Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Appeal in Epic Games Lawsuit, Asks to Delay App Store Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One would think, though I can’t speak to every country’s laws.
Apple and Google knocked MS out of the relevant market, smartphone platforms and app stores. Consumers versus competitors knocking out other competition is meaningless semantics. Apple and Google offered products that consumers preferred. Market competition involves active participation by both consumers and businesses. It can’t even exist without both of them. And one of Apple’s business practices was deemed illegal. This is clearly about more than being a monopoly or not. That should be obvious since Apple is appealing.
You’re going to have to outline where you think I even set up any kind of equivalency in the statement you quoted because I don’t see one. And so far Apple hasn’t exactly been prevailing and I see no indicators that will suddenly change.
Last edited:
I’m not sure what kind of third-rate credit card companies you use, but I use ones that protect their customers from fraud, allowing me to spend freely without concern in the event of some kind of scam.
Just American Express, Visa and Master Card. I believe these are the top three third rate credit card companies. Regardless when fraud occurs, you are protected provided it is reported. I had fraudulent charges recently and when it happens it is a major pain to deal with a cancelled credit card that is used for automatic payments.
We aren't talking about fraudulent charges. We are talking about just being dissatisfied with the software.
In Europe many people only have debit cards. Even if they have credit cards, getting money back can be an ordeal. Here in Norway, you don't call VISA or Mastercard, but your local bank. And they are only legally required to give you money back if you didn't receive what you paid for.
Just being dissatisfied often don't fulfil such a requirement. And there is forms to be filled out and you have to provide evidence that you have tried to get the money back directly from the developer.
With Apple, you don't even need a reason. They usually just do it even if you have no reason to get your money back.
Hey the same three I use, plus Discover. Interesting that you’ve had fraud occur and I have not, even though you actively try to minimize your ‘attack surface’. Seems like perhaps it’s more of a function of where you buy, rather than how many places you buy from.
Most likely (still a guess, but a good one) is that Apple will allow a link to purchase via the app developer. This link will keep you in the AppStore. So no leaving and having to go through that maze of BS. So the "customer" doesn't think anything different. They will be presented with a price via the AppStore or the Developer.
If the developer is selected and the transaction goes through. Apple gets a commission. Say, 10% instead of the standard 30%. The developer "could" lower the price by that difference if they choose to. Or they could charge more or the same as before. Never the less, you don't leave the store while doing this. You stay in the same screen and complete the purchase. Also, if you need a refund or had some other issue with your purchase. You have to contact the developer. You deal with them and not Apple.
The fraudulent charges I got were right after a purchase on Walmart.com. It was a card I only use for online and automatic payments. So, the number of merchants you use affects your attack surface unless of course you think Walmart is also third rate. Some might agree about Walmart being third rate, I only bought from them because they had air pod pros at a great price.
It still wouldn't violate the injunction. Apple could increase it to 2 million percent if they wanted.
You think the fraud was committed by Walmart? How exactly do you think that went down?
The timing was probably coincidental and the fraud was a result of shopping somewhere else or you purchased something on Walmart’s website through a third-party seller. Though even then, I don’t know if third-parties are given your credit card info for payment. I actively avoid shopping there because they’re a garbage company.
It's not a one-way street.
In exchange for their (nearly) free developer account and low barrier of entry, Apple uses their large app ecosystem to tons of iPhones to millions of customers every year, earning billions of dollars in doing so.
Yes, and Apple use my internet carrier's internet connection to get their software and apps from their app store to my phone. Does that mean that my carrier should ask for a percentage of Apple's app sales? I mean they probably could block internet access to Apple's store servers.
But yes, Netflix are. On the other hand, if you look at Netflix's licensing costs, distribution costs (running / renting a CDN to stream videos), let alone their production costs for their own shows, a 30% commission for Apple seems disproportionately huge - when Apple is merely providing a software download platform and in-app payment processing.
There's no way that a 70-30 split fairly corresponds with the "intellectual input" or costs of providing the Netflix service.
Apple is clearly enjoying anti-competitive rates here (although one may view them as justified).
Lack of competition and Apple charging anti-competitive rates does not benefit developers.
They could "survive", yes.
While they may not be essential to surviving, they are increasingly becoming essential in terms of ecoonomic and social inclusion.
Many societies provide social housing for the poor or unable to work. And the developed provide electricity as well. Do you need electricity to survive? No. Yet most people in modern developed societies will probably agree that access to electricity is "kind of" essential. You are in many ways excluded from society without.
Is a smartphone as essential as electricity? Not really.
Are Epic's in-game purchases? Most certainly are not.
And we both know that the navigation probably sucks.
First, being dissatisfied is hardly a reason anywhere else to reverse a transaction for non-physical goods.
Second, it's a non-issue: Developers can easily offer trial - as shareware developer have done for decades.
So you're saying they're openly screwing developers by reversing customer's charges even when they aren't entitled to?
Apple made more money from IAP on iOS games than Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft combined. That's why they are appealing.
Apple Made More Money on Games Than Xbox, Sony, Nintendo and Activision Combined in 2019 - IGN
Apple is reportedly on top when it comes to video game revenue, despite not developing consoles or major AAA games of its own.
It’s an incredibly stupid argument anyway. Since when have governments been relegated to regulating markets of only the things required for survival?? That would pretty much be limited to food, water, and air. They’ve always regulated markets at large to ensure fair competition.
And how exactly does that help you if a developer changes business models and the old web app is no longer available?
Yes and app developers earn billions of dollars collectively.
This is just a false equivalency. An internet connection was not built as a digital marketplace. A more apt analogy is a toll road.
Does anybody look at your salary and declare you are earning too much? I don't recall other nonregulated sales being subject to scrutiny, they are of course subject to the court of public opinion. Such as car sales, software sales etc.
It doesn't have to.
Court rules apple isn't a monopoly and there was not ruling on the 30%. So their business model is legal from that perspective.
There is not a lack of competition, there are multiple venues to enter into a market for a fairly low fee and distribute your goods. It so happens the ios app store is a desirable market.
Increasingly essential to me is an overreach meant to justify an opinion as a fact. Increasingly productive, I agree.
Substitute water in the above and then compare it to a smartphone.
What are you talking about? there is xaomi, samsung, LG, Sony, Amazon, Plus One, Google etc.. etc../
All make Android phones that can do pretty much everything the iphone can do. I think you are confused.
Remember 80% of the phones sold in the world are not iphones. How can there be no alternatives?
And not to mention the forked versions of Android that dont have the Playstore (like ALL of China's phones).
In fact the reality is there is very little alternative to Android in the world, not iOS.
Again, Android has many forks. Its not just Google here. Android allows for any store on its devices, yet you still think google and apple are colluding. How can apple do more than what google are already doing, yet in your mind that wouldnt be good enough anyway!
What? Alternative app stores means they dont approve anything that runs on the platform. Someone else will. If that someone else has access to hidden API's etc.. you could easily do malicious things to a system. Apple would have no way of turning off that app. You will be where mac OS is. Which is fine if iOS wasnt also an emergency device that needs to be reliable and secure .
Also, Apple could not enforce privacy directives etc... it would lose control of the reasons people choose its platform.
I’m not sure you heard, but there was a recent court case. The judge decided that Apple was not a monopoly and the App Store and iOS are a single product. The App Store has never been available separately from iOS and neither of them have been sold, licensed or otherwise made available on other platforms. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal, having a monopoly on your own products is expected and getting ahead through superior products or business acumen isn’t illegal.
If anybody has anything to worry about, it’s google. Google has sold/ licensed android to 3rd party manufacturers and then mandated that they also use the Google Play store.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple offers. As a consumer, you must agree to Apples iOS licence agreement before you can even set up your iPhone. If you don’t agree with it, Apple give you a 2 week period in which you can return the device, no questions asked. Here, it is fully explained to the user that the hardware is theirs but the OS and software running on it is licensed to them. The OS and all services belongs to Apple. The user has a choice at this stage to accept the terms, or go elsewhere.
On utilising ANY business, the customer is bound by the terms and conditions of that business. If they don’t agree with them, they can go elsewhere.
There may be only one car dealership in your town. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a choice. A choice not to use a product/ service is still a choice.
There is very clear precedent that this not true as a legal matter. Standard Oil and AT&T wouldn’t have been broken up otherwise. Perhaps you’d like to qualify your statement.
Similarly, term and conditions, even one’s you voluntarily accepted, aren’t automatically legal. If Apple’s terms dictate that I give them my first-born child, that will not be upheld. In fact, in this case the judge said that Apple’s terms of not allowing external links and other calls to action to alternative payments systems is not legal. T&C are not the end all be all.
Last edited:
And that is standard business practice worldwide, in every single market. Not sure why the outrage just because “Apple”?
Apple said no such thing. Apple said at the start of the trial that Fortnight could be back on the App Store in the period during the trial if they abided by the terms and conditions that they initially agreed to. Apple put it to the judge that Epic can return the app to it’s pre-modified state and all funds raised go into escrow until the end of the trial. Epic refused this offer.
That offer was never to extend past the judgment.
No it’s not, a developer has many choices…
1) Do business on iOS
2) Do business on a multitude of other mobile platforms.
3) Do business on desktop
4) Do business on consoles
5) Get another job
The world doesn’t owe people a living. Apple doesn’t owe people a living. If you make a business around iOS apps, then you know and understand what the costs are going in and whether it will be profitable for you going forward. You cannot go into a business and make the people you do business with change their model to suit you.
This is the same for any business owner in any market worldwide. If the terms are not agreeable to your business model, you move on….not whinge and whine that life isn’t fair.