIC proved that an update to their app could completely change how the app worked outside the rules they agreed to follow. Anything you purchase via the app store IS subject to the 30% or whatever cut Apple is supposed to get. You "could" still go to EPIC's website and buy your digital currency outside the App "Stores".
Within the STORE, no. You can't go to Target and pickup a fire tablet and pay Amazon for it at the register. There is no ads in Target that say "Buy direct from Amazon, Save Money!"
Again you own the device. You license the OS. They are not forcing any concurrent sales. You can purchase that digital currency from the developer directly OR another store. There is zero wrong here. And nothing that wasn't already agreed to. You may not like it, but that has $#!T to do with it. I want a rocket I can go to space with. It's not fair Elon and Jeff charge so damn much to go. US government, make them charge less or allow a 3rd party to charge me less so I can go!
Walmart doesn't own the OS on that computer anymore than they own the hardware. So this is a complete false equivalence. Not to mention you still COULD go back to walmart and purchase additional things for that computer if you wanted to. Is it fair I can't buy EVERYTHING I want from my computer at Walmart? I can't buy Spotify from Apple or Netflix.
It's a choice. It can be a downgrade, for instance I can't get something right now showing at Amazon. But, I can go physically to a store and get something right now. I may even pay more for that ability. I may not, they may price match etc. I'm also fairly certain that the App stores in general are all cheaper (% of the sale price going to the store) than any physical store? So, that could be considered an upgrade?
They do follow me to the door. Both usually have greeters there, and they check my receipt (sometimes they forget).
I argue for the right of Apple and or Google to charge 30% or whatever they seem fit to charge on top of the developers cost, as a cost of doing business. You are in the store, you pay the developer and the store. This happens in the real world too. At a greater cost to the developer at that. It's cheaper for them to do it online, sure. But, there is a cost to that. And again, nothing stopping you from going direct to EPIC (sorry to keep picking on EPIC but F them for this mess) and get the In-App-Purchases the same as via the digital stores. Bypassing Apple and Google entirely.
How is it no one is seeing that Microsoft (of all companies) have setup a Web App that totally bypasses the App stores and streams Xbox games to your device as a clear cut way Apple has already allowed you to go round? EPIC could have done this, chose not to. They choose to go to court. Wasting money, and time for what? A F'n link?
Your not allowed to show that information (lower price) within the AppStore or App from the app store. There is nothing stopping you from charging whatever you want on your own website or to other platforms. THAT would be some wicked collusion between the same parties that would like to see Apple fail. You couldn't control Google play, Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation, and Nintendo all by being in the Apple Appstore. Not to mention your own site/store and any gift cards from physical or online retailers like Amazon, Target, BestBuy, *including other countries physical or online stores here*, etc.
They had a iPod and iPhone with no developers. They sold very well. The Mac did poorly for a LONG TIME due to not having a lot of software available for it. But, they changed that around by making and marketing a better computer such as the iMac. It saved them more than any developer could have. Also, Mac OS X.
I would argue that if Apple had bought Bungie back in the day. They could have had brought in more people to the platform. In any event, all of which would have brought in more developers as more people had purchased their computer. You have to have something to sell and people actually buy before any developers (new or potential ones) will jump on board with and write software for. It's not like developers had all this wonderful software just sitting and waiting for Apple to get their $#!T together and sell a product worth buying. The iPhone was compelling since MANY people wanted to buy it, even before a store existed. It was web only early on. Not even so much as a different calculator app.
So, you may not care what Apple did or didn't do. But, they did make a product people wanted and DID buy. Creating an environment that developers wanted to sell their wares too.
Yes, the most likely outcome.
I’ll laugh and watch while Apple cuts off their nose to spite their face. This would mean zero revenue from the App Store in South Korea. With no App Store, Apple also leaves itself at an enormous disadvantage versus Google. So long iPhone and iPad sales.
This sounds kind of like the first option. Though in this case Apple would weirdly retain no ability to collect from devs who don’t mind the 15/30% cut.
Interestingly enough, none of the possibilities you laid out entails Apple continuing to force devs to use Apple’s IAP, which is exactly the change South Korea sought to make.
You’re argument is drifting. You’ve moved from saying modern life without a smartphone is practical to saying a smartphone isn’t a necessity. I was debating you on the former which was what you originally said, not the latter.
