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

[vipergts2207]

In Europe a lot of people had Nokia and Ericsson phones which ran Symbian and supported many of those functionalities.

About 64 million smartphones were sold worldwide just in 2006.

Canalys - the leading global technology market analyst firm

Canalys is a leading global technology market analyst firm with a distinct channel focus. We deliver channels and tech analysis, data and events that ensure your business overachieves.

www.canalys.com

Statista says global smartphone sales were 122 million devices in 2007 when Apple entered in the last part of the year.

Smartphone sales worldwide 2007-2023| Statista

In 2021 almost 1.5 billion smartphones were sold to end users worldwide. In the fourth quarter nearly 25% of all smartphones sold were Apple.

www.statista.com

Exactly, 64 million devices sold worldwide in 2006 is a tiny number. To put that in context, smartphone sales peaked at 1.56 billion units in 2018. There were 2.75 billion mobile phone subscribers worldwide in 2006. That means 64 million units were a little over 2% of mobile phone subscribers buying a smartphone that year. That meshes well with the figures of 3-6% smartphone market penetration in 2006 that I've seen. Low single digits of market penetration is a decidedly not huge market. What was huge were the openings for disruptors to come in the way Apple and then Google did. Market penetration being that low reflects the market being extremely immature. These days smartphone adoption has surpassed 80% and the two incumbents have millions of apps on their stores. Mass adoption and recent lower YoY sales figures indicate a mature market and the likelihood of anyone disrupting the two behemoths that are entrenched to this degree is near nil.

 

[theotherphil]

Exactly, 64 million devices sold worldwide in 2006 is a tiny number. To put that in context, smartphone sales peaked at 1.56 billion units in 2018. There were 2.75 billion mobile phone subscribers worldwide in 2006. That means 64 million units were a little over 2% of mobile phone subscribers buying a smartphone that year. That meshes well with the figures of 3-6% smartphone market penetration in 2006 that I've seen. Low single digits of market penetration is a decidedly not huge market. What was huge were the openings for disruptors to come in the way Apple and then Google did. Market penetration being that low reflects the market being extremely immature. These days smartphone adoption has surpassed 80% and the two incumbents have millions of apps on their stores. Mass adoption and recent lower YoY sales figures indicate a mature market and the likelihood of anyone disrupting the two behemoths that are entrenched to this degree is near nil.

Unless you have the next big thing….like apple did when it released the iPhone on the world. The next big thing is available to anybody at anytime. Apple was a tiny player in 2007.

Nobody thought for a second that a consumer electronics company would come along and eat the lunch of an entrenched market and the respective incredulity from RIM, MS, Motorola, Nokia and Palm should stand as a warning for complacency and as inspiration for what’s possible.

The same is about to happen in the PC market…just nobody understands the threat that Apple poses right now. The rest of the industry is still underestimating Apple and are currently in the denial/ anger phase of the Kübler-Ross model….as can be seen with Intel and MS’s recent behaviours.

Apple is about to take the profits out of the mid-high end PC industry leaving other manufacturers fighting for the scraps at the low end….all whilst whining that “it’s not fair” instead of innovating and adapting.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And the point of selling those alterations would be? If you can't sell the OS with it, which is fully Apple's IP.

Modifications, people do it all the time. They sold an Xbox 360 modification that allowed you to play pirated games and contain software modding the console. Completely legal. (xbox 360 wasabi/ x360key)

And the alteration of the software would be enough to prove you tampered with it. Unless your EU laws simply don't give an F about it.

Eu law don’t give a **** as long as copyrighted IP is not included

I'd expect to see wide spread pirating and or a massive modification community in the EU with Apple's iOS and iDevices.
Again, unless the EU has some sort of ridiculous law that says "you" or anyone in the EU can obtain as many iDevices they want, modify it how they see fit, AND resell it. I don't think it's what you say it is.

We do it called jailbreaking, it’s legal and not against any law to sell modified hardware you own.

WHAT?? So, again to clarify. You bought it, so that makes you the owner under EU law. BUT, you can't sell it as that is copying someones IP? Sounds exactly like a license holder agreement to me. Under EU law it seems you can resell a license (key or certificate, whatever that proves you purchased the item) which is fine. That's just a transfer agreement, which EU fully allows even if the license states otherwise.

No, what you are mixing up is IP laws and copyright laws. If I make a copy of something and sell it I need to provide evidence I have the rights to distribute it. But if I have the original copy I purchased I can sell it. And as EU have recently stated you should be able to sell your steam game. And loose access to it when sold.

But, yes you do agree when you click accept. If there is no EULA/License/Terms/Conditions/ then your back at my previous point of being a pirate union.

Doesn’t matter. An agreement can’t be signed after payment have been provided. It’s automatically null and void. This is apples prob

Maybe even worse than China with IP theft (Which clearly is not the case). Whether or not "YOU" personally agree or the EU says you can a do as you wish with the device/OS (so long as you don't resell/copy someones IP). It's just semantics.

It’s not really semantics when the law clearly states:
1. Agreements must be signed before payments have been completed to be valid
2. Transactions are completed when the product have been delivered and payment have been received.

This is an agreement that the product is mine as agreed upon.

I believe you believe that.

You are free to prove otherwise. But companies don’t have free speech in Europe. And aren’t protected under contract laws or other consumer protections don’t apply to them.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So you walk into a Walmart. Grab some stuff. Don't pay. Go home. And then you pay Nestle, or Kraft, or Proctor and Gamble directly?

I think you responded to something I didn't write.

1: I don’t live in USA
2: if I walk in to a store, buy an iPhone
3: this random store doesn’t take a cut from every purchase done on my device.
Not a single store I know of list goods for free.

apple lists apps for 99$ A year on their store is their own problem, Not mine.

I purchase a program on apples store, when said program is on MY device I should be free to buy any extra things on the app without going through apple and give them a 30% cut.

 

[Abazigal]

I purchase a program on apples store, when said program is on MY device I should be free to buy any extra things on the app without going through apple and give them a 30% cut.

Are you speaking from a legal perspective, or from one of personal preference?

I have noted from your responses that you appear to be supremely sure that Apple has no case in the EU, and I wonder if that stems from an intimate understanding of the law in your region, or simply because you wish for it to be that way?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You have an incorrect timeline.

2015: Apple switches from the Double Irish with a Dutch twist to the new Green Jersey technique
2016: EU Commission found Ireland to have been given illegal state aid to Apple
2016: Ireland and Apple appeals the decision
2019: The trial starts (?)
2020: Ireland and Apple are acquitted
2021: EU appeals

Apple is extremely good at delaying their taxes and moving most of their tax burden to the US.

Eu just need to force taxes to be payed on point of sales instead of funneling it all to Ireland. So they are are working on that. France takes a 3% cut on all revenue apple makes in France, this circumvent profit funneling

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS15_iPadOS15.pdf

You can’t reverse engineer iOS and sell it on non-iOS hardware.

Never said you could as this is a breach of copyrights(nothing to do with contracts) but I am free to jailbreak my phone, install mods and then sell it

That seems to be exactly what people are arguing. They EPIC (in this case) want to bypass the store entirely. They want Apples customers and they don't want to pay Apple anything for it (anymore).

No, they want to have their own payment system after the app is already purchased

Governments (EU ,Asia, US, etc.) want alternate in-app purchasing systems. And they some how want that to exist within the same store Apple and Google have setup. Which is no different to having another register within a physical store that pays the developer directly.

Not at all. It’s separating google Play store/ apple store sales and application sales done outside the store on customers hardware. Forcing it to be separate

But, Apple/Google is still allowed to collect a fee or commission on that sale. And since none of these governments can control the price Apple/Google will charge. It's almost a moot point to even bother. Your best bet will be to leave the app and go to the developers online store (WHICH YOU CAN DO TODAY), and get whatever in-app-purchase you want.

they are free to collect what they wish, but not outside their store. This is what EU/Korea is arguing for.
you going to a developers online store and purchase X add on should be possible in the application on customers devices. And apple/google should not be allowed to take a cut of this for the Sam reason they can’t take a cut from their website

While today the limitation is you can not advertise that fact within the store, or the app itself. Which to be honest is no different than how it works at a physical store. So if these rules get implemented they will have the same affect to physical stores as well.

It’s very different. I can buy a windows of in a store and be bombarded with deals on the computer when I start it up. This is currently not allowed on applications

I expect that my nearest BestBuy will have an Amazon register along side the Best Buy one. And a Target, and a Macy's and whomever else. All yelling at each other and you trying to get you to pay for something thru them. Like an auction but going down in price.

It will never happen as this is not what’s being argued for.

Your not forced. You can go to EPIC's site and get your digital coins or IN-App-Stuff outside of Apple entirely. It works across consoles as well.

So why can’t I do this in the app I bought? Why am I forced to go through apple when the application quite literally is on my phone and not on apple servers?

You didn't "sign" for anything, you agreed to the terms and conditions (EULA)

If I buy a refrigerator from you, and I give you my money to own it. Can you all of a sudden give me a EULA that I then must agree to before using my refrigerator? In EU this EULA isn’t legal as it shouldn’t be.

You can do what you wish with it. But if you try and resell a modified version of it, they can sue you.

Psystar Corporation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well I guess apple should get their legal suits on then as hackintosh are freely sold on eBay in Europe

Target doesn't make the tablet. IF they did, and they forked an Android OS on it (A la Amazon), and they had an Appstore on it. They would/could setup the same set of rules as everyone else.

Isn’t a legal argument

**Such a license will be regarded as a simple sale and sales of personal property cannot be tagged with conditions on how the property can be used."**

This doesn't seem in any way to impact what we are discussing here. Since you can only install iOS on an iPhone. And you can only get iOS apps from Apple AppStore. Even if you "ignored" the EULA (which clearly you have already done). You couldn't do anything other than try to hack it on another device (pointless), or put a hacked version on another iPhone. Of which, if you published that. Apple would most likely still sue (even if this above consequence still somehow took precedent) Since you don't actually pay for the OS, and they don't "sell" it separately.

It’s very relevant, as you or I purchase software on the apple App Store will be considered a simple sale. This becomes my property and not apples. My iPhone contains iOS software that aren’t licensed but sold with the phone I own.

So Apple should wait for what, each quarter to collect? Year? When should the Apple tax man come by and collect? Should Xcode cost $10k? What about $100k? US or Euro?

Apple are free to take whatever fee they wish. Xcode can cost 10k or 1$. I’m no the one who made apple sell or fro free.

I can't use my purchase of an Xbox game on my Playstation if they both have the same game. I can't use my purchase from Android for an App to apply on iOS. BUT, I can get my in-app-purchases to link up. Even if I bought it someplace else.

It’s for one simple reason that aren’t forced on you. Xbox games are simply not compatible with the PlayStation software. Same reason OS X game can’t run on windows. And windows games can’t run on Mac and Linux etc. nobody stops you

you in app purchases only works if they are same server wise. There are a tone of games not compatible on other platforms where your account is only compatible with one platform.

I don't want to speak for him here, but I'm thinking he means to remove the store in totality. As in no store, and developers can't sell to iOS users in SK. Since there is no store.

Oh well then they are free to give google their entire Korea market

 

[thenewperson]

Are you speaking from a legal perspective, or from one of personal preference?

I have noted from your responses that you appear to be supremely sure that Apple has no case in the EU, and I wonder if that stems from an intimate understanding of the law in your region, or simply because you wish for it to be that way?

I think you already know the answer to this lol

 

[Abazigal]

I think you already know the answer to this lol

I would appreciate the clarification regardless.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Psystar thought that way and it turned out so well for them. /s

Well USA is a special market. And selling someone else’s copyrighted software without a license is not very smart.

Unless those countries don't have an appeal process it is not over. South Korea passed a bill and that bill could be invalidated by the Supreme Court of South Korea. The EU claims court errors in bid to overturn $15.7 billion Apple tax judgment fiasco shows the EU's case may not be as cut and dry as people wish either.

South Korea don’t have an appeals process as it’s already law.

I don't care since I care about the value it offers me. How much someone profits on me isn't that interesting.

I care for the value, my problem is apples forces the price to go above the value they provide forcefully.

You are literally getting a license for the app or buying the right to use a service in the App Store also. You are not literally buying the software or the service itself.

When did I sign a license? As far as I can see according to eu laws and my ownership I purchased a program. I did not license it.

Is it about competition or the percentage? Haven't you argued you want to see detailed prices so you can see the percentage Apple takes? Now it is about competition ?

It’s one and the same. Transparency gives rice to better competition.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Are you speaking from a legal perspective, or from one of personal preference?

Depending on what specific statement your talking about.
developers should be allowed to have legal ability to sell me with alternative in app purchasing methods without apple taking a cut. This is my preference.

the fact I own my device and doesn’t license it is from a legal perspective just from the simple part that no contract is ever precented or signed before any transfer of funds occur. This have already been established

I have noted from your responses that you appear to be supremely sure that Apple has no case in the EU, and I wonder if that stems from an intimate understanding of the law in your region, or simply because you wish for it to be that way?

Apple do have a case, this is why some laws and regulations are to be implemented to make it extremely clear what apple can and can’t do as it’s still vague from laws not designed for the modern market.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well, Apple have now stated they are in compliance with the South Korean law.

I can't say I have seen any earth shattering changes, at least not in the western world.

Well Korea seems to disagree As they prepare to once again fine apple. Google have said they will comply and allow third party links and is in the clear. Apple isn’t

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure. And Apple could charge by the app, download, hosting fees. If Apples IAP isn't used.

Sure and apple are free to do that. But they aren’t.

it would be perfect as free apps and payed apps would both pay for the services they use. And we would be free to use different IAP solutions without apples 30% tax

 

[Abazigal]

the fact I own my device and doesn’t license it is from a legal perspective just from the simple part that no contract is ever precented or signed before any transfer of funds occur. This have already been established

My understanding is that the buyer owns the hardware (ie: the physical device), meaning there's nothing stopping you from smashing your iPhone with a hammer after you have paid for it.

You don't own the software on the iPhone, which is why you are not supposed to modify it in any manner. I admit I have no idea how well this would actually hold up in the court of law, but that's my interpretation at least.

it would be perfect as free apps and payed apps would both pay for the services they use. And we would be free to use different IAP solutions without apples 30% tax

I still feel that Apple is justified in extracting a cut from app developers, to reflect the value it brings in having aggregated the best customers in the world for said developers, and facilitating that purchase via the App Store model (eg: reduction in piracy, ease of download, convenience in making payment).

An argument can be made about whether this number is fair or not though. Perhaps Apple could go one step further and reduce subscriptions to 5% after the 2nd year, but I do believe that Apple deserves something in the very least.

I don't begrudge developers trying to get users to sign up via their websites separately (thereby working around Apple's 30/15% cut), but I don't feel that Apple should be under any obligation to make this accessible to the developer if there wasn't anything in it for them.

 

[I7guy]

Sure and apple are free to do that. But they aren’t.

it would be perfect as free apps and payed apps would both pay for the services they use. And we would be free to use different IAP solutions without apples 30% tax

That would be great for devs; not for users and not for Apple. Devs would pocket the difference and the customer will pay the same price and Apple will loss the revenue of it's intellectual property. The court has affirmed that Apple is entitled to charge for it's fees and IP even if the money is not collected from IAP. So there's that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That would be great for devs; not for users and not for Apple. Devs would pocket the difference and the customer will pay the same price and Apple will loss the revenue of it's intellectual property. The court has affirmed that Apple is entitled to charge for it's fees and IP even if the money is not collected from IAP. So there's that.

Why would anyone think it’s bad if the developers pockets the difference instead of apple? Me as a customer wants to buy programs and support good software with my money.
The US court have decided this, The European courts or the Korean law have come to a different conclusion it seems against Apple

 

[I7guy]

Why would anyone think it’s bad if the developers pockets the difference instead of apple?

Because Apple has enabled a dev to enter a lucrative market with virtually no cost except maybe a computer? And it's your opinion that Apple should just give this type of market away?

Me as a customer wants to buy programs and support good software with my money.

Me as well.

The US court have decided this, The European courts or the Korean law have come to a different conclusion it seems against Apple

We'll see where this all goes. The pesky US court decision is getting in the way of dismantling Apples' hold on things.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

My understanding is that the buyer owns the hardware (ie: the physical device), meaning there's nothing stopping you from smashing your iPhone with a hammer after you have paid for it.

Correct

You don't own the software on the iPhone, which is why you are not supposed to modify it in any manner. I admit I have no idea how well this would actually hold up in the court of law, but that's my interpretation at least.

This is the part you likely misses. Legally the software is mine the moment I buy my iPhone. The EULA isn’t legally binding as it’s “signed” after transfer of ownership is done and hence null and void.

I still feel that Apple is justified in extracting a cut from app developers, to reflect the value it brings in having aggregated the best customers in the world for said developers, and facilitating that purchase via the App Store model (eg: reduction in piracy, ease of download, convenience in making payment).

I would say apple are free to do this:
1: have a fee to be listed on the stire( 99$ a year)
2: take a cut of the purchase done in the store( me surfing the apps tire and purchasing an app) it could be 5% or 50%
3. Offer IAP purchasing mechanism they can take a cut from
4: stop developers from linking on the store page.

what they shouldn’t be legally allowed to do is force developers to use ONLY their IAP solution, take a cut from alternative IAP such ass Apple Pay or PayPal or stop them from linking/informing them of alternative options inside the application.

An argument can be made about whether this number is fair or not though. Perhaps Apple could go one step further and reduce subscriptions to 5% after the 2nd year, but I do believe that Apple deserves something in the very least.

I agree only as long as it’s inside the App Store. When the application is on my phone I think the rights no longer apply.

I don't begrudge developers trying to get users to sign up via their websites separately (thereby working around Apple's 30/15% cut), but I don't feel that Apple should be under any obligation to make this accessible to the developer if there wasn't anything in it for them.

I think they must be forced to allow this. Otherwise why can’t apple force any purchase done on a Mac to give a cut to apple? I think the line must be drawn at the store. Any purchase done inside apple App Store is apples to keep and anything outside is the developers if they decide to use competitive purchasing methods.

otherwise it’s anticompetitive

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because Apple has enabled a dev to enter a lucrative market with virtually no cost except maybe a computer? And it's your opinion that Apple should just give this type of market away?

No of course not. Apple just have to understand their store front ends on their servers. And on my iPhone I am the owner of the software and developers should be free to compete with alternative payment options outside of apples mandatory one.

It’s not my fault that apple allows developers to sell software for free on the store. Developers should be allowed to have an Apple Pay button and give zero commissions to apple, or use the IAP model and give apple their commission.

We'll see where this all goes. The pesky US court decision is getting in the way of dismantling Apples' hold on things.

Well only in the USA it seems

 

[I7guy]

Correct

This is the part you likely misses. Legally the software is mine the moment I buy my iPhone. The EULA isn’t legally binding as it’s “signed” after transfer of ownership is done and hence null and void.

Try to sell ios on a non-apple device and see if you can do it.

I would say apple are free to do this:
1: have a fee to be listed on the stire( 99$ a year)
2: take a cut of the purchase done in the store( me surfing the apps tire and purchasing an app) it could be 5% or 50%
3. Offer IAP purchasing mechanism they can take a cut from
4: stop developers from linking on the store page.

what they shouldn’t be legally allowed to do is force developers to use ONLY their IAP solution, take a cut from alternative IAP such ass Apple Pay or PayPal or stop them from linking/informing them of alternative options inside the application.

The court has affirmed this, but also said apple is entitled to be paid for it's intellectual property.

I agree only as long as it’s inside the App Store. When the application is on my phone I think the rights no longer apply.

Do you have some court decisions that back your opinion.

I think they must be forced to allow this. Otherwise why can’t apple force any purchase done on a Mac to give a cut to apple? I think the line must be drawn at the store. Any purchase done inside apple App Store is apples to keep and anything outside is the developers if they decide to use competitive purchasing methods.

otherwise it’s anticompetitive

I think apple will be forced to open up alternative methods for iap. But the developers will still be on the hook for the fees resulting from sales.

No of course not. Apple just have to understand their store front ends on their servers.

It's no different than Costco getting a percent of every item sold in it's stores. IAP is a low cost way to subsidize an app's price. As long as an app is in apples' store, it's in their store.

And on my iPhone I am the owner of the software and developers should be free to compete with alternative payment options outside of apples mandatory one.

Sure, but you are not free to escape the fees for using apples' intellectual property.

It’s not my fault that apple allows developers to sell software for free on the store. Developers should be allowed to have an Apple Pay button and give zero commissions to apple, or use the IAP model and give apple their commission.

The devs should develop their own ecosystem. This entire arrangement is legal.

Well only in the USA it seems

Could be world-wide. Let's see where this goes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Try to sell ios on a non-apple device and see if you can do it.

Why would I did that when I never said you could. It’s physically impossible to do as iOS is not compatible. And it would be a copy right violation. Not a contract violation.

The court has affirmed this, but also said apple is entitled to be paid for it's intellectual property.

Only in USA

Do you have some court decisions that back your opinion.

If you read what I wrote you would notice this is my opinion of how it should be. And EU wish to do this with new legislation.

I think apple will be forced to open up alternative methods for iap. But the developers will still be on the hook for the fees resulting from sales.

There is no evidence for this anywhere except in the US market.

It's no different than Costco getting a percent of every item sold in it's stores. IAP is a low cost way to subsidize an app's price. As long as an app is in apples' store, it's in their store.

IAP is not in the store. It’s on my device.

Sure, but you are not free to escape the fees for using apples' intellectual property.

It’s already payed with the 99$ yearly fee. Or why is that Altstore apps and cydia apps pays apple zero commissions?

The devs should develop their own ecosystem. This entire arrangement is legal.

It’s legal as long as I can side load as I wish ( thank god for jailbreaking software)
And developers should be free to provide alternative payment systems.

Could be world-wide. Let's see where this goes.

It will never be world wide. Us laws aren’t worth the inc in foreign markets. Eu is making moves against apple and Korea already did it, and is opening up legal suit as apple already broke the new law, instead of doing like google did and follow it.

 

[I7guy]

Why would I did that when I never said you could. It’s physically impossible to do as iOS is not compatible. And it would be a copy right violation. Not a contract violation.

Others have done it. Look up pystar.

Only in USA

And the remainder of the world.

If you read what I wrote you would notice this is my opinion of how it should be. And EU wish to do this with new legislation.

There is no evidence for this anywhere except in the US market.

IAP is not in the store. It’s on my device.

It’s already payed with the 99$ yearly fee. Or why is that Altstore apps and cydia apps pays apple zero commissions?

It’s legal as long as I can side load as I wish ( thank god for jailbreaking software)
And developers should be free to provide alternative payment systems.

It will never be world wide. Us laws aren’t worth the inc in foreign markets. Eu is making moves against apple and Korea already did it, and is opening up legal suit as apple already broke the new law, instead of doing like google did and follow it.

Ok. We'll see. Developers are also free to abandon ios and move to android exclusively.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Others have done it. Look up pystar.

American Company and have nothing to do with what I have said. Selling away copyrighted Material is still illegal. It has nothing to do witch contract laws in EU.

And the remainder of the world.

In what way? Do you think Sweden or Germany cares that a U.S. court said apple have the right to developers earnings.

Ok. We'll see. Developers are also free to abandon ios and move to android exclusively.

And apple are free to follow the law or get out of the market. Apple fortunately can’t do whatever they want.

 

[I7guy]

American Company and have nothing to do with what I have said. Selling away copyrighted Material is still illegal. It has nothing to do witch contract laws in EU.

So then why are we even discussing this?

In what way? Do you think Sweden or Germany cares that a U.S. court said apple have the right to developers earnings.

Yes.

And apple are free to follow the law or get out of the market. Apple fortunately can’t do whatever they want.

Sure. Follow the laws, change the laws, appeal, pull out. There are a few options; what makes you think apple will become scofflaws?

 

[djphat2000]

I purchase a program on apples store, when said program is on MY device I should be free to buy any extra things on the app without going through apple and give them a 30% cut.

EPIC games Fortnite, where all this started. I can at present and in the past go to and login to Epic Games. Go to Fortnite and purchase outside of the Apple Appstore. Whatever I want. Free from Apple. No 30% cut to Apple, nothing. I can do this totally freely of my on will and abilities. Even on the same exact iOS/Device I got the game with (Via Safari or Chrome browser). So, I can download for Free on Apple's Appstore (when it was available) the Fortnite game. I could go back to the Appstore and get DLP via IAP. OR, this is a big one here. OR I could go to Epic Games and get the same exact thing from Epic Games.

At the end of the day, all that was gained from this past lawsuit was to get a LINK added to go to Epic Games (which I could already do, but manually). And that Apple will allow developers to contact account holders about ways to do this, and within the games/apps they download.

Peoples analogies of "well i don't pay a general store again after I purchase something from it". Isn't the same thing. If every single app on the AppStore was "free" with IAP. Apple/Google would not be able to provide a store. They wouldn't even break even, which makes it a loss, which means their shareholders wouldn't approve of it, which means it wouldn't exist. Neither are charities. This is a business, and business make profits. Well, at least in the US. In Europe they have no rights and are subservient to the people and governments.

Most Apps on the store are free. And they don't pay Apple anything other than the developer fees. The bigger companies carry the load. No pay for apps, or Apps with IAP. Then this whole thing doesn't work.
You used to pay for apps. There was no IAP. You paid .99c or 9.99 one time. Then the system changed to an IAP model. I guess they didn't like getting paid only once. Games benefit greatly from IAP. They don't have to charge $49.99 or $59.99, or however much games costs these days. They can make it really cheap and or free. Or they can go subscription route. Either way(s) they have more options than existed in the past to get a steady stream of income. So you and too many others in my view want that to be perfectly OK to bypass payments to the store which they exist on? You essentially want them to have a free ride on these stores. OR, have the consumer choose how to pay for the same free ride?

 

[djphat2000]

In what way? Do you think Sweden or Germany cares that a U.S. court said apple have the right to developers earnings.

Do stores in Europe charge a markup on the goods they sell in their stores? Is there anything like an MSRP in Europe? Manufactures Suggested Retail Price. Do stores sell goods without making a profit on the sale of that good? Does the governments or EU pay the stores a set price so they can exist if the stores are not making any profit on the sales of goods?