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

[djphat2000]

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

Part of the reason is that Apple does not treat the Mac OS and desktop/laptop computer the same as it's mobile iOS/iDevices the same. They are different markets/products/systems/use cases. And for some, they believe this should not be the case. That all of this falls under the same "type" of thing. Not separate industries or systems. That can be treated differently for different use cases.

The Mac is a general purpose somewhat open computer system. The mobile device iOS is not a general purpose open computer system. For Apple it's closed, as that is how it was built. It wasn't built like Android to be open and more or less general purpose in nature. Where you can have access as the user to do with it as you wish. Apple did not build theirs that way. Think about it like the current M1 processor. It comes prebuilt with a fixed amount of RAM and Storage. You can choose to get the larger or smaller variant, but once it is there it is there. While intel you can pick a range of speed, and memory up to the limit the chip supports, either now or later. Storage, etc. Again, they (Apple) do not follow your typical guidelines for a computer product or a mobile product. And many would say they suffer from doing it this way as they will never have dominate market share in any area. They are too closed.

While Microsoft dominates the desktop/server OS. And Android and its variants dominate the mobile cell/tablet OS market. Apple is VERY happy to sell a more limited number of devices that ONLY carry their operating system. And you can ONLY obtain parts/service from Apple. Yes, it's a walled garden. Yes, it sounds horrid that it should even be possible to exist as a business they way are. But, they are not alone. You as a consumer can pick whether you like that model or not. You can say no, I don't like it enough to purchase. Or I like it enough to purchase. You can pick a number of Android devices, even devices that let you fully take it apart and replace items or upgrade it. You can customize Android more than well enough to simulate the look and feel of Apple's iOS. All to your hearts content.

 

[vipergts2207]

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.

Entrenched? You could maybe make that argument, but it would’ve been in a tiny market. There’s a big difference being “entrenched” in a market that has reached just 3-6% of consumers versus one that’s now been adopted by over 80% of consumers. A market that has gone from novel, innovative, and immature to one that has reached mass adoption and is very mature. Smartphone sales peaked in 2018. ‘The next big thing,’ almost by definition, requires the subsequent mass adoption of a market that either didn’t exist previously or was very small. The iPod was able to be the next big thing because mass adoption of the MP3 player hadn’t yet occured. Same scenario with the iPhone. We can go back to the Model T as well. Cars existed before then, but few people had them. But then Ford introduced the Model T and brought automotive vehicles to the masses. Ford managed to capture a stunning 61% market share by 1921 because of their innovation and timing in a very immature market. The Model T became the single best selling vehicle ever until the Beetle in the 1970’s.

 

[djphat2000]

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)

Pirated and legal. Check

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

That kind of makes it protected, but if the above is true that means a company may as well not copyright anything in the EU.

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

So back in a circle we go, is it legal to sell the OS and hardware with modifications or not? Can I open up a store in the EU with the intention of purchasing large quantities of iPhones, used or new. Modify it how I see fit, and resell it without any repercussions? If there are repercussions, what might that be?

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

Distribution license.

. 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.

this is personal sales only, not wholesale or say opening up a store and selling in quantity as in above.

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

This bothers me. So, you agree to purchase something in the EU. That purchase comes with a license to use the OS, and ownership of the underlining hardware. I'm sure it would state something to the affect of not being able to redistribute copies of the OS or modifications of the OS under penalty of some$#!T. Any alterations to the hardware null and voids warranty yada yada. You can just ignore all that because you didn't sign for it before purchase?

This is apples prob

It’s not really semantics when the law clearly states:
1. Agreements must be signed before payments have been completed to be valid

Is this for consumer or business to business? Or does that even matter in the EU?

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.

So how does that null and void the EULA-Terms-Conditions as it pertains to the licensing and use of the OS and hardware? I get that you own the hardware and you can do as you like to the OS and hardware. But, I'm failing to see how you have rights to sell (outside of personal sales say a friend or a relative) that would make any material difference to how the EULA-Terms-Licensing-Conditions forbid you to do.

You are free to prove otherwise. But companies don’t have free speech in Europe.

Yes, not so much a capitalist union. I'm not against it, but it's polar opposite to the US. "Business are people my friend" - Mitt Romney Republican Candidate for President.

And aren’t protected under contract laws or other consumer protections don’t apply to them.

i'm afraid to ask what laws business do have in Europe.

 

[theotherphil]

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.

This is entirely the point. You are licensing the application, not buying it. You would know this if you read the licence agreement when you first turned on your phone. This is entirely enforceable in Europe as you are given an option to read it, before agreeing to it. When you click agree, you create a digital signature which ties that device ID to you AppleID and is also legally enforceable in Europe. You cannot use the App Store without agreeing to this process.

The hardware is still yours and you are free to do with it as you wish should you not agree to the licence agreement. If you lack the skills to place another OS on it, Apple give you 2 weeks to return it, no questions asked.

You licence iOS and subsequently any app from the iOS App Store. The developers sign an agreement that any app placed on the App Store becomes a licensed application and apple is to act as the sole agent for all subsequent marketing, distribution etc. Any extra functionality that is enabled in the app must be done by the IAP API (regardless of whether apple processes the payment) and this extra functionality becomes part of the licensed application and as such, liable for commissions.

You can argue as much as you want but those are the facts. If you are so confident that the licence agreement doesn’t apply to you, please challenge it in a European court. Click through EULA’s are fundamentally different to what Apple presents as I addressed earlier here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...delay-app-store-changes.2316112/post-30423793

 

[theotherphil]

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.

You could do that because Apple allowed cross play, which was noted in the court case. It was also noted that Sony didn’t allow cross play.

Just so you are aware, legally Apple doesn’t have to allow that to happen on it’s platform, it chose to.

 

[djphat2000]

You could do that because Apple allowed cross play, which was noted in the court case. It was also noted that Sony didn’t allow cross play.

Just so you are aware, legally Apple doesn’t have to allow that to happen on it’s platform, it chose to.

Thank you for that.

 

[theotherphil]

Entrenched? You could maybe make that argument, but it would’ve been in a tiny market. There’s a big difference being “entrenched” in a market that has reached just 3-6% of consumers versus one that’s now been adopted by over 80% of consumers. A market that has gone from novel, innovative, and immature to one that has reached mass adoption and is very mature. Smartphone sales peaked in 2018. ‘The next big thing,’ almost by definition, requires the subsequent mass adoption of a market that either didn’t exist previously or was very small. The iPod was able to be the next big thing because mass adoption of the MP3 player hadn’t yet occured. Same scenario with the iPhone. We can go back to the Model T as well. Cars existed before then, but few people had them. But then Ford introduced the Model T and brought automotive vehicles to the masses. Ford managed to capture a stunning 61% market share by 1921 because of their innovation and timing in a very immature market. The Model T became the single best selling vehicle ever until the Beetle in the 1970’s.

Again, you’re completely missing the point, or intentionally going for the Strawman angle. Mobile phones, regardless of them being a smartphone, were pretty ubiquitous at that time. All with a similar function and form factor until Apple walked in - from nowhere, with zero knowledge of making mobile phones and forever changed the landscape for those established players. How did Apple beat out established players with decades of experience with a phone that only had 8hrs battery life, worse cameras, no gps and was on a poor 2nd gen network? I had a Nokia N95 at the time and on-paper it was better in every way.

” BlackBerry’s executives were at first in awe of Apple’s ability to pack so many features into one phone, but they weren't impressed enough to race to build a consumer device that was just as useful and aesthetically pleasing. Instead they comforted themselves with reminders that the iPhone's keyboard was difficult to use, it wasn’t secure and the battery life, terrible.” — RIM COO Larry Conlee

”$500 for a phone? LOL! There’s no chance that they are going to get any significant market share.” — Steve Ballmer

”meh” — Nokia


Nokia had been making smartphones for nearly 15yrs prior to the iPhone with their communicator series. We’re only 14yrs post the first iPhone. To say it can’t happen again is ludicrous….that is exactly what Apple does to every market it operates in. Are you saying that only Apple can go from zero > taking all the profits? Is that just luck?

Market disruption can come from anywhere at anytime. Sure it’s hard, sure it’s risky - but that doesn’t mean it can’t be worth the effort.

 

[vipergts2207]

Again, you’re completely missing the point, or intentionally going for the Strawman angle. Mobile phones, regardless of them being a smartphone, were pretty ubiquitous at that time. All with a similar function and form factor until Apple walked in - from nowhere, with zero knowledge of making mobile phones and forever changed the landscape for those established players. How did Apple beat out established players with decades of experience with a phone that only had 8hrs battery life, worse cameras, no gps and was on a poor 2nd gen network? I had a Nokia N95 at the time and on-paper it was better in every way.

Sorry, but wireless phones were not all that similar to smartphones and other than making calls and sending texts, existed in a completely separate category. Smartphones were capable of running real, albeit clunky software. Go back and watch Jobs’ unveil of the original iPhone.

“Well, today we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device. So, three things: a widescreen iPod with touch controls; a revolutionary mobile phone; and a breakthrough Internet communications device. An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator. An iPod, a phone… are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone.”

The iPhone wasn’t just a phone. There’s a reason Jobs compared the iPhone to contemporary smartphones at the time like those from Palm, Motorola, and BlackBerry. The iPhone was in the same vein as other smartphones of the time, but taken to an entirely new level. The simple wireless phones most people were using were capable of making phone calls, texting, and that was largely it. If you were lucky your phone had a single poor quality camera. Your average 2006 wireless phone was as similar to a landline phone as it was a smartphone. Smartphones were more akin to a computer in your pocket, certainly after the iPhone. A basic wireless phone was not that. In 2006, most people were still getting whatever free phone from their carrier they could, because the difference between devices wasn’t really that significant. Then the iPhone came along and suddenly people were willing to spend hundreds of dollars on their mobile device because like I said, it was literally a computer in your pocket. It’s nice that you had an N95 back then, but you were in the company of only 3-6% of other consumers.

Nokia had been making smartphones for nearly 15yrs prior to the iPhone with their communicator series. We’re only 14yrs post the first iPhone. To say it can’t happen again is ludicrous….that is exactly what Apple does to every market it operates in. Are you saying that only Apple can go from zero > taking all the profits? Is that just luck?

Market disruption can come from anywhere at anytime. Sure it’s hard, sure it’s risky - but that doesn’t mean it can’t be worth the effort.

And yet in those 15 years, Nokia had only managed to penetrate a tiny fraction of the consumer market. Home personal computers also existed for many years, but mass market adoption didn’t begin until the mid 90’s with Windows 95. In fact U.S. households with a computer didn’t even break 50% until sometime around 1999 or 2000. Windows 95 took the computer from a mostly business-oriented market to one that your average household could use. This is quite similar to what the iPhone did to the smartphone. The fact that smartphones existed long before the iPhone, but had only managed to penetrate single digit percentages of consumers in that time only lends further credence to the fact that the market was quite ripe for a disruptor to come in and shake up the market.

 

[pacalis]

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.

#2 and #3 are not sophistinutted at all!

You used to not be able to go into a store and get an iPhone without a wireless company taking a cut. You could find phones for $0 but to use them you needed a compatible SIM, and a 2-3 year contract so that some random wireless company literally took a cut. And ya, those old texting and data charges - no cut there at all! That behavior by the wireless providers, and with many of the companies like Apple, was regulated because it did cause consumer harm.

In many ways EPICs business is similar to the wireless cartels but trying to cut out the distributors. EPIC were using the Apple store to distribute their product for $0, but then essentially charging to unlock valuable features.

It's also reasonable to think that every new quarterly distribution of Fortnite is really a new product and so its not even like your single purchase example, but really many purchases. If framed that way, Apple should be getting fair value on every new distribution of Fortnite.

I don't think many realize what a reasonable deal 30% is. Many industries, including software, can go 50-60%.

I'm not saying that Apple is owed anything from this. I'm just saying that the EPIC position is stupid and indefensible.

 

[theotherphil]

Sorry, but wireless phones were not all that similar to smartphones and other than making calls and sending texts, existed in a completely separate category. Smartphones were capable of running real, albeit clunky software. Go back and watch Jobs’ unveil of the original iPhone.

“Well, today we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device. So, three things: a widescreen iPod with touch controls; a revolutionary mobile phone; and a breakthrough Internet communications device. An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator. An iPod, a phone… are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone.”

The iPhone wasn’t just a phone. There’s a reason Jobs compared the iPhone to contemporary smartphones at the time like those from Palm, Motorola, and BlackBerry. The iPhone was in the same vein as other smartphones of the time, but taken to an entirely new level. The simple wireless phones most people were using were capable of making phone calls, texting, and that was largely it. If you were lucky your phone had a single poor quality camera. Your average 2006 wireless phone was as similar to a landline phone as it was a smartphone. Smartphones were more akin to a computer in your pocket, certainly after the iPhone. A basic wireless phone was not that. In 2006, most people were still getting whatever free phone from their carrier they could, because the difference between devices wasn’t really that significant. Then the iPhone came along and suddenly people were willing to spend hundreds of dollars on their mobile device because like I said, it was literally a computer in your pocket. It’s nice that you had an N95 back then, but you were in the company of only 3-6% of other consumers.


And yet in those 15 years, Nokia had only managed to penetrate a tiny fraction of the consumer market. Home personal computers also existed for many years, but mass market adoption didn’t begin until the mid 90’s with Windows 95. In fact U.S. households with a computer didn’t even break 50% until sometime around 1999 or 2000. Windows 95 took the computer from a mostly business-oriented market to one that your average household could use. This is quite similar to what the iPhone did to the smartphone. The fact that smartphones existed long before the iPhone, but had only managed to penetrate single digit percentages of consumers in that time only lends further credence to the fact that the market was quite ripe for a disruptor to come in and shake up the market.

So it seems that we agree then? It’s more than possible for for a new entrant to take a risk and change the market….probably with a whole new class of product that’ll replace smartphones as we know it.

 

[Maximara]

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

Uh, the US has "already laws" too and that doesn't stop appeals. Remember McLibel? That was UK "already laws" that the EU "Supreme Court" threw out.

 

[Maximara]

Nokia had only managed to penetrate a tiny fraction of the consumer market. Home personal computers also existed for many years, but mass market adoption didn’t begin until the mid 90’s with Windows 95. In fact U.S. households with a computer didn’t even break 50% until sometime around 1999 or 2000. Windows 95 took the computer from a mostly business-oriented market to one that your average household could use. This is quite similar to what the iPhone did to the smartphone. The fact that smartphones existed long before the iPhone, but had only managed to penetrate single digit percentages of consumers in that time only lends further credence to the fact that the market was quite ripe for a disruptor to come in and shake up the market.

The rise of the PC in the 1990s was more a continuing pattern rather than any one thing. The 2016 American Community Survey Reports shows an marginal increase in 1993. I suspect that it was more a perfect storm of greater software selection, much cheaper hardware, CompuServe, AOL, and the internet than just Windows 95.

 

[Maximara]

I don't think many realize what a reasonable deal 30% is. Many industries, including software, can go 50-60%.

I'm not saying that Apple is owed anything from this. I'm just saying that the EPIC position is stupid and indefensible.

I agree. Someone commented that before Apple it wasn't uncommon to see as high as 70% markup in brick and mortar stores. Never mind 30% more or less became the baseline by 2019 with Humble Bundle, Epic, and Itch.io being the exceptions. The question is why did it more or less stay there? Certainly if you could regularly charge less (there are claims Epic is doing a Peter and Paul set up ie using Fortnite income to support its badly run game store) somebody by now would have gone less than Humble Bundle at 25% before Epic started making waves.

People may not like the fee (Steam gets a lot of flack for their 30%) but servers need maintenance and electric power, and so on. Look at Epic. Epic couldn't even figure out how a digital shopping cart worked - the most basic thing of a digital store. Heck, the store has been around since December 6, 2018 but 24th June 2021 we get Tim Sweeney states Epic Games Store will “someday” add shopping carts.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is entirely the point. You are licensing the application, not buying it. You would know this if you read the licence agreement when you first turned on your phone. This is entirely enforceable in Europe as you are given an option to read it, before agreeing to it. When you click agree, you create a digital signature which ties that device ID to you AppleID and is also legally enforceable in Europe. You cannot use the App Store without agreeing to this process.

You seem to not to understand the simple fact that the EULA aren’t LEGAL. If apple made me click agree **BEFORE I PURCHASED THEIR DEVICE** then you might have a point. This already have legal backing is meaningless paper

The hardware is still yours and you are free to do with it as you wish should you not agree to the licence agreement. If you lack the skills to place another OS on it, Apple give you 2 weeks to return it, no questions asked.

Not legal. Apple can’t force you to agree to anything to use a device you purchased. It’s not licensed. You need to stop thinking how American laws work as it’s not how contract laws work here.

You licence iOS and subsequently any app from the iOS App Store. The developers sign an agreement that any app placed on the App Store becomes a licensed application and apple is to act as the sole agent for all subsequent marketing, distribution etc. Any extra functionality that is enabled in the app must be done by the IAP API (regardless of whether apple processes the payment) and this extra functionality becomes part of the licensed application and as such, liable for commissions.

Eu Supreme Court have already invalidated programs as being licensed. As soon as I downloaded it it’s my program I own and I have the legal right to sell to as anything else.

You can argue as much as you want but those are the facts. If you are so confident that the licence agreement doesn’t apply to you, please challenge it in a European court. Click through EULA’s are fundamentally different to what Apple presents as I addressed earlier here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...delay-app-store-changes.2316112/post-30423793

I can provide legal cases that already states this.
1: downloaded software is mine and equivalent to purchasing a physical Disk. Eu ruling
2: you are entitled to decompile a program to fix a bug irrespective of EULA
3

#2 and #3 are not sophistinutted at all!

You used to not be able to go into a store and get an iPhone without a wireless company taking a cut. You could find phones for $0 but to use them you needed a compatible SIM, and a 2-3 year contract so that some random wireless company literally took a cut. And ya, those old texting and data charges - no cut there at all! That behavior by the wireless providers, and with many of the companies like Apple, was regulated because it did cause consumer harm.

Then the state said, hey you can’t force people to buy a phone with a contract as that’s anti competitive and harms consumers. It’s currently illegal in Sweden to stop customers from unlocking phones, and since 2014 it’s been illegal from carriers to sell locked phones. And you must have the option to buy the phone without subscription, whether it’s in Telia, Telenor or 3 physical stores.

The Carries take a cut on first sale and on the subscription if the consumer chose that root. But free to pop in a difrent card.

In many ways EPICs business is similar to the wireless cartels but trying to cut out the distributors. EPIC were using the Apple store to distribute their product for $0, but then essentially charging to unlock valuable features.

Sounds like a loop hole apple needs to fix then. Because in app purchases shouldn’t be apples concern.

It's also reasonable to think that every new quarterly distribution of Fortnite is really a new product and so its not even like your single purchase example, but really many purchases. If framed that way, Apple should be getting fair value on every new distribution of Fortnite.

Apple is the one who give them the ability to provide free updates. If this is exploited they should perhaps change than, and not take money they should have a right to.

I don't think many realize what a reasonable deal 30% is. Many industries, including software, can go 50-60%.

A deal being reasonable doesn’t mean it’s a legal dead or a good deal.

I'm not saying that Apple is owed anything from this. I'm just saying that the EPIC position is stupid and indefensible.

Apple have a right to take a cut. And it should stop at IAP if developers chose a different option. Provide incentives to justify the big cut.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Uh, the US has "already laws" too and that doesn't stop appeals. Remember McLibel? That was UK "already laws" that the EU "Supreme Court" threw out.

Eu and Korea uses civil law, not common law. They Work case by case basis and not by precedent.

the Mclibel case was ruled by the EU Supreme Court that UK had broken EU provision on human rights in their procedure.

Eu laws supersede national laws.

 

[vipergts2207]

So it seems that we agree then? It’s more than possible for for a new entrant to take a risk and change the market….probably with a whole new class of product that’ll replace smartphones as we know it.

Yes I guess, though not for the same reasons. Go back read what I already said.

Entrenched? You could maybe make that argument, but it would’ve been in a tiny market. There’s a big difference being “entrenched” in a market that has reached just 3-6% of consumers versus one that’s now been adopted by over 80% of consumers. A market that has gone from novel, innovative, and immature to one that has reached mass adoption and is very mature. Smartphone sales peaked in 2018. ‘The next big thing,’ almost by definition, requires the subsequent mass adoption of a market that either didn’t exist previously or was very small.

Apple did what they did when the smartphone market was small and immature. Yes, it’s still risky to attempt, but the likelihood of a payoff is reasonably good. Apple didn’t come in and reinvent the smartphone when the market was already at mass adoption with two absolutely massive competitors controlling most of the consumer market. If someone comes out with the next big thing it won’t be another smartphone, which is the mature market that is beginning to see regulations created and existing rules enforced. It might be AR glasses or perhaps some other kind of wearable. Whatever it is, it will be something where the existing market adoption is low or non-existent. And government doesn’t not regulate industries just because something else could come along one day. Maybe that day comes, maybe it doesn’t.

 

[vipergts2207]

The rise of the PC in the 1990s was more a continuing pattern rather than any one thing. The 2016 American Community Survey Reports shows an marginal increase in 1993. I suspect that it was more a perfect storm of greater software selection, much cheaper hardware, CompuServe, AOL, and the internet than just Windows 95.

For sure, the PC industry in 1995 wasn’t quite as nascent as the smartphone industry was in 2006, but you can still draw quite a parallel. Nor was it only Windows 95 that was responsible, though it certainly played a highly significant role.

 

[I7guy]

Yes I guess, though not for the same reasons. Go back read what I already said.


Apple did what they did when the smartphone market was small and immature. Yes, it’s still risky to attempt, but the likelihood of a payoff is reasonably good. Apple didn’t come in and reinvent the smartphone when the market was already at mass adoption with two absolutely massive competitors controlling most of the consumer market. If someone comes out with the next big thing it won’t be another smartphone, which is the mature market that is beginning to see regulations created and existing rules enforced. It might be AR glasses or perhaps some other kind of wearable. Whatever it is, it will be something where the existing market adoption is low or non-existent. And government doesn’t not regulate industries just because something else could come along one day. Maybe that day comes, maybe it doesn’t.

Disruption can occur anytime ask Tesla. Not saying it's cheap or easy but it's possible.

 

[theotherphil]

Eu Supreme Court have already invalidated programs as being licensed. As soon as I downloaded it it’s my program I own and I have the legal right to sell to as anything else.

You keep repeating this over and over but it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Yes, I agree with you on one point….click through/ shrink wrap EULA’s are not enforceable in the EU but Apple isn’t using click through/ shrink wrap EULA’s.

Again, the fundamental difference with a click through EULA is:

1) In the ruling, a user is purchasing a program that “is for sale” in a store/ download site before they have had chance to look at the terms and conditions. iOS is not for sale, and has never been for sale separately. The only way to use iOS is in the licensed format.

2) You are buying an iPhone (the hardware) which is yours to do as you please. iOS is free and comes pre-installed. In order to activate it, you need to agree to the terms and conditions which are presented to the user prior to use. You have the option not to agree and either use the hardware as is by installing your own OS, or return it to Apple for a refund.

This is not “illegal” and you can not provide me any case precedent showing that it is because this has never been ruled on. Do you honestly think that Apple’s lawyers are so stupid?

 

[I7guy]

[…]
Apple have a right to take a cut. And it should stop at IAP if developers chose a different option. Provide incentives to justify the big cut.

The courts have ruled otherwise.

 

[djphat2000]

You seem to not to understand the simple fact that the EULA aren’t LEGAL. If apple made me click agree **BEFORE I PURCHASED THEIR DEVICE** then you might have a point. This already have legal backing is meaningless paper

I'm only seeing the fact that you can resell your device (which is common) or in this instance "game" to another.
Which I assume only really works if you also have a license key. If it requires some type of account to get to get to the download page. It would be a bit more difficult. But, reselling something you purchased isn't all that new. However, I don't see how this applies to Apple's or Googles App/Play store. Since you would need to hand over your user account and password for the next person to use it.

Not legal. Apple can’t force you to agree to anything to use a device you purchased.

I don't think Apple is forcing anyone to do anything. It's a simple statement that you agree to the terms and conditions/EULA when you click agree. Otherwise, you can't use it. Doesn't matter if your laws state it's Null and Void or not legal. No one is stopping you from hacking it or lying with your intent. Just that you do agree to it otherwise you wouldn't have access. Unless your iPhones don't have "agree's" or any form of terms and conditions based on your location in the EU when you turn it on.

It’s not licensed.

It's licensed. Your laws seem to limit some of its use cases in the license, but it still a license. And still to be fair, how would you resell and App from the AppStore or PlayStore?

You need to stop thinking how American laws work as it’s not how contract laws work here.

Not entirely true.

Eu Supreme Court have already invalidated programs as being licensed.

Not true, they did in part, but not the whole thing. At least from what I read from your link.

As soon as I downloaded it it’s my program I own and I have the legal right to sell to as anything else.

Yes, again not a new idea. People resell back to stores in the US for low ball amounts for sure. But, nothing stopping you from selling your hard copy game to another person. A digital download used to have a license key enable the game to work. This would still fall under the same ability to resell it. However, if it has an account tied to it. Such as a Steam game or the like. It would be difficult to resell without giving up your account info.

I can provide legal cases that already states this.
1: downloaded software is mine and equivalent to purchasing a physical Disk. Eu ruling
2: you are entitled to decompile a program to fix a bug irrespective of EULA
3

Limited, again for that user and that sale of that users copy. This does not give anyone broad rights to sell multiple copies and redistribute. So, in other words. The EU states that if you buy something, you can do whatever you want to it. So long it is yours. And if you resell it, which you're able to do. You can resell "IT", and that's it.

Then the state said, hey you can’t force people to buy a phone with a contract as that’s anti competitive and harms consumers. It’s currently illegal in Sweden to stop customers from unlocking phones, and since 2014 it’s been illegal from carriers to sell locked phones. And you must have the option to buy the phone without subscription, whether it’s in Telia, Telenor or 3 physical stores.

So again. You can do the same here. You can buy a phone at full price unlocked. OR locked to the carrier until you pay off the phone. If you don't pay off the phone you can't get it unlocked until you pay off the phone. So, all I see here is that you can get an unlocked phone "and" it can be subsidized at the same time? If so, the carrier must charge you the remaining balance (if any) of that device if you switch carriers.

The Carries take a cut on first sale and on the subscription if the consumer chose that root. But free to pop in a difrent card.

So you still have to pay off the phone? And you can do the same in the US. You just would be paying 2 bills.
We don't pay any additional cost on the subscription. If the phone is say $1000 US. It's broken down over the term of contract in equal payments. Zero interest.

Sounds like a loop hole apple needs to fix then. Because in app purchases shouldn’t be apples concern.

It is when the app was free to begin with. Again, no sale price for the app, but plenty of IAP's.

Apple have a right to take a cut. And it should stop at IAP if developers chose a different option. Provide incentives to justify the big cut.

Again, at least from what I have seen. Most games are free with IAP on the store. Some games are pay at time of download. Which is what it used to be. If games are free on the AppStore. Then Apple doesn't get any revenue to run the store. While the developers just sit and wait for people to eventually pay WAY more for the IAP's they make over time. With zero cut to Apple for it being on the store. How would you solve this issue? Should all apps on the store be free then with only IAP's that bypass Apple and Google? How long do you think the store will last? And if there is no store, what incentive does Apple or Google have to allow any store to exist? May as well be a dumb smartphone then. No one wins, everyone loses.

And I'm sure you may say well the courts will force Apple/Google to allow someone else to make a store or just let side loading work. Well, that's where I know Apple will not agree. They are not in the business they are in for other business to exist.

 

[djphat2000]

Eu and Korea uses civil law, not common law. They Work case by case basis and not by precedent.

the Mclibel case was ruled by the EU Supreme Court that UK had broken EU provision on human rights in their procedure.

Eu laws supersede national laws.

And Brexit.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't think many realize what a reasonable deal 30% is. Many industries, including software, can go 50-60%.

I'm not saying that Apple is owed anything from this. I'm just saying that the EPIC position is stupid and indefensible.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. As a developer, every extra % of revenue that goes to Apple is that much money that isn’t entering their pocket. Even if a developer feels that 15% or even 30% is fair, nothing stopping them from continuing to fight for a lower cut.

At the end of the day, it’s really about leverage, and who is able to wrest over more of it at the end of the day.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You keep repeating this over and over but it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Yes, I agree with you on one point….click through/ shrink wrap EULA’s are not enforceable in the EU but Apple isn’t using click through/ shrink wrap EULA’s.

They are treated the same as you purchased something = transfer of ownership. This makes them unenforceable.

Again, the fundamental difference with a click through EULA is:

1) In the ruling, a user is purchasing a program that “is for sale” in a store/ download site before they have had chance to look at the terms and conditions. iOS is not for sale, and has never been for sale separately. The only way to use iOS is in the licensed format.

It arrives in my iPones. It being free or not have no relevance on the ruling. Same if I buy a PC with windows pre installed.

2) You are buying an iPhone (the hardware) which is yours to do as you please. iOS is free and comes pre-installed. In order to activate it, you need to agree to the terms and conditions which are presented to the user prior to use. You have the option not to agree and either use the hardware as is by installing your own OS, or return it to Apple for a refund.

It has no legal merit. The laws do not differentiate free included software. Customer made a transaction of ownership. No agreement was presented before purchasing it.

This is not “illegal” and you can not provide me any case precedent showing that it is because this has never been ruled on. Do you honestly think that Apple’s lawyers are so stupid?

A better term would be, it’s not legally enforceable and not a legitimate contract apple will never be able to enforce.
they aren’t stupid, they just draw contracts covereing everything, it just happens to be wasted in EU

I'm only seeing the fact that you can resell your device (which is common) or in this instance "game" to another.
Which I assume only really works if you also have a license key.

It states you have the right to sell it. And currently in appeals process in this exact thing of selling you steam games. Was ruled illegal to stop consumers from reselling it. The law doesn’t care if you have a license key. In the eye of the law you own the product and the key is just a way to confirm you are the owner

If it requires some type of account to get to get to the download page. It would be a bit more difficult. But, reselling something you purchased isn't all that new. However, I don't see how this applies to Apple's or Googles App/Play store. Since you would need to hand over your user account and password for the next person to use it.

As I linked above. Reselling programs doesn’t mean you give access to you account. You would be allowed to sell you candy crush copy or other individual programs by transferring ownership to a different account.

I don't think Apple is forcing anyone to do anything. It's a simple statement that you agree to the terms and conditions/EULA when you click agree.

Clicking agree have no legal ramifications

Otherwise, you can't use it. Doesn't matter if your laws state it's Null and Void or not legal. No one is stopping you from hacking it or lying with your intent. Just that you do agree to it otherwise you wouldn't have access. Unless your iPhones don't have "agree's" or any form of terms and conditions based on your location in the EU when you turn it on.

That’s also a reason why the law ignores the license. You can use your product you owned, no prior information or consent was given before purchasing it. If this was actually legal I would be able to buy a second hand iPhone and return it for full compensation as I chose to click disagree? Or even worse yet. I purchase an iPhone with only an empty Home Screen. Did I just circumvent the EULA?

It's licensed. Your laws seem to limit some of its use cases in the license, but it still a license. And still to be fair, how would you resell and App from the AppStore or PlayStore?

No legal framework for it yet, legally you should be allowed to, currently it’s in court so we will se in a few years. The problem is the court invalidate the license and just consider it personal property.

Not entirely true.

Contract law is extremely regulated, especially in consumers favor, not clear? Ruled against the company. Core parts of the contract not legally enforceable? Invalidates the whole contract. Removes your rights? Ignored. Etc etc

Not true, they did in part, but not the whole thing. At least from what I read from your link.

The relevant parts for our discussion are invalidated.

Yes, again not a new idea. People resell back to stores in the US for low ball amounts for sure. But, nothing stopping you from selling your hard copy game to another person. A digital download used to have a license key enable the game to work. This would still fall under the same ability to resell it. However, if it has an account tied to it. Such as a Steam game or the like. It would be difficult to resell without giving up your account info.

As stated above, it’s in the courts as Valve appealed the ruling that would force them to allow users to resell their owned games. And the court ruled against them licensing the games or subscriptions. But users straight up owned their game, no different to a hard copy.

Limited, again for that user and that sale of that users copy. This does not give anyone broad rights to sell multiple copies and redistribute. So, in other words. The EU states that if you buy something, you can do whatever you want to it. So long it is yours. And if you resell it, which you're able to do. You can resell "IT", and that's it.

Exactly what istated. You can sell your copy. A digital copy= hard copy in the eyes of the law. So I don’t understand your confusion

So again. You can do the same here. You can buy a phone at full price unlocked. OR locked to the carrier until you pay off the phone. If you don't pay off the phone you can't get it unlocked until you pay off the phone. So, all I see here is that you can get an unlocked phone "and" it can be subsidized at the same time? If so, the carrier must charge you the remaining balance (if any) of that device if you switch carriers.

No, you would just keep paying your monthly fee for your phone as you use a different carriers SIM card. Or pay it all of if you want. It’s up to you.
buying a carrier phone is unlocked by default irrespective of the contract is 1 year or 5 years

So you still have to pay off the phone? And you can do the same in the US. You just would be paying 2 bills.

If that’s what you got yes.

We don't pay any additional cost on the subscription. If the phone is say $1000 US. It's broken down over the term of contract in equal payments. Zero interest

Same here, you pay for your carrier fee and your phone. You just can chose other carriers or use another one at the same time, such as your work SIM card if can have two cards or just swaps it out for a prepaid card etc

It is when the app was free to begin with. Again, no sale price for the app, but plenty of IAP's.

That’s not my problem tho. If apple thinks they lose too much money they should actually use a licensing contract or higher yearly fee. Apps should still be allow to use different IAP solutions

Again, at least from what I have seen. Most games are free with IAP on the store. Some games are pay at time of download. Which is what it used to be.

That’s great

If games are free on the AppStore. Then Apple doesn't get any revenue to run the store.

They get a 99$/year fee. If this is too low or normal games don’t cover the cost they should increase this fee. Or they can suck it up and see it as a customer feature

While the developers just sit and wait for people to eventually pay WAY more for the IAP's they make over time. With zero cut to Apple for it being on the store. How would you solve this issue? Should all apps on the store be free then with only IAP's that bypass Apple and Google? How long do you think the store will last? And if there is no store, what incentive does Apple or Google have to allow any store to exist? May as well be a dumb smartphone then. No one wins, everyone loses.

Easy
1: increase yearly fee.
2: have a license agreement that gives apple 12%( or less) profits of all revenue generated from apps that use the Xcode framework, only 1 million or more pay the fee. Same way Unreal engine license works
3: suck it up and bake the cost in to the iOS ecosystem as everything else they give away for “free”. Free max updates, free iOS, iMessage,FaceTime, Apple Maps, 5GB iCloud etc etc

And I'm sure you may say well the courts will force Apple/Google to allow someone else to make a store or just let side loading work. Well, that's where I know Apple will not agree. They are not in the business they are in for other business to exist.

The courts are not here in the interest of apple. They couldn’t care less. The system is designed to heavily bias consumer rights.
And as it looks like now, the court will just force side loading instead as apple have been to negligent to do anything when they have warned regulations will come. Same with USB c will now be forced.

And Brexit.

Well this was an Old Case, now UK can do as they wish

 

[Maximara]

You seem to not to understand the simple fact that the EULA aren’t LEGAL. If apple made me click agree **BEFORE I PURCHASED THEIR DEVICE** then you might have a point. This already have legal backing is meaningless paper

Not legal. Apple can’t force you to agree to anything to use a device you purchased. It’s not licensed. You need to stop thinking how American laws work as it’s not how contract laws work here.

Eu Supreme Court have already invalidated programs as being licensed. As soon as I downloaded it it’s my program I own and I have the legal right to sell to as anything else.

While I think EULAs are garbage her in the US they are still enforceable though with limitations. Also I wonder how the EU enforces their ruling as many software have this email verification system these days.