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

[justanotherdave]

Because they lost on one of the most significant points lol.

I don’t think so. The only way developers will get consumers to switch to an outside payment system over using Apple is via some sort of incentive. And that would be price. There just isn’t enough wiggle room in that 30% to make it worthwhile for consumers to switch. 15% is the number many people have been floating as a price discount such that consumers will switch and developers also make a little extra. So a $2.99 App now sells for $2.54. Is anyone going to create an account and hand over their credit card information just to save a few pennies? Not likely.

Put it another way. The average user spends $100 in The App Store (in the US it’s closer to $140). Saving $15 to $21 is just not enough for people to start handing their credit card out to multiple entities.

it only becomes worthwhile for larger purchases (like a yearly subscription at $99). And companies offering those (Spotify for example) already use their own payment system.

I think the financial impact to Apple will be less than people think.

 

[Skewlovevism]

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.

What is worrying, is, that if somebody nicks your credit card info, scam you, …, using alternative payment, people will, most likely, blame Apple for everything. It might create a damage to customers, to brand and to an overall image
I know App Store is not perfect, but we chose it over Android, and Microsoft mobile, for a reason. If you do not like it, you can always switch. You will have more options, cheaper devices. As for developers, 15% or 30% percent, is a bargain. The pre App Store hustle, developers were lucky to get probably 30 to their pockets, not 70. People will moan and want more for less.

 

[justanotherdave]

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.

Not true. Declaring smartphones essential is a path (according to Epic) to allow 3rd party stores. Epic argues that if something is essential it can’t be restricted. The problem is smartphones come stock with the ability to perform anything that might even remotely ever be ruled as essential. Installing Fortnite isn’t essential.

Your history is off. Apple didn’t force rules AFTER The App Store became successful. The rules were there from the beginning. This is why Apple won’t be found guilty of antitrust. IF Apple originally had a lower commission (say 15%) and then raised it to 30% after The App Store took off, then it would be a clear antitrust violation. This applies to any major change to contract terms that would favor Apple and harm developers.

The opposite has actually occurred. Apple has removed some restrictions and lowered fees over the years.

 

[davidako]

Not true. Declaring smartphones essential is a path (according to Epic) to allow 3rd party stores. Epic argues that if something is essential it can’t be restricted. The problem is smartphones come stock with the ability to perform anything that might even remotely ever be ruled as essential. Installing Fortnite isn’t essential.

Your history is off. Apple didn’t force rules AFTER The App Store became successful. The rules were there from the beginning. This is why Apple won’t be found guilty of antitrust. IF Apple originally had a lower commission (say 15%) and then raised it to 30% after The App Store took off, then it would be a clear antitrust violation. This applies to any major change to contract terms that would favor Apple and harm developers.

The opposite has actually occurred. Apple has removed some restrictions and lowered fees over the years.

Apple has routinely offered special deals for larger companies to entice them into their system. Apple has never been fair or consistent with their App Store policies.

 

[vipergts2207]

I don’t think so. The only way developers will get consumers to switch to an outside payment system over using Apple is via some sort of incentive. And that would be price. There just isn’t enough wiggle room in that 30% to make it worthwhile for consumers to switch. 15% is the number many people have been floating as a price discount such that consumers will switch and developers also make a little extra. So a $2.99 App now sells for $2.54. Is anyone going to create an account and hand over their credit card information just to save a few pennies? Not likely.

Put it another way. The average user spends $100 in The App Store (in the US it’s closer to $140). Saving $15 to $21 is just not enough for people to start handing their credit card out to multiple entities.

it only becomes worthwhile for larger purchases (like a yearly subscription at $99). And companies offering those (Spotify for example) already use their own payment system.

I think the financial impact to Apple will be less than people think.

Most people’s credit cards go to multiple entities already. Do you only buy stuff from Apple and Amazon?

 

[cliveren13]

Apple knows whats best for you leave and your iPhone will be disabled and you will be banned from ever owing one again you have been warned.🤣BIG BROTHER AT ITS FINEST.

 

[justanotherdave]

Apple previously stated Epic could put Fortnite back into The App Store if they accepted the ruling and didn’t appeal. That sounds to me like Apple would have also accepted the ruling.

Epic appealed anyway, so now Apple appeals. I don’t think Apple would have appealed if Epic accepted the outcome. By accepting the ruling it solidifies Apples position on all the other counts (like allowing 3rd party App stores, which would be far worse than allowing developers to direct to payments).

 

[justanotherdave]

Most people’s credit cards go to multiple entities already. Do you only buy stuff from Apple and Amazon?

Not for a bunch of random under $5 purchases. Me buying a TV from Best Buy is not equivalent to handing my credit card details over for an App that costs as much as a coffee.

 

[justanotherdave]

Apple has routinely offered special deals for larger companies to entice them into their system. Apple has never been fair or consistent with their App Store policies.

No, Apple has offered early access to features for some companies before filing them out to everyone.

 

[spartan1967]

This is all about case law. The judge's ruling with Epic let that genie out of the bottle and Apple is going to try and put it back in. Which, with at least future U.S. laws against big tech starting to look like reality and lawmaker sentiment on both sides of the aisle, will not happen.

 

[Krizoitz]

That point about Apple shipping the phone blank actually could work. They launched a MDM-specific feature that allows one single app to be automatically installed upon enrollment into a device management server in conjunction with Automated Enrollment.

What all that means is they could repurpose those features to install the App Store upon first boot of the new iPhone if the customer requested it at the time of purchase, similar to how you can custom build a Mac with ram, storage, etc. It just checks the serial number against the activation database and downloads the cloud configuration with the app manifest. From there, iOS could be offered as a “product” like macOS is listed in the Mac App Store. The groundwork has already been done, and if push comes to shove, they just might do it. I bet they’ve already played with it internally.

Of course it could be done, that’s irrelevant. The point is why should it HAVE to be done. Cars could be sold as empty frames and consumers could pick the parts. It would be a PITA for the vast majority of users. Same with forcing smartphones to be blank slates. Someone could do that today with Android. Why don’t they? Because people want a device they can actually USE out of the box, not something that takes hours to set up and requires far more knowledge.
Meanwhile, FORCING a company to do that against their will is utterly ridiculous. Customers can choose whether they want an iPhone or an Android phone now. That’s the choice. Use it.

 

[vipergts2207]

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.

Have you heard of a chargeback?

 

[Krizoitz]

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”.

That’s not what irreparable harm means in the courts. Thanks for proving you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Krizoitz]

Ah, the intricacies of the French language . Voilà!


No, only certain categories of apps are allowed to that, i.e. “viewer apps” such as Netflix.

Nope, wrong. You can purchase b-bucks on any platform and use them (well you could before Epic threw their tantrum and broke the App Store rules) in Fortnite on iOS.

 

[vipergts2207]

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.

What’s interesting is that people will say developers can just develop on Android if they don’t like Apple’s rules and in the very next breath say that developers just want to use Apple’s tools and services because that platform is where the money is at. If there’s no money to be made on the alternate platform then that’s not a real choice a business can actually make, which is very much an anti-trust issue.

 

[I7guy]

It will end soon, give it a year, in this case they won’t be able to appeal:

Digital Markets Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are way too optimistic the appeals process works against apple.

 

[vipergts2207]

Not for a bunch of random under $5 purchases. Me buying a TV from Best Buy is not equivalent to handing my credit card details over for an App that costs as much as a coffee.

I still wouldn’t care whether it’s a $5 purchase or a $1000 purchase. It’s a credit card, I’m not at any risk.

 

[I7guy]

What’s interesting is that people will say developers can just develop on Android if they don’t like Apple’s rules and in the very next breath say that developers just want to use Apple’s tools and services because that platform is where the money is at. If there’s no money to be made on the alternate platform then that’s not a real choice a business can actually make, which is very much an anti-trust issue.

Choice is being able to choose where you want to make your money and how you want to make your money. If a choice is to develop on IOS, there are terms and conditions that go along with that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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?

Should Honda receive a commission on your purchase, just because they made the car that took you to that shop?

Here's the thing: Once an app has been downloaded to your iPhone, it has been delivered by Apple. Any in-app "unlocked" functionality will basically be delivered by the app's developer.

If Netflix streams a movie to your Netflix iPhone app, it's not Apple delivering a service. And if Epic unlocks a golden crown or virtual sword (the digital assets of which were already included in the app download) for you in-game avatar, they're "delivering" the content they (not Apple) created.

The genius is just how Apple - in their role as a gatekeeper - can force developers to charge a commission nonetheless on theses enhancements.

Also, if there's only two chains of shops in the country that control 90% or more of the market, they will be regulated.

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

The argument doesn't fall flat.
Smartphones are becoming increasingly essential.

It's just arguable if and when that reaches a critical point or when the platform operators are found to stifle competition and therefore should (and will) be regulated. So far, U.S. courts and laws have largely decided that we haven't reached that point yet - that Apple can enforce their App Store rules. But the pressure against that is growing - at different paces in different jurisdictions.

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.

While that may be correct from a purely technical or theoretical standpoint, that does not accurately reflect the current demands and expectations of smartphone users.

"Could you live with or would you buy a smartphone / mobile phone without additional apps to install" is the only questions one needs to ask in that regard.

As for developers, 15% or 30% percent, is a bargain. The pre App Store hustle, developers were lucky to get probably 30 to their pockets, not 70. People will moan and want more for less.

Pre-App store, developer had to distribute physically and/or face piracy.

30% isn't a bargain for mere payment processing at all. And Apple does hardly do anything else on in-app purchases. Though they arguably "built the platform" on top of which everything else runs.

 

[I7guy]

This is all about case law. The judge's ruling with Epic let that genie out of the bottle and Apple is going to try and put it back in. Which, with at least future U.S. laws against big tech starting to look like reality and lawmaker sentiment on both sides of the aisle, will not happen.

What's interesting is the genie was only partially allowed out of the bottle and there is still time to put the genie back in the bottle. Of course we can speculate on the future of big tech vis-a-vis regulation, and some people may drool with apple, google and facebook being broken up and fully regulated, but not likely to happen as it would plunge the US tech industry into the abyss. imo.

 

[vipergts2207]

Choice is being able to choose where you want to make your money and how you want to make your money. If a choice is to develop on IOS, there are terms and conditions that go along with that.

And if a single platform is the only viable place to make money in a critical market worth billions of dollars, governments should absolutely step in and regulate. I’m glad that’s exactly what we’re seeing.

 

[bobbie424242]

It will be regulated by other ways than this lawsuit, sooner or later, this decade.
The writing is on the wall and it is unavoidable.
Though the Apple exec mafia is strong for maintaining the status quo for as long as possible. These people are determined to extort their billions from developers.

 

[B-Mc-C]

This is what I believe what happened during 2008 App Store debut. Developers really should just charge iOS users 30% more than on android. They pay more on the phone, so does everything else. Apple’s “you can’t offer different prices” ruling is the one that needs to be abolished.

Considering Google collects the same exact 30% fee, this is one of the dumbest things I have heard.

 

[quarkysg]

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.

Let’s see. There’s road tax, property tax, income tax, import tax, export tax, oh, in addition to sales tax, and I’m sure many more types of government taxes. So why am I paying sales tax when I’m already paying income tax? Taxes are collected for a purpose. Different countries design their taxes according to their environment. Whether the taxes are used for public good depends on who is in charge, regardless of the country’s system.

Apple is a business and decided on their business model. Nobody is forced to do business with Apple.

It’s just silly to compare.

 

[I7guy]

And if a single platform is the only viable place to make money in a critical market worth billions of dollars, governments should absolutely step in and regulate. I’m glad that’s exactly what we’re seeing.

This goes against what I believe the judge said. Success is not illegal. The app store success is not illegal. Nor have you proven:
1. it's the only viable place
2. it's a critical market

While it's true any law in the land can be created, thankfully SCOTUS is on hand to balance that out. I'm glad that is what we are seeing with Apple appealing.