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

[Maximara]

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.

South Korea has article 103 which stipulates that judges should follow the Constitution, law and regulation and conscience to declare judicial independence. If they feel this new law shocks the conscience (to use an English term) they can throw the thing out.

Shock the conscience is common law in the US; it comes from Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). In fact it is these type of common law rulings that result in the claim of "legislating from the bench". It was used to throw out a binding arbitration clause Circuit City had in its contracts so it does get used in the US.

 

[pacalis]

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.

Fairness has a lot to do with whether Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive way and there is nothing in the pricing to say that it is.

I agree with your next point - everyone should negotiate what they can. However, leverage is a loaded term - that suggests it's entirely an issue of market power. Sure that matters but I think Apple is charging a market rate and in doing so provides tremendous value to the developers.

Put another way, developers get tremendous value from the app store and Apple only provides that because they can make enough margins to support it. If I were to damn Apple it would be that they don't build nice monitors for purchase, I only assume because they don't believe they can charge up the wazoo for them.

 

[vipergts2207]

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

I think it’s a bit early to say they’re an example of successful disruption. I believe they have less than 2% of the car market and even solely among EV’s their market share has been in decline.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

South Korea has article 103 which stipulates that judges should follow the Constitution, law and regulation and conscience to declare judicial independence. If they feel this new law shocks the conscience (to use an English term) they can throw the thing out.

And pleas tell me what it has to do with the new law? Judges can’t throw a law out, this is not common law where you can interpret however you wish. This is civil law, that means the law is the law irrespective of your feelings.


Article 103
Judges shall rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and laws.
This law is law and doesn’t break the constitution

Shock the conscience is common law in the US; it comes from Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). In fact it is these type of common law rulings that result in the claim of "legislating from the bench". It was used to throw out a binding arbitration clause Circuit City had in its contracts so it does get used in the US.

That’s great, but in civil law this is not possible. Bench ruling aren’t a thing. Ruling are done case by case according to legislation

Fairness has a lot to do with whether Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive way and there is nothing in the pricing to say that it is.

Well technically there is, if apple can prove that 30% margins are needed to cover costs compared to 4-7.5% fee(theorized minimum margin) with healthy margin it would legitimate their take, but if it’s not legitimized it can be argued it’s anti competitive because developers can’t artificially use better payment systems

I agree with your next point - everyone should negotiate what they can. However, leverage is a loaded term - that suggests it's entirely an issue of market power. Sure that matters but I think Apple is charging a market rate and in doing so provides tremendous value to the developers.

In EU apple is seen as having all the power over the developers. There is no policy of corporate and consumer balance in the same sense as in the USA.

Put another way, developers get tremendous value from the app store and Apple only provides that because they can make enough margins to support it. If I were to damn Apple it would be that they don't build nice monitors for purchase, I only assume because they don't believe they can charge up the wazoo for them.

Could be. Still are apple in the way from them consumers and developers getting more value artificially?

Apple never provided the App Store because they had margins to support it from developers. It was entirely provided for the benefit to consumers as a great incentament to buy the iPhone. If apple never had an App Store it would have failed. And that’s fact.

 

[I7guy]

I think it’s a bit early to say they’re an example of successful disruption. I believe they have less than 2% of the car market and even solely among EV’s their market share has been in decline.

Whether they survive is separate and apart that at least, imo, they have disrupted the car industry. Their popularity is growing. Other than Cadillac no other strictly EV gets 300-400 on a charge. In NJ they have won the right to sell their cars direct.

 

[vipergts2207]

Whether they survive is separate and apart that at least, imo, they have disrupted the car industry. Their popularity is growing. Other than Cadillac no other strictly EV gets 300-400 on a charge. In NJ they have won the right to sell their cars direct.

The argument isn't about disruption for disruption's sake. It's about disrupting established players, and if not knocking some of them out, at least becoming a peer. The whole argument being made is that somebody could in theory come in and knock Apple and/or Google off their perch. What good would it do for someone to come in and "disrupt" the smartphone market, only to proceed to fail, leaving just Apple, Google and the status quo again? If that's the argument, then it's a very poor one for showing why the existing market doesn't need regulated.

 

[I7guy]

The argument isn't about disruption for disruption's sake. It's about disrupting established players, and if not knocking some of them out, at least becoming a peer. The whole argument being made is that somebody could in theory come in and knock Apple and/or Google off their perch. What good would it do for someone to come in and "disrupt" the smartphone market, only to proceed to fail, leaving just Apple, Google and the status quo again? If that's the argument, then it's a very poor one for showing why the existing market doesn't need regulated.

The argument of whether a player can knock apple or google off the throne is not the right argument. The question in can a player come in and start to draw business to themselves from established players. With respect to Tesla it will take years, if at all to knock BMW, GM, Mercedes off the hill, but they have already shown their vehicles are viable and people are buying them instead of an established player.

 

[vipergts2207]

The argument of whether a player can knock apple or google off the throne is not the right argument. The question in can a player come in and start to draw business to themselves from established players.

Yes that would be the 'becoming a peer' option I outlined.

With respect to Tesla it will take years, if at all to knock BMW, GM, Mercedes off the hill, but they have already shown their vehicles are viable and people are buying them instead of an established player.

Viable yes, however as you yourself stated, we're years away from knowing whether they'll actually succeed. Their market share in the EV market actually fell to 11% this year. In a decade we may look back and find that Tesla's primary contribution was proving the viability of a concept, while failing to actually succeed in beating competitors. In any case, this is getting away from the original point now, which is that disruption generally occurs in markets with low consumer adoption. In fact, one could point out that EV's specifically were and still are a low consumer adoption market and are ripe for disruption.

 

[I7guy]

Yes that would be the 'becoming a peer' option I outlined.

Regardless, Tesla has still disrupted the auto industry proving disruption is possible in these chaotic times -- which is the point. Not how many years it takes to become a "player".

Viable yes, however as you yourself stated, we're years away from knowing whether they'll actually succeed. Their market share in the EV market actually fell to 11% this year. In a decade we may look back and find that Tesla's primary contribution was proving the viability of a concept, while failing to actually succeed in beating competitors. In any case, this is getting away from the original point now, which is that disruption generally occurs in markets with low consumer adoption. In fact, one could point out that EV's specifically were and still are a low consumer adoption market and are ripe for disruption.

Isn't that the case with disruption, that disruption doesn't happen in a day? Apple was "doomed" for many years, but they disrupted the cell phone industry the day the iphone 1 was released and it took year become an established player. Of course, car industry is different. A Tesla cost 60 times what an iphone costs and the replacement time is longer (for most people).

 

[vipergts2207]

Regardless, Tesla has still disrupted the auto industry proving disruption is possible in these chaotic times -- which is the point. Not how many years it takes to become a "player".

Ok and if you want to argue that it's possible that Tesla can disrupt the auto industry, while simultaneously not succeeding in the end, I will agree with you on that. At which point I will ask, how does that show regulation is unnecessary in a market when the ultimate outcome is that the same players remain in control of the market at the end of the day?

Isn't that the case with disruption, that disruption doesn't happen in a day? Apple was "doomed" for many years, but they disrupted the cell phone industry the day the iphone 1 was released and it took year become an established player. Of course, car industry is different. A Tesla cost 60 times what an iphone costs and the replacement time is longer (for most people).

Disruption does not happen in a day indeed. Hence why I'm questioning the use of Tesla as an example, when what is going on in that market is still very much in flux. You're assuming an outcome that may not be.

 

[I7guy]

Ok and if you want to argue that it's possible that Tesla can disrupt the auto industry, while simultaneously not succeeding in the end, I will agree with you on that. At which point I will ask, how does that show regulation is unnecessary in a market when the ultimate outcome is that the same players remain in control of the market at the end of the day?

Regulation to ensure a disruptor succeeds in knocking off an established player is gross overreach of government power and hopefully will be smacked down by the Supreme Court. If a disruptor gets their foot in the door and then fails due to mis-steps, it's not governments responsibility to prop them up.

Disruption does not happen in a day indeed. Hence why I'm questioning the use of Tesla as an example, when what is going on in that market is still very much in flux. You're assuming an outcome that may not be.

No Tesla has disrupted the auto industry. Tesla knocking GM off their perch is another matter. Something that may or may not happen. Calling Tesla a disruptor only when GM is knocked off their perch is a very narrow view.

 

[vipergts2207]

Regulation to ensure a disruptor succeeds in knocking off an established player is gross overreach of government power and hopefully will be smacked down by the Supreme Court. If a disruptor gets their foot in the door and then fails due to mis-steps, it's not governments responsibility to prop them up.

Agreed, the government shouldn't prop up a competitor. That was never the argument though. The argument of the possibility of competitors one day coming in isn't justification not to regulate. Particularly when odds of a competitor succeeding are low because the market is mature. Otherwise you'd have no regulations because every time the issue came up the fallback would always be, "well a competitor could come along one day."

No Tesla has disrupted the auto industry. Tesla knocking GM off their perch is another matter. Something that may or may not happen. Calling Tesla a disruptor only when GM is knocked off their perch is a very narrow view.

And I'll repeat what I said before. Ok and if you want to argue that it's possible that Tesla can disrupt the auto industry, while simultaneously not succeeding in the end, I will agree with you on that. At which point I will ask, how does that show regulation is unnecessary in a market when the ultimate outcome is that the same players remain in control of the market at the end of the day?

 

[I7guy]

Agreed, the government shouldn't prop up a competitor. That was never the argument though. The argument of the possibility of competitors one day coming in isn't justification not to regulate. Particularly when odds of a competitor succeeding are low because the market is mature. Otherwise you'd have no regulations because every time the issue came up the fallback would always be, "well a competitor could come along one day."

Because a market is "mature" doesn't mean it should be regulated. And that's the point of Telsa, maybe they were an outlier or maybe they are the very definition of what disruption is all about. Either way I don't see the need for regulation. (of course the government can do what it wants, just like I can in the voting booth)

And I'll repeat what I said before. Ok and if you want to argue that it's possible that Tesla can disrupt the auto industry, while simultaneously not succeeding in the end, I will agree with you on that. At which point I will ask, how does that show regulation is unnecessary in a market when the ultimate outcome is that the same players remain in control of the market at the end of the day?

Where is it shown that regulation is necessary and by whose yardstick? How does Tesla succeeding or not succeeding show regulation is either necessary or not necessary. Where is it written that regulation is necessary to a disruptor will have an easy time gaining access to the market to topple those at the top. How is this in any way support a system that values, hard work, smart work to make it to the top only to be monday-morning quarterbacked into regulation?

 

[vipergts2207]

Because a market is "mature" doesn't mean it should be regulated. And that's the point of Telsa, maybe they were an outlier or maybe they are the very definition of what disruption is all about. Either way I don't see the need for regulation. (of course the government can do what it wants, just like I can in the voting booth)

I didn't say a market should be regulated because it's mature. I said it should be regulated when there is a dearth of competitors. A mature market only signals that waves are unlikely to be made which would upset those few competitors that do exist. A mature market can also have healthy competition. There are few things as mature as the automotive market and yet even before Tesla arrived, competition was incredibly healthy, involving many players. This is one reason nobody was arguing for smartphone regulation back in 2008, because competition was extremely healthy at the time. Back then RIM, Palm, Symbian, Windows, Android, and iOS were all in the market and it was unclear which ones or how many would stick around when some kind of equilibrium was achieved. Today we have that answer, iOS and Android.

Where is it shown that regulation is necessary and by whose yardstick? How does Tesla succeeding or not succeeding show regulation is either necessary or not necessary. Where is it written that regulation is necessary to a disruptor will have an easy time gaining access to the market to topple those at the top. How is this in any way support a system that values, hard work, smart work to make it to the top only to be monday-morning quarterbacked into regulation?

People aren't asking for competitors to be regulated into existence. In fact, the primary reason we're talking about competitors in the first place is because folks like you say they could simply pop into existence one day and upset the status quo. Others like myself are saying until that day ever comes, regulations should exist and be enforced so that Apple and Google each don't get to decide who does and does not get access to 50% of U.S. consumers. Or how you're allowed to communicate to those aforementioned consumers. This isn't about increasing competition in the mobile OS space, which frankly is an unrealistic goal. It's about making sure the two companies in the mobile OS space aren't using that position to impact businesses as disparate from their own as porn providers for instance.

 

[I7guy]

I didn't say a market should be regulated because it's mature. I said it should be regulated when there is a dearth of competitors. A mature market only signals that waves are unlikely to be made which would upset those few competitors that do exist. A mature market can also have healthy competition. There are few things as mature as the automotive market and yet even before Tesla arrived, competition was incredibly healthy, involving many players. This is one reason nobody was arguing for smartphone regulation back in 2008, because competition was extremely healthy at the time. Back then RIM, Palm, Symbian, Windows, Android, and iOS were all in the market and it was unclear which ones or how many would stick around when some kind of equilibrium was achieved. Today we have that answer, iOS and Android.

The consumers have voted with their dollars and that has been theme for many a business that has come and gone. Regulation is not necessary to support business that make bad business decisions. Although goodness that actually did happen as government propped up GM, too big to fail, at one point in time in recent memory.

People aren't asking for competitors to be regulated into existence. In fact, the primary reason we're talking about competitors in the first place is because folks like you say they could simply pop into existence one day and upset the status quo. Others like myself are saying until that day ever comes, regulations should exist and be enforced so that Apple and Google each don't get to decide who does and does not get access to 50% of U.S. consumers. Or how you're allowed to communicate to those aforementioned consumers. This isn't about increasing competition in the mobile OS space, which frankly is an unrealistic goal. It's about making sure the two companies in the mobile OS space aren't using that position to impact businesses as disparate from their own as porn providers for instance.

Apple and google do not get to decide who has access to 50% of US consumers...as Tesla proved. Regulations should not be made because actors make bad business decisions. Businesses who want to use apples' or googles' infrastructure must abide by their rules. Regulation to change those rules is micro-regulation. Porn sites have an option called the world wide web. There is no a artificial wall that is stopping any business from reaching customers. And I oppose those who think that apple should be regulated so that any old app can make it into the app store at any old time without apple reviewing said app.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

Doesn't seem to matter if you did sign something physical or digital before hand. It's not enforceable either way it seems.

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

Again from what I have seen, it's still protecting it enough. You have rights in regards to selling the device and OS to someone else. No issue. Also, you can't be a pirate shop and buy in mass and resell hacked or modified hardware/software.

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.

We will wait to see that outcome.

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.

Hard to do when all the lollipop smashers and gold bars are tide to an account. Who/Whom facilitates this type of transfer? Is there any taxes collected or VAT in the EU?

Clicking agree have no legal ramifications

Understood.

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?

Not second hand as in used. But, if you purchased a new one, and didn't like the terms you can return it within 2 weeks (US).

Or even worse yet. I purchase an iPhone with only an empty Home Screen. Did I just circumvent the EULA?

Depends, did you purchase it from someone that sold you a used/broken phone? Your union rules are a mystery to me so I can't answer that.

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.

But if you physically can't transfer the game or account, this is mute. It could be invalid but without a mechanism to make the transfer.

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

Again, the Union is a strange place for us American's.

The relevant parts for our discussion are invalidated.

Still, you can't be a pirate shop. Users rights all day, but you can't do anything you like. There are clearly parts of the EULA/Terms etc that will hold up in EU court.

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.

I want to see how they will make this transfer of ownership work. Why would there need to a transfer if it's a subscription? A new customer would just sign up themselves. If you have a game that is say Xbox live or cloud. Transferring ownership almost makes no sense unless your totally giving up everything you ever did with that account.

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

I'm pointing out that it's limited to personal sale. Not buy as many iPhones you want and resell them with changes you personally made.

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.

I like that it starts off unlocked no matter what.

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

30% cut is more efficient and easier to implement. Plus it's currently paid monthly. Which gets reported as profits every quarter. I don't think they could do this yearly even if they wanted to. Wall Street needs to be fed.

They get a 99$/year fee. If this is too low or normal games don’t cover the cost they should increase this fee.

If they increase the fee then those that make free games will not put free games out there. Which will prevent more developers from making anything. And even then, what's a good price? If EPIC can handle say a $100 million a year fee vs a small shop just starting out. That can maybe support $1million. Is that a fair? What if EPIC doesn't sell well that year, they have to still anti-up $100 million. What if the small shop does really well, they only pay $1 million.

30% cut works just like a physical store at time of sale. It's even cheaper than any store's cut. It's the better way.

Or they can suck it up and see it as a customer feature

No business sucks anything up. They charge a fee if they incur a cost. They have to pass that along. They are a publicly traded company.

Easy
1: increase yearly fee.

$99 is cheap enough anyone could start doing this. Base model Mac mini, an old monitor and keyboard/mouse and you can start programing and putting apps up on the Appstore. Ad generated revenue or charge for IAP's. If they change this model, the fee will be obscene and therefor lower the amount of developers willing to try.

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

Who/Whom is in charge of keeping track of this? Again, if this is yearly. It wouldn't work.

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.

How would you bake the costs in? Who's paying the cost, the consumer? The developer with the "fee", or does Apple overcharge for all the services they currently provide? Maybe double the price of the iPhone.

The courts are not here in the interest of apple.

Clearly.

They couldn’t care less. The system is designed to heavily bias consumer rights.

I still haven't seen anything that really is that much in consumers favor that isn't already in the US. Again, business aren't people in the EU as it is in the US. But, other than that. Seems pretty much similar enough to prevent piracy, illegal redistribution of software (aka pirating). You can't modify the software/hardware and resell it as your own to the masses. you an to an individual if you wish, but you can't open up a store and do that at scale.

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.

This is where the EU is stupid. Let me force everyone to use the same plug. Never mind the fact that we only recently got USB-C. We had to go thru the hell of A-B-micro variants-C. For them to say "I like C". So what happens when USB-D comes out. You're all stuck on C. If anything we should all agree with is that this, this right here is stupid. And that your and our politicians don't know $#!T about technology.

What happens when Apple says "F EU, we taking away the plugs. WiFi forever!". What then, the EU gonna make Apple put a plug in it? Why didn't they force everyone to put back floppies and headphone plugs?

As for the force them to allow side loading. They will make it such a pain in the ass, no one would do it.

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

First it was the PIIGS and now Brexit. Can't wait to see what comes next.

 

[pacalis]

Well technically there is, if apple can prove that 30% margins are needed to cover costs compared to 4-7.5% fee(theorized minimum margin) with healthy margin it would legitimate their take, but if it’s not legitimized it can be argued it’s anti competitive because developers can’t artificially use better payment systems

2% to 3.5% of Apple's 30% goes to to M/C Visa and AMEX and it would be the same with EPIC. Your minimum charge 4-7% seems to come from nowhere.

I'm telling you 30% margin for the distributor is very common, if not low, for the vast majority of products.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Doesn't seem to matter if you did sign something physical or digital before hand. It's not enforceable either way it seems.

it matters legally. if you have a contract(EULA are contracts) presented before transfer of ownership, it will be legaly binding as long as it dosent break the law. Now if you do the same thing but after the purchase is complete it's nolonger legaly enforcable

Again from what I have seen, it's still protecting it enough. You have rights in regards to selling the device and OS to someone else. No issue. Also, you can't be a pirate shop and buy in mass and resell hacked or modified hardware/software.

Thats a buisness, and not comparable to private citizens selling products. you can sell your hacked or modified private iphone as second hand.

Hard to do when all the lollipop smashers and gold bars are tide to an account. Who/Whom facilitates this type of transfer? Is there any taxes collected or VAT in the EU?

VAT and Taxes arent colelcted on second hand goods. so nobody collects anything. VAT is only done Buisness to Buisness to consumer transactions as the consumers pay the final VAT. And not hard at all as steam already have similar systems inplace as you can gift away game copies, you can sell thins on steam market such as game cards, boxes and keys etc between players. it's just an arbitrary limit with games.

Depends, did you purchase it from someone that sold you a used/broken phone? Your union rules are a mystery to me so I can't answer that.

from dave, he bought a new phone and just restored his old iPhone before he sold it to me. I get it already fixed for me to slide up and se the home screen with the standard apps.

But if you physically can't transfer the game or account, this is mute. It could be invalid but without a mechanism to make the transfer.

well you can, steam already have such abilities implemented for everything BUT the games themselves. you can eve nrefund games. Me refunding a game to get my money back to just buy the same games a gift is essentially the same thing but without a time limit and custom price.

Again, the Union is a strange place for us American's.

Not so much strange but the fundamental difrence how Civil law and common law works

Still, you can't be a pirate shop. Users rights all day, but you can't do anything you like. There are clearly parts of the EULA/Terms etc that will hold up in EU court.

No, not at all. Copyright is and other legal obligations are covers everything with or without a singed contract.
Example if i buy coca cola and manages to put it in a copy machine, i would't not be legally allowed to sell it as i dont have a license granting me the right to sell copies of their IP. i can always resell my one copy. same legal interpretation with programs.

I want to see how they will make this transfer of ownership work. Why would there need to a transfer if it's a subscription? A new customer would just sign up themselves. If you have a game that is say Xbox live or cloud. Transferring ownership almost makes no sense unless your totally giving up everything you ever did with that account.

I'm pointing out that it's limited to personal sale. Not buy as many iPhones you want and resell them with changes you personally made.

well i have only talked about personal sales. private and corporate rights are not equal in EU. rights you can sign away to a company would be illegal to a private person, and rights a private person always have, a company do not have unless explicitly agreed to etc

if i subscribe to xbox live gold and get games for free they are part of a subscription and equal to netflix as acsess is denied the second i end the subscription. it's only about individual purchases. they would do as they do with refunds, just ad an extra step of transfering the ownership to someone else.

I like that it starts off unlocked no matter what.

the Carriers did not like it at all and fought tooth and nail to keep it.

30% cut is more efficient and easier to implement. Plus it's currently paid monthly. Which gets reported as profits every quarter. I don't think they could do this yearly even if they wanted to. Wall Street needs to be fed.

30% is no more easy to implement than any arbitrary number as it's all just numbers on a spreadsheet. the industry have many models to go by that apple could copy or modify.

If they increase the fee then those that make free games will not put free games out there. Which will prevent more developers from making anything. And even then, what's a good price? If EPIC can handle say a $100 million a year fee vs a small shop just starting out. That can maybe support $1million. Is that a fair? What if EPIC doesn't sell well that year, they have to still anti-up $100 million. What if the small shop does really well, they only pay $1 million.

that will be upp to apple to balance as the app store is a user feature first and foremost, not a revenue stream.
apple could just implement it:
Developing and releasing a game made with Xcode is entirely free(pluss 99$/year developer fee), with a 5% royalty due to Apple only when a game/program passes $1,000,000 in gross revenue is earned. To report your earnings, complete and submit the royalty form on a quarterly basis.
This can ofcourse be mostly automated with sales on app store. and include card fees.

it's nt what is fair, it's what is right to the developers. the law should't discriminate on allowe payemnts based on sice

30% cut works just like a physical store at time of sale. It's even cheaper than any store's cut. It's the better way.

luckily not a legal argument against In app purchases.

No business sucks anything up. They charge a fee if they incur a cost. They have to pass that along. They are a publicly traded company.

yes they do as it's seen as an investment . Every dollar spent on the store is more people with iPhones in their hands etc or did i miss my iMessage bill or iOS update fee? Unless of course it's all included in the iPhone sales price

$99 is cheap enough anyone could start doing this. Base model Mac mini, an old monitor and keyboard/mouse and you can start programing and putting apps up on the Appstore. Ad generated revenue or charge for IAP's. If they change this model, the fee will be obscene and therefor lower the amount of developers willing to try.

why would the cost be obsene? or you work from the asumtion apple must keep their yearly revenue? lucky us that EU places no value on this. if apple thinks its better to increase the developer costs and potentialy lose developer investments or swallow their greed and look long term is all up to them. once again EU and i do not take in to consideration their revenue streams contrary to the rights of developers and consumers.

Who/Whom is in charge of keeping track of this? Again, if this is yearly. It wouldn't work.

apple would, and could be monthly or quarterly. it's a simple licensing fee based on revenue. it's extremly easy to implement considering apple already tracks every developers income through every transaction made on the store. apple would simply just dictate that every transaction must register on their developer account or a million other solutions.

How would you bake the costs in? Who's paying the cost, the consumer? The developer with the "fee", or does Apple overcharge for all the services they currently provide? Maybe double the price of the iPhone.

how? the same way they do now with "free" services we as customers pay for by higher price on goods. And apple already have doubled the price on the iPhone so perhaps you're on to something

I still haven't seen anything that really is that much in consumers favor that isn't already in the US. Again, business aren't people in the EU as it is in the US. But, other than that. Seems pretty much similar enough to prevent piracy, illegal redistribution of software (aka pirating). You can't modify the software/hardware and resell it as your own to the masses. you an to an individual if you wish, but you can't open up a store and do that at scale.

well you can modify software/ hardware that you own and sell it. Selling a jailbroken second hand phone is legal. Selling and iPhone with a USB-C port is completely legal, or rainbow-colored chassis etc.
But yes you can't open up a store and do it on mas because you would be a business. But you can open a business, purchase preowned iPhones or other phones, modify them and resell them (we have multiple such companies)
1. you automatically own things you purchase
2. contracts are null and void if precented after the transaction is complete.
3. apple say jailbreaking is a breach of TOS/EULA. EU explicitly say it okay because you own the device.
4. apple claims they can deny warranty service if i modify the software/ hardware. EU say they cant do that unless they explicitly prove my tampering is objectively responsible within the first 6 months(6 moths minimum, or more depending on region) or i as a consumer proves my tampering is not responsible (full guarantee period minimum 3 years)

This is where the EU is stupid. Let me force everyone to use the same plug. Never mind the fact that we only recently got USB-C. We had to go thru the hell of A-B-micro variants-C. For them to say "I like C". So what happens when USB-D comes out. You're all stuck on C. If anything we should all agree with is that this, this right here is stupid. And that your and our politicians don't know $#!T about technology.

Could be, it's more the fact all these manufactures signed an agreement to try and have a unified standard. and now Eu have said they now must use the Type C port( not the USB protocol) and a unified use of the USB PD standard as a base instead of arbitrary limits between manufacturers limiting you to 5w charing.

Remember this is somthing apple and 10 other leading manufacturers agreed to in 2009 and every step of the way EU refused and sticks with its position that the industry will regulate itself with a common chargin port, and ir

What happens when Apple says "F EU, we taking away the plugs. WiFi forever!". What then, the EU gonna make Apple put a plug in it? Why didn't they force everyone to put back floppies and headphone plugs?

because what happen as they explicitly put in an exemption for wireless charging. the legislation covers all kinds of devices to the one common charging port not the data protocol. we already all have 240v and universal wall sockets, etc havin industry standards arent a bad thing. apple have had years to update lighting beond usb 2,

As for the force them to allow side loading. They will make it such a pain in the ass, no one would do it.

trust me, making it hard to do would not be allowed, could be implemented same way Microsoft was forced to present Internet Explorer competitors on setup. But that is what we get because apple refused to drop it's in store mandate.

First it was the PIIGS and now Brexit. Can't wait to see what comes next.

PIIGS was forced by Eu banks enorder for the mto be willing to borroq out money.and brexit was entirely UP to UK sitizens so?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

2% to 3.5% of Apple's 30% goes to to M/C Visa and AMEX and it would be the same with EPIC. Your minimum charge 4-7% seems to come from nowhere.

I'm telling you 30% margin for the distributor is very common, if not low, for the vast majority of products.

actually in Eu card fees from M/C Visa are caped at 0.2% debit and 0.3% credit cards since 2015. they might pay 3% in US but not EU.

so apple having a 4-7% minimum rate to have a small profit is plucked from the stamens made by Apple and Epic witnesses in the trial
and apple runs operational margins of at least 78% to 88%
Of a 100$ apple keeps 30$ of these 30$ only 12-22% is estimated to be costs.
making it a minimum 3.6-6.6% fee with no revenue. hence i stated 4-7% minimum possible fee with profits.

Until apple disproves this and provides accurate profit margins.
and dont forget in EU you pay a 20%(varies on country 17-27%) VAT on digital goods. so developers keep less than 50-60% of the revenue.

 

[Maximara]

2% to 3.5% of Apple's 30% goes to to M/C Visa and AMEX and it would be the same with EPIC. Your minimum charge 4-7% seems to come from nowhere.

That is incorrect. The fee is dependent on what the payment processor deems to be transactions with greater risk of fraud and chargebacks. "For a rough rule of thumb, you should expect 3.95% – 4.95% for qualified rates." Computer software would fall under High-Risk Merchant Account and the rates on those can get insane:

"Host Merchant Services also stresses that it’s tough to give general numbers because so many factors affect pricing (including industry, processing history, and more) but that there are some rough rules of thumb. On the “lower” end, you may see rates starting around 2.89% for industries like bail bonds, while nutraceuticals will fall around 3.75% + 25 cents to start, and other products like teeth whitening may go up to 6% or 7%."

Ultra-high-risk offshore merchant accounts can run 10% or higher but banks generally give the hairy eyeball on any business that gets that high a rate.

Some things that can kick you into a high risk category: US$20,000+ monthly sales volume; Average credit card transaction of US$500+; accept multiple currencies; software, digital, tickets, seasonal items; and selling anywhere outside the US, EU, Canada, Japan, or Australia.

Apple computer checks nearly all those boxes; so them having a 4-7% rate is totally within reason.

 

[SegNerd]

Just take the L W, Apple. This is an incredibly minor concession compared to what Epic wanted.

 

[Maximara]

Just take the L W, Apple. This is an incredibly minor concession compared to what Epic wanted.

Remember Apple appealed only after Epic did. If Epic had just realized they had basically lost we wouldn't be here. Don't blame Apple for Epic's stupidity. Epic's lack of a shopping cart for 2+ years shows just how dumb they were - anyone with a functioning brain in their head knows how to make one of those or if they can't be bothered use the service of someone who has them ready to go. Epic did neither and at late as July 2021 was still talking about having a shopping cart..."someday".

Epic has said they are losing money on their store (ie it is being propped up by Fornite whales). Epic had already put over half a billion dollars into their store and then you have all the lawyer fees and money Epic had to pay Apple for transactions made outside the App Store:

"The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely: damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment." - Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 Page 180 of 185

Epic tries to paint a rosy picture but reality is they clearly don't know what they are doing...in or out of the courtroom.

Developers will find out that all Epic has done is made it more expensive to do things outside the Apple store as not only will they be paying the 4-7% CC fee for a High Risk Merchant Account but 15% or 30% of Apple's fee on top of that (Even the court said Apple is entered to their percentage made outside their store per Apple's Developer Product Licensing Agreement). This is assuming the developer isn't paying for an accountant to certify that the information they give Apple is correct.

 

[Maximara]

actually in Eu card fees from M/C Visa are caped at 0.2% debit and 0.3% credit cards since 2015. they might pay 3% in US but not EU.

so apple having a 4-7% minimum rate to have a small profit is plucked from the stamens made by Apple and Epic witnesses in the trial
and apple runs operational margins of at least 78% to 88%

Which is claimed by an Epic witness. Apple's own witness, Richard Schmalensee, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics expert, said that Barnes’s “estimate of the App Store’s operating margin is unreliable because it looks in isolation at one segment of the iOS ecosystem in a way that artificially boosts the apparent operating margin of that segment.” He added that “any accounting measure of the App Store’s stand-alone profitability is also arbitrary and thus unreliable as an indicator of anything.”

Of a 100$ apple keeps 30$ of these 30$ only 12-22% is estimated to be costs.

Remember that Apple hosts free programs (no income), has 15% below $1 million pre tax gross, and 30% for the big boys.

Until apple disproves this and provides accurate profit margins.
and dont forget in EU you pay a 20%(varies on country 17-27%) VAT on digital goods. so developers keep less than 50-60% of the revenue.

That is not how the US court system works. One has to prove that the 30% industry standard is out of line not that Apple has to justify its 15%-30% fee. Sure the judge stated "In light of Apple’s 30% commission, the Court is not persuaded that developers could not obtain these features more cheaply from other companies." but based on the IGN article I have to ask just where did the judge think developers were going to go Humble Bundle, Epic, or Itch.io? They are small players for a reason. All the other companies were asking 30%.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which is claimed by an Epic witness. Apple's own witness, Richard Schmalensee, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics expert, said that Barnes’s “estimate of the App Store’s operating margin is unreliable because it looks in isolation at one segment of the iOS ecosystem in a way that artificially boosts the apparent operating margin of that segment.” He added that “any accounting measure of the App Store’s stand-alone profitability is also arbitrary and thus unreliable as an indicator of anything.”

literally, a statement with no meaning from apple.
The iOS App Store have a fixed cost associated with it and then compare those costs with the revenue that comes from the app store.

1. development costs( xcode, swift etc)
2. server costs
3. peronal for maitanence and review process
4. data bandwith

App Store’s stand-alone profitability is not arbitrary but relevant in relations to the direct income it produces from apples 30% cut.

these are economists. apple have yet proven the information is wrong in any meaningful way. apple themselves are contradictory

Remember that Apple hosts free programs (no income), has 15% below $1 million pre tax gross, and 30% for the big boys.

is not relevant. 98% of developers don't earn more than 1 million. and as it all looks like their 50% cut in their fee will ony have a ~5% effect on their revvenue. seems more reasonable to almost eliminate the fees for develoeprs earning less than 1million

fo 100$ sale. apple can take 15-30$.those 15-22% being running costs is only about 4-6$ that is costs.

That is not how the US court system works. One has to prove that the 30% industry standard is out of line not that Apple has to justify its 15%-30% fee. Sure the judge stated "In light of Apple’s 30% commission, the Court is not persuaded that developers could not obtain these features more cheaply from other companies." but based on the IGN article I have to ask just where did the judge think developers were going to go Humble Bundle, Epic, or Itch.io? They are small players for a reason. All the other companies were asking 30%.

well that is how it works in EU. apple would need to justify their fee as why they artificaly limit consumer option and developer freedoms. And as it seems they have failed to do that and will suffer the legal consiquences.

 

[pacalis]

That is incorrect. The fee is dependent on what the payment processor deems to be transactions with greater risk of fraud and chargebacks. "For a rough rule of thumb, you should expect 3.95% – 4.95% for qualified rates." Computer software would fall under High-Risk Merchant Account and the rates on those can get insane:

"Host Merchant Services also stresses that it’s tough to give general numbers because so many factors affect pricing (including industry, processing history, and more) but that there are some rough rules of thumb. On the “lower” end, you may see rates starting around 2.89% for industries like bail bonds, while nutraceuticals will fall around 3.75% + 25 cents to start, and other products like teeth whitening may go up to 6% or 7%."

Ultra-high-risk offshore merchant accounts can run 10% or higher but banks generally give the hairy eyeball on any business that gets that high a rate.

Some things that can kick you into a high risk category: US$20,000+ monthly sales volume; Average credit card transaction of US$500+; accept multiple currencies; software, digital, tickets, seasonal items; and selling anywhere outside the US, EU, Canada, Japan, or Australia.

Apple computer checks nearly all those boxes; so them having a 4-7% rate is totally within reason.

I agree with you. I was taking the same position.

The person I responded to said that Apple should only charge developers 4-7% which I think is absurd. I was trying to say Apple's cost basis was already approaching 4% and you're saying it is even higher.

As I said earlier, I find the 30% fee quite reasonable. Frankly, given that Apple sells premium products, a case could be made that it would be reasonable for them to charge higher.