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

[Abazigal]

it's funny how all this moaning would stop if people who dont like the "walled garden" just didnt buy the iphone. And developers who didnt like the terms and conditions just cancelled their contracts and stopped making software on the platform. Is that not democracy? Freedom of choice?

I dont know of any goverment service that mandates the use of an iOS product. So its not some neccessary tool for life.

And just to labour the point, it's not like Apple pulled a fast one and changed the rules half way through developers signing these contracts. They were always there.

Let the market decide right? If people like things they stay and if people dont they die.
right? People didnt like Blackberry and Nokia so they died. Simple.

The problem precisely is that the market has decided. And some people (most notably the big players) aren't happy with that.

People by and large have signalled (via their wallets and spending habits) that they don't dislike walled gardens, because many of the rules, while onerous on developers, actually benefit the end user. And developers have no choice but to go to where the money is, even if it means giving Apple 30% of their earnings, because 70% of something is still a lot better than 100% of nothing over on the android side.

There has never been a genuine debate about the App Store, and the competition has no interest in having one. Notice how none of the recent lawsuits involve us consumers giving our testimonials about how we prefer the iOS App Store model? Notice how it's all about developers arguing that Apple is increasingly demonstrating monopolistic tendencies? Instead, the goal is to change the narrative and position the App Store as being fundamentally broken with the only remedy being alternative app stores free from Apple oversight.

If the debate were to boil down to one’s experience using the App Store, Epic and other App Store critics would lose. Every single time. This is nothing short of guerrilla warfare being waged by Apple's competitors, with the intent of slowly wearing down Apple's defences via a non-stop barrage of lawsuits.

Frankly, I find it tiresome. I find that many of their accusations are completely and utterly without merit, and if it's a fight they want, then I hope it's a fight Apple gives them.

 

[tekfranz]

I hope these rulings don’t turn the App Store into the mess that is the Google Play Store. What if the payment portal links go to a scam site?

 

[Pezimak]

I’m not surprised by this in the slightest, but I do think they will still lose. And it won’t do them any good in the long term. We shall see though.

 

[threesixty360]

While it's not strictly mandated, it is becoming increasingly impractical living without a smartphone. An de facto there's only two or three different brands of operating systems available - when purchasing a phone and when choosing a platform to download apps.

You can always make the argument that it's not government-mandated to have a phone number, bank account/payment card, electricity or a car - or that you can very well live without much modern technology like the Amish.

That doesn't mean it should be basis for public policy.


Yeah, why not let the market decide about in-app purchase methods?

If people like Apple's In-App Purchasing system, they stay.
And if they don't, someone else will process these transactions.

Haha. You know I never said a smartphone wasn’t mandated by government. I said an iOS smartphone isn’t mandated by any government. In fact worldwide the iPhone could never be mandated as it’s only 20% of all phones. Even in the USA over half the phones are android so again it couldn’t be mandated even if you tried.

back in the day windows was 90% of the computer market so it was pretty much mandated (even then PC’s didn’t have the reach that mobile phones have nowadays).

so your point makes no sense.
If IPhones stopped working tomorrow there would still be alternatives to do everything a customer would like to do.

 

[threesixty360]

Apple appeals the decision, like I predicted on this forum before.

The ruling is a major blow to Apple’s App Store business model, which is entirely based on restricting developers and consumers to Apple’s In-App Purchasing system and charging commission for every purchase.

For those that keep saying Apple is not harmed by the ruling, here is a quote by Apple themselves:

i think Apple is harmed not just by money lost but also the inability to have a secure system. iOS being more secure than android is a big selling point for them (whether you believe that is true or not).

I think they will drag this out whilst they make an sdk that has less features than their normal sdk (maybe it’s just a wrapper over safari web gl or whatever). And if they are forced to open their phone to 3rd party AppStore payments, apps will have to use that.

then the game is in apples favour. Devs will have to choose up to date sdk access or 3rd party payments.

they already have that choice somewhat with web apps / safari and they still choose native apps via Apple payments. So it would be interesting how many choose to develop on a more crippled system.

 

[MhaelK]

The problem precisely is that the market has decided. And some people (most notably the big players) aren't happy with that.

People by and large have signalled (via their wallets and spending habits) that they don't dislike walled gardens, because many of the rules, while onerous on developers, actually benefit the end user. And developers have no choice but to go to where the money is, even if it means giving Apple 30% of their earnings, because 70% of something is still a lot better than 100% of nothing over on the android side.

There has never been a genuine debate about the App Store, and the competition has no interest in having one. Notice how none of the recent lawsuits involve us consumers giving our testimonials about how we prefer the iOS App Store model? Notice how it's all about developers arguing that Apple is increasingly demonstrating monopolistic tendencies? Instead, the goal is to change the narrative and position the App Store as being fundamentally broken with the only remedy being alternative app stores free from Apple oversight.

If the debate were to boil down to one’s experience using the App Store, Epic and other App Store critics would lose. Every single time. This is nothing short of guerrilla warfare being waged by Apple's competitors, with the intent of slowly wearing down Apple's defences via a non-stop barrage of lawsuits.

Frankly, I find it tiresome. I find that many of their accusations are completely and utterly without merit, and if it's a fight they want, then I hope it's a fight Apple gives them.

Due to iOS‘s success Apple’s walled garden is basically acting as a monopoly (network externalities).

The actions of:

1) Becoming a monopoly through innovations and developing a new product.
2) and then using that monopoly to hinder competition, destroy other business, and exploiting its customers base.

Is not the same thing, and should not lumped under a “the market has decided“ statement.

A monopoly is bad for competition, innovation and consumers. And than is why competition and monopoly laws need to exists. People rightfully complain when Facebook, Google and Telecommunications companies etc abuse their power. Just because Apple has a image as a “good company” and people really like their products Doesn’t make everything they do the right thing. There is a big difference between being an Apple Fanboi and an Apple sheep - don’t be the sheep

If the protection of the Apple store, Apple pay, Apple decided which content is okay for you to use, Is a superior product, then consumers will prefer it even if other options are available to them. The walled garden on a mature product such as iOS only exists to fill the pockets of Apple, not to protect their customers.

 

[Abazigal]

Due to iOS‘s success Apple’s walled garden is basically acting as a monopoly (network externalities).

The actions of:

1) Becoming a monopoly through innovations and developing a new product.
2) and then using that monopoly to hinder competition, destroy other business, and exploiting its customers base.

Is not the same thing, and should not lumped under a “the market has decided“ statement.

A monopoly is bad for competition, innovation and consumers. And than is why competition and monopoly laws need to exists. People rightfully complain when Facebook, Google and Telecommunications companies etc abuse their power. Just because Apple has a image as a “good company” and people really like their products Doesn’t make everything they do the right thing. There is a big difference between being an Apple Fanboi and an Apple sheep - don’t be the sheep

If the protection of the Apple store, Apple pay, Apple decided which content is okay for you to use, Is a superior product, then consumers will prefer it even if other options are available to them. The walled garden on a mature product such as iOS only exists to fill the pockets of Apple, not to protect their customers.

Except I wouldn’t call Apple a monopoly. The courts have also ruled that the App Store isn’t one either.

Rather, I think the proper term is aggregator. Similar to Amazon and Facebook, an aggregator controls demand (ie: the end users) by providing a user experience so good that they flock to it, which draws supply (ie: developers) who in turn have to agree to Apple’s terms if they want to be able to access Apple’s user base.

And the reason why so many people continue to use Amazon, Google and Facebook for all the issues they cause is precisely because the underlying service is that good. Same for the App Store. It’s a problem for developers, not end users.

Which is why, as the end user, I am not against how the App Store is currently being operated, even as I acknowledge that some developers have issues with it. It comes down to my earlier argument - what’s good for me not being good for the developer, and what the developer wants may not be in my best interests as an Apple customer.

To me, buying an iphone is like joining a union. There are annoying parts, but as a whole it gives users a collective voice to force app makers to behave. If there are rival app stores, then the user base can be divided, losing power to app developers.

And that’s where the consternation lies.

 

[hans1972]

It needs to be explicitly stated. Like when you buy food from an app and it adds on the service charge or delivery fee. Apple should be legally required to add its fee on and show exactly how much they are charging (since the percentage sometimes varies).

No as consumers we shouldn't care who gets paid, only how much we pay.

When I buy coffee I don't want a list containing how much a plantation worker in Brazil got from that coffee. I just want to pay for the coffee and drink it.

 

[hans1972]

Your country’s laws apply to everything you buy, whether the store has an Apple logo on it or not.

So if an American got screwed over by a developer from Poland, how should they proceed?

Would you even take it to small claims court (or similar) for $5 or even $10 in your own country?

The reason why the system works almost perfectly now is Apple is present worldwide and doesn't loose anything by just accepting the customers claim even if it's wrong and unreasonable. The only looser is the developer.

 

[MhaelK]

Except I wouldn’t call Apple a monopoly. The courts have also ruled that the App Store isn’t one either.

Rather, I think the proper term is aggregator. Similar to Amazon and Facebook, an aggregator controls demand (ie: the end users) by providing a user experience so good that they flock to it, which draws supply (ie: developers) who in turn have to agree to Apple’s terms if they want to be able to access Apple’s user base.

And the reason why so many people continue to use Amazon, Google and Facebook for all the issues they cause is precisely because the underlying service is that good. Same for the App Store. It’s a problem for developers, not end users.

Which is why, as the end user, I am not against how the App Store is currently being operated, even as I acknowledge that some developers have issues with it. It comes down to my earlier argument - what’s good for me not being good for the developer, and what the developer wants may not be in my best interests as an Apple customer.

To me, buying an iphone is like joining a union. There are annoying parts, but as a whole it gives users a collective voice to force app makers to behave. If there are rival app stores, then the user base can be divided, losing power to app developers.

And that’s where the consternation lies.

iOS is so successfull it cant be ignorer and that gives Apple the power to act as a monopoly, not really towards its customers (you and I) but towards developers and other companies. If you want your customers to be able to reach your product on their phone, you need to apply by Apple rules and Apple pricing. Companies Can just ignore iOS but that would leave out much of the market, and for a product that also relies on network externatilites (number of users) it is just not an option. And if Apple doesnt like a product they Can just kill it by denying it access to iOS, even if Apple consumers like it - but consumers are not gonna switch platform for a single product or a product they Maybe dont even know exists. Instead they are now just blaiming the other Company for not making it available on iOS.

edit: not hating on the App Store and its guardian qualities. But even if iOS was opened up to other stores/sideloading the majority of all users would still only use Apple’s App store, but freedom would be given to those who (at their own risk) want to download app not approved by Apple. The question is who owns the iOS user? Apple or does the consumer has the right to chose on its own.

 

[hans1972]

Even if Apple can still charge commission, on purchases made outside apps, it is going to be much more difficult to collect it and they won’t be able to charge 30% because that would render the injunction useless. Thus, the ruling still harms Apple’s business model, as Apple confirmed themselves in this motion to stay the injunction (quote above).

I don't think charging a huge commission would violate the injunction. Only disallowing linking to an external site or similar.

 

[leman]

Why would Apple appeal a "resounding victory"? (their words)

They did not, they ask for more time to implement the court decision. Mind, I am not defending them here, it is very clear that they want to figure out how to do these things so that they stay with good profit. But I think the appeal is very understandable, the political climate regarding these things is changing rapidly and rash decision can have far reaching consequences, especially given the fact that it is not clear how the upcoming legistations will interact with each other. It is much smarter to wait a bit and see how things develop, all while coming with a solid plan how the App Store model can be change to give more choice to the developers without destroying what is good about it (solidarity-based contribution model, high quality of software, consumer protection, rich platform functionality for apps).

 

[thenewperson]

Wait, Apple said publicly it was pleased with the ruling, now it wants to appeal it??

Well, they still lost an aspect of it and they probably want to try their luck overturning that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You know I never said a smartphone wasn’t mandated by government. I said an iOS smartphone isn’t mandated by any government.(...)

Let's not pretend that there's a many relevant alternatives, shall we?

If IPhones stopped working tomorrow there would still be alternatives to do everything a customer would like to do.

There would be Android with the Google Play Store.
Which has very similar rules and fee structure to Apple's.
In other words: these two companies are a virtual duopoly, colluding in their rules and pricing.

i think Apple is harmed not just by money lost but also the inability to have a secure system

They aren't. As long as they control the App Store approval process and every app needs to be signed by Apple, there's no impact on the security model of the system.

So if an American got screwed over by a developer from Poland, how should they proceed?

Credit card companies have long since protected customers from fraudulent charges. So has PayPal. As long as someone has your credit card number (and even lowly hotel clerks do), they can attempt to charge your card for a small amount.

If you don't like the level of protection by established payment instruments/services and payment processors, but prefer Apple's, you can choose to make your in-app purchase through Apple's system. Or not make it at all.

 

[emmab2006]

Aww, big Apple wants it their way. accept the result Apple. and stop this childish pursuit of thinking you're the all holy Company, when we know you are not, you are like every other company, revenue drives your decisions, i know i am a developer for X Plane, ! don't pretend that money has nothing to do with this.

 

[davidako]

That makes absolutely zero sense.
Apple is saying IF they are forced to change BY regulation it will harm customers. How does that mean they have abused their position, when the harm hasn’t occurred now but would in the future if regulation forced a change? You are completely backwards on this…

The only software that should be able to cause “irreparable harm to customers” are things like life support systems.

If Apple’s App Store presents that kind of danger then they’ve clearly got far too much control over the mobile software industry.

Apple are complaining that this harm is due to the legal system. But who’s to say the next harm might not just be a bad decision by an Apple executive?

If a battery risks harming a customer then it gets recalled. The App Store needs to be recalled and redesigned so even in the worst case the only thing that customers risk is “mild inconvenience”, not “irreparable harm”.

 

[SurferPup]

 

[Manzanito]

I still find it surprising how emotionally involved some people become with this. These are two rich companies fighting over how they’re going to split the money we give them, it’s hard to side with any of them.

 

[Mr. Jenkins]

Yes. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of the people defending Apple’s commission are at the same upset about the government’s sales tax (which by the way is much lower than Apple’s commission), even though the latter is used for the public good and the former ends up in Apple’s already deeply filled pockets.

I think that’s comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended.

 

[So@So@So]

Looks like the Netherlands will be next

 

[Kal El]

I’m still confused by this all.
should I be allowed to go in a shop and pick what I want to buy but pay the maker or grower of the item direct rather than paying the shop?

 

[davidako]

I’m still confused by this all.
should I be allowed to go in a shop and pick what I want to buy but pay the maker or grower of the item direct rather than paying the shop?

If you go into a shop and buy a newspaper and in that newspaper you see an advert for a product. So then you buy the product. Do you then go back to the shop and pay the shopkeeper 30% of the price for being a part of that sales chain? Do you also pay 30% to the newspaper printer? And 30% to the service station that provided the fuel that helped you travel to that shop?

If Apple deserves a slice of my Netflix subscription because I sign up on iPhone why not also if I sign up on a MacBook Pro?

 

[justanotherdave]

While it's not strictly mandated, it is becoming increasingly impractical living without a smartphone. An de facto there's only two or three different brands of operating systems available - when purchasing a phone and when choosing a platform to download apps.

This is an argument Epic makes and falls flat - that a smartphone is “essential”, like basic utilities (electricity, Internet).

Out-of-the-box smartphones already do anything that might ever be considered essential. Phone calls, messaging, email, Internet. Apps are optional and it would be very hard to argue that having access to additional Apps is somehow essential. It’s like saying Internet access is essential and then expecting it to be gigabit speed and come with a free computer.

 

[davidako]

This is an argument Epic makes and falls flat - that a smartphone is “essential”, like basic utilities (electricity, Internet).

Out-of-the-box smartphones already do anything that might ever be considered essential. Phone calls, messaging, email, Internet. Apps are optional and it would be very hard to argue that having access to additional Apps is somehow essential. It’s like saying Internet access is essential and then expecting it to be gigabit speed and come with a free computer.

Your argument would be valid if Apple allowed any way other than the App Store to install and update apps or security patches. Apple chose to make the App Store an essential component of their phones. They then exploited that position by demanding not only a percentage of everything that goes through it but also that people aren’t even allowed to discuss alternatives or change their prices to make up for Apple’s cut.

 

[Abazigal]

I’m still confused by this all.
should I be allowed to go in a shop and pick what I want to buy but pay the maker or grower of the item direct rather than paying the shop?

Closest analogy I can think of is walking into a hardware store to try out a new pair of Sony Headphones, then purchase it directly from amazon because it's cheaper.

Which you can theoretically already do by simply choosing to not subscribe from within the iOS app. For example, say you are using an iPhone and windows laptop. You could choose to subscribe to Netflix via your windows browser, and let Netflix keep 100% of the proceeds, or you could choose to subscribe via the iOS app and let Apple get a cut.

If Apple deserves a slice of my Netflix subscription because I sign up on iPhone why not also if I sign up on a MacBook Pro?

Probably because the majority of Netflix users come from smartphones. Apple views the 30% cut on iOS as adequate compensation for its contribution in customer acquisition, by making it easier for the end user to locate and download the app, as well as sign up for an account (which in turn increases the chances that they will stay a subscriber). Which is a lot less friction than expecting someone to navigate to an external website to create an account.

Imagine if Spotify had disabled iTunes billing inside its app when it debuted in 2010. It would have nowhere near the number of subscribers it enjoys today.