Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[jlc1978]

In August, OCBC became the first bank in Singapore to block some customers from using its internet banking and mobile banking app if it detected potentially risky apps downloaded from unofficial portals. The move drew flak from customers at the time.

what is scary as that one app can detect and react to ther apps. I prefer they stay in their lane.

 

[djphat2000]

I suppose it comes down to this either Apple doesn’t think that companies can’t process refunds on digital transactions and thinks they can’t be trusted because of security and if that’s the case then why allow them on the app store if you think that
Or it’s you want to maintain their bottom line and squeeze more cash out of individuals.

Apple had customers ahead of any developer wanting to or needing to or having to develop for the iPhone. iPhone came first. People immediately criticized it (those same developers) as a fail. They were wrong. Apple made plenty of money selling it and then allowed those developers to do so via an AppStore with a 70/30 split. This split was WAY more in favor for developers than any store had been prior. It made it EASY for both developer AND Apple's customer to acquire apps and distribute them world wide. And because it was EASY it was also inherently more secure than doing it yourself and going to site A, B, C, D, etc. Since YOU always know that the app came from Apple's store. It was checked and safe. Safer than going to any site, since you often can't or don't know how to confirm you're not getting scammed or installing a virus. That went away instantly with the AppStore. It simply solved ALL these issues the PC/Mac had to deal with, AND used less resources to do it. No Antivirus running in the background. No means to get anything not authorized into the device. While not impossible to break into the device (Jailbreaking and the like). It was harder for the end user to do something stupid to cause the issue. And, developers got every cent of that 70% from every sale. No loss, no damaged goods, no having to deal directly with the end user for a refund. Contact Apple they handle it. Yes, you give up control but, you get safety and privacy. If you want to deal directly with the developer for said product, you can go do so yourself. Otherwise, they don't have access to "YOU" without you giving it.

Because we live in an era where individuals of all ages are given smartphones then unfortunately in some cases things go wrong
However in most cases it is caused by the individual because they generally don’t understand and are given these devices fresh out the box with no help nobody because certain companies say it just works out the box so in turn by doing that no wonder individuals have issues but putting a payment link in an app will not make a blind bit of difference to privacy and security anyway because you can still by things on the internet using your iPhone anyway
So this argument is nonsense.

Not only did EPIC break the rules. They did exactly what Apple feared the outside world (outside the Appstore downloads, aka side loading) would do. Change the product maliciously. EPIC was a trusted vendor. They got highlighted all the time in the developer conferences. YOU as an Apple customer KNEW them and what they made. But, then they changed the product with an update that allowed Link-Out purchases. Which wasn't going to steal your life away or anything. But, what is to say they didn't add some Command and Control to the app. And now they track you, or they keylog you or get access to your camera, contacts, wallet, web browsing history, and on and on.

Some would say, Apple should have stopped it. And they would be right. They should have looked at the code before blindly approving it. But maybe they simply trusted them enough to believe they would not do such a thing. I don't have an answer for it. But, never the less EPIC just proved what could have happened if there was no App Store. In that instance, it did not work as advertised. Willing to bet it's working better now because of it though. But even a trusted app could change and get more of your info than you otherwise are willing to give. Or full access to your phone.

The other issues is still the fact that EPIC is stealing Apple's IP. No more than I or you are allowed to use the game Fortnite to advertise anything you or I make without express/explicit permission to do so from EPIC. EPIC is not allowed to with Apple's IP. Doesn't matter what anyone is being charged for the right to use it. You pay it or you don't use it. It's really just that simple.

 

[djphat2000]

what is scary as that one app can detect and react to ther apps. I prefer they stay in their lane.

If I had to guess, no different than an MDM (Mobile device management). As they can detect that you have a jailbroken phone or what iOS version you have. It wouldn't be hard to detect what iOS you're running, and if its jailbroken or not.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Which is why Apple needs to start charging for access up front, and let IAP be seperate

There is no economic “need” to do.
But I can imagine them being addicted to that sweet “services” revenue money enough - and plain greedy enough - to do it, yes.

On second thought: I can’t only “imagine” it - it has become default assumption by now, when it comes to these matters.

Amazon, Uber and food delivery aren’t the same as digital in-app purchases.

And entering your payment card details, bank account number (for a direct debit) or logging in through PayPal isn’t the same as paying by Apple ID.

In a similar vein, built-in apps aren’t the same as third-party apps. And Spotify isn’t the same as Apple Music - even though they both provide music streaming. Neither is Netflix Apple TV or iTunes movies. Even though both Spotify and Netflix used to offer in-app purchases using Apple’s In-app purchasing system.

I can not remember a single instance where one customer was confused about it. And trust me, I’ve served and supported the least tech-savvy, most naive and sometimes just plain dumbest amongst them for years.

But the reason Apple requires it is because customers benefit from consistency

But they don’t prevent from 30% commission - compared to others doing the processing themselves at 10% cost or less (and that includes the tax paperwork and payment processing).

I have no problems with Apple charging for that “consistency” premium - as long as they can be competed with. Fot transactions with the same customer base (a large share of the overall market that Apple commands). On, yes, the same platform device they’ve bought for hundreds of dollars and intend to keep and use for years.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

What does hosting an app have to do with giving Apple 30% of digital purchases? The vast majority of apps on the App Store are free to download and don’t require IAP to use.

Well, let's imagine a world where iOS/iPadOS apps can be distributed outside the store and that developers could host their apps on their own server/hosting. That server/hosting would come with a cost as well.

You're right that free apps sort of get free hosting from Apple. But then, they're free and don't make any money. If you're a developer and you are charging money for an app then Apple wants a cut for taking the burden of payments from you. And refunds. And hosting your app.

In a way Apple does benefit from free apps because they can say to potential iPhone buyers: "Hey, if you buy an iPhone ... we have a great AppStore with x thousands of apps"

Selling that iPhone is where the profit is for Apple. That same customer might then buy AirPods. Or a Watch.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

Because we live in an era where individuals of all ages are given smartphones then unfortunately in some cases things go wrong
However in most cases it is caused by the individual because they generally don’t understand and are given these devices fresh out the box with no help nobody because certain companies say it just works out the box so in turn by doing that no wonder individuals have issues but putting a payment link in an app will not make a blind bit of difference to privacy and security anyway because you can still by things on the internet using your iPhone anyway
So this argument is nonsense.

The argument isn't nonsense from Apple's point of view. The way Apple sees the AppStore is they want to offer their customers a seamless experience of buying apps, which are (supposedly) safe because they went through a review process. Not only that but if the customer isn't happy and wants a refund, the customer can request one.

The only way Apple can guarantee this experience is when they have total control over payments and refunds.

Now, let's say Epic will handle payments and refunds. They might do a good job. Or not. We don't know. Apple doesn't know either. What Apple does know is that the entire seamless customer experience of paying and getting refunds for an app is now out of their hands. That responsibility now lies in Epic's hands.

The fact that people can do purchases on the internet from eBay or Amazon or whatever, outside of Apple's control, is a totally different matter. Apple doesn't guarantee that every internet purchase or refund made with an iPhone will be a success. If a customer buys something outside the AppStore then normal rules apply. Temu might screw you. Or not. Nothing to do with Apple or iPhone.

Apple does guarantee a flawless experience for purchases made in the AppStore though. But the flawlessness of that experience can no longer be guaranteed if the process of payments and refunds moves to Epic. Or to other businesses.

And it some scammers out there start screwing things up, then all of a sudden it's Apple's and iPhone's credibility that suffers.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

But they don’t prevent from 30% commission - compared to others doing the processing themselves at 10% cost or less (and that includes the tax paperwork and payment processing).

I have no problems with Apple charging for that “consistency” premium - as long as they can be competed with. Fot transactions with the same customer base (a large share of the overall market that Apple commands). On, yes, the same platform device they’ve bought for hundreds of dollars and intend to keep and use for years.

If you're self employed or have a company and have to report your income to an accountant every month then you'll be dealing with a lot of invoices if every app sale equals an invoice and your app does well.

If you let Apple deal with payments and refunds then you have a single invoice per month to give to your accountant. A single invoice that tells the amount made through the AppStore.

The amount of time you save on admin can be spent on improving your app or building another app. Plus you can bring that commission percentage down to 15 if you follow the ideal path for purchases.

 

[ZeroInspo]

its not mandatory.
its there. you dont HAVE to use it if you stick to preinstalled apps and dont update them.

so having admitted the majority will continue to use it, why are we pushing for change to suit a minority that penalises the majority by changing the code on their phones as well?

if you want an open version, get Apple to fork the software and you can install that version instead and take all the risks while leaving us with a version we use now.

and then there will be cries "oh we didnt get new features" like those in the EU do when Apple decides it's too risky to add something immediately and geo blocks the feature.

lets face it, people will whinge no matter what.

I think your solution is a viable one actually. I make no claims as to what the solution should be, there’s many imo. That being said the reality is that the only reason this case exists is because Apple insists on the App Store being the only way to install apps. It is also reasonable that people should be able to use hardware they purchased however they want. Apple doesn’t have to make it easy as someone pointed out earlier in the thread but I think it would work in their favor if they did.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

That being said the reality is that the only reason this case exists is because Apple insists on the App Store being the only way to install apps.

Of course Apple insists on that. Because they have a guaranteed system of payments and refunds that customers can trust. And they have an app review process in place, which (sort of) guarantees no apps that do dodgy stuff and none of the apps that Apple doesn't want on their platform.

It is also reasonable that people should be able to use hardware they purchased however they want. Apple doesn’t have to make it easy as someone pointed out earlier in the thread but I think it would work in their favor if they did.

Not sure how Apple would benefit from people being able to install anything and do anything on their iPhones or iPads. If you want that sort of thing, there is an alternative. It's called Android. The source code is supposed to be open, except for the parts where Google needs to know who you are, where you are, what you're doing and what you're talking about. Those parts of the OS are sort of closed.

Despite all their tech, Google's reason for existing is to serve ads. 😉

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you're self employed or have a company and have to report your income to an accountant every month then you'll be dealing with a lot of invoices if every app sale equals an invoice and your app does well.

I can well imagine that for a self-employed developer or small company.
At Spotify’s and Epic’s scale though, that!s not a problem or big cost factor (relatively).

 

[wbeasley]

I think your solution is a viable one actually. I make no claims as to what the solution should be, there’s many imo. That being said the reality is that the only reason this case exists is because Apple insists on the App Store being the only way to install apps. It is also reasonable that people should be able to use hardware they purchased however they want. Apple doesn’t have to make it easy as someone pointed out earlier in the thread but I think it would work in their favor if they did.

I'd make it easy for all the whinger...

When you first boot your phone, Apple asks "do you want the full iOS experience or prefer Android on this hardware?"

End of story.

You can then decide and if you want open access to do what you want, you have it. And no further input or control from Apple. Install what you want. Take all the risk.

Much easier than modifying iOS and breaking it for everyone to satisfy the wants of a few.

And all the proprietary Apple hardware bits? no access. No secure Face ID etc.
Just a bog standard Android device effectively.

 

[zahuh]

What happens when an appeal goes in Apple's favor? Do you then side with Apple and "that" judge? Or will you come back in support of the first judge and EPIC anyway?

Not gonna happen. Too many businesses have already switched and there will be a huge retaliation. But to go with your hypothetical if it does happen, I will be in the position you are, hoping for a reversal again but respecting the judge's decision.

 

[jlc1978]

There is no economic “need” to do.
But I can imagine them being addicted to that sweet “services” revenue money enough - and plain greedy enough - to do it, yes.

They are a for profit company, and if they have a product that people will pay for then they should sell it. Nothing greedy about it; anymore than a developer is greedy for selling software at whatever price the market will bear. After all, it costs the developer next to nothing to ship one more program, so why should they charge for that; other than they want to make a living and spent time and effort creating something people will pay for and thus make money.

On second thought: I can’t only “imagine” it - it has become default assumption by now, when it comes to these matters.

Of course, it’s a basic fee market concept. People develop for iOS because it is a lucrative market, and now they want to get greedy and get more money; that was shown when Apple dropped the fee to 15% and developers didn’t magically reduce price, nor do subscription prices drop in year 2 when Apple drops the cut to 15%. Talk about greedy developers and content providers.

 

[31 Flavas]

The end goal for Epic is to have their Epic games store made available on iOS where they can not only keep 100% of iAP revenue, but also host other developers' apps and charge them a cut. In short, Epic is not seeking to improve the lot of developers (any benefit so far is entirely incidental). They just want the money to go to themselves instead of to Apple.

So having third party app stores only benefits you if you are the owner and don't have to pay a commission to anybody else. If you are a developer, I am not exactly sure why you would want to make your app available on the epic game store compared to say, Android or iOS (hypothetically speaking). Maybe the cut is a little lower, but you likely receive less traffic as well, so I don't really see how you will be better off in the long run. The only reason I can think of is that your app wasn't allowed on the App Store for certain reasons (eg: it's NSFW).

At this point, I don't know if Tim Sweeney can ever make his money back. Maybe he's just a man with a vendetta and too much money to burn, and he doesn't care how much money he loses on this lawsuit so long as he gets the final laugh.

Or well, Google could have not rigged 3rd party app stores and payments from the beginning: Which is what no one else wants to acknowledge from Epic vs Google. All though out Epic vs Apple I asked what you just truthfully answered. Google was the one being anti-competitive.

Google chose to offer a competitive landscape for developers. Then deliberately chose to unreasonably maintain its monopoly by picking and choosing who to offer incentives to so that they’d remain on the PlayStore maintaining its monopoly position and maintaining it is 30% cut to every other developer.

 

[me_in_japan]

Can I walk into Target and demand they sell whatever I want, and not pay them? Those are two totally different questions, but Epic's desires seem to mirror this. They seem unfathomable.

It’s not quite the same. If you buy an Apple product in Target, does Target get any future sales from Apple App Store, music or Apple TV? No.

Apple needs to be careful. When Microsoft forced all users to have internet explorer, the EU force Microsoft to offer alternatives. Whenever a PC was set up in the EU, users had to pick a browser.

There is nothing to stop the EU from doing the same. For example, giving users a choice of which streaming services they want installed on the Apple device.

 

[cyrrus]

Errrrmagerrrrd all these bootlickers.

Should Apple be able to take 30% of anything you buy online on a website? Should Apple get to take 30% of any transactions you make from you internet banking apps? How about if they took another 30% on top of the fee Uber Eats and Grub Hub takes? No? What's the difference? "Hurr durr it's their right".

They are taking 30% of subscription revenue for business services like accounting services which operate PRIMARILY on the web, but also have an app, if the app has a signup in the app.

They are artificially jacking the prices up on everything by bloating the costs without actually adding any value.

Enough with the bootlicking, as customers demand better! We need to get rentseekers out of the value chain.

30% of an in app purchase for candy crush, which was promoted on the App store where I discovered it.... Fine....

30% of a software service I primarily use on the web, like business software. No.

30% of the food I order online, or when sending money to family and friends with banking apps. **** no.

Where is the line is what is being debated - NOT whether they should have a carte blanche right to do so without criticism.

 

[coolfactor]

Should BestBuy be forced to hand out Walmart coupons to customers? That would never fly in the physical world. Why is linking mandated within the App Store?

The real issue is that the App Store is the only officially supported way to get apps onto the iPhone (outside the EU).

Apple should just build an "App Store platform" allowing anyone to build an app store on top of an Apple-provided secure foundation. Those stores can then charge whatever they want for apps (while hosting the binaries and paying processing fees). That keeps Apple in some control. If those "subordinate app stores" violated any major operating guidelines, Apple can shut them down to protect users.

 

[coolfactor]

...

They are artificially jacking the prices up on everything by bloating the costs without actually adding any value.

Enough with the bootlicking, as customers demand better! We need to get rentseekers out of the value chain.

...

No value? Regularly-updated development tools. Secure, trusted search and distribution. *Free* distribution of all binary updates to all users. The bandwidth alone is a massive cost.

I agree that the original 30% was becoming too much as the store has grown in size, but it's no longer the only rate. Lower rates are provided when certain conditions are met.

What do you propose, other than Apple just giving away their services for free? Surely you're not proposing completely free? They are incurring ongoing costs.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Your analogy is completely correct, just doesn't represent this topic though. But good job yes I agree with what you said.

To think about what we're discussing, think of it like google taking 30% cause you searched on google. Think of it like you have a website and because the person went on your website from a Mac, you must use Apple's payment system only.

These are what we are discussing that is not fair. People can control their own website and choose their own payment method. Should be the same with apps. The reason it's not the same with apps is because Apple created this system so they could make money from it. If apps could be downloaded like they are on the Mac, from a website or App Store, and people got to choose what they wanted and the devs get to choose how payments work, everything would be great. The Mac is king. We want the iPhone to be like the Mac.

And lastly, the judge agreed against Apple, so whatever you are arguing just remember you may disagree with the judge but Apple was found unlawful.

You’re throwing together two completely different things.

When you search for a product or service on Google, you’re the customer. Not any different from a customer searching on AppStore.

The list of search results is provided by Google and is sorted based on whether the vendor paid them for advertising or not. So those sites that pay them get placed on page one, and those who don’t pay are buried somewhere in the long list

Apple doesn’t charge anyone for searching from Mac, Google does. Either via serving ads, or charging the vendors for prioritizing their sites.

Now, Google is using the whole internet, that they did not build and do not own and don’t fully maintain.

AppStore is something that Apple built and owns and fully maintains.

 

[wbeasley]

I think your solution is a viable one actually. I make no claims as to what the solution should be, there’s many imo. That being said the reality is that the only reason this case exists is because Apple insists on the App Store being the only way to install apps. It is also reasonable that people should be able to use hardware they purchased however they want. Apple doesn’t have to make it easy as someone pointed out earlier in the thread but I think it would work in their favor if they did.

I think Apple are very protective of their environment and reputation and have good reason to resist.

It's worked this was for well over a decade. You know all this before you buy the device.
If you dont agree then return it. Simple.

Apple isnt trying to deceive you here. Its very clear how this works.

So no I dont think it will work in Apple's favour to support this change.
There's plenty of us here who are not happy code changes are being forced on all of us to allow these external apps and payments to happen. I like my phone locked down and protected as best they can. And I recommend these phones and give old ones to family knowing they wont accidentally install something that becomes a problem I have to sort out later.

 

[wbeasley]

It’s not quite the same. If you buy an Apple product in Target, does Target get any future sales from Apple App Store, music or Apple TV? No.

Apple needs to be careful. When Microsoft forced all users to have internet explorer, the EU force Microsoft to offer alternatives. Whenever a PC was set up in the EU, users had to pick a browser.

There is nothing to stop the EU from doing the same. For example, giving users a choice of which streaming services they want installed on the Apple device.

huge difference between an app and the iOS environment native apps.

Apple allows you to install different browsers (OK so for a longtime the were skinned same tech) but you can install a different Calculator that competes against the built in one, or a Notepad app... or Music streamer.

Apple isnt saying "use this one only" like Microsoft were doing.

 

[Abazigal]

Errrrmagerrrrd all these bootlickers.

Should Apple be able to take 30% of anything you buy online on a website? Should Apple get to take 30% of any transactions you make from you internet banking apps? How about if they took another 30% on top of the fee Uber Eats and Grub Hub takes? No? What's the difference? "Hurr durr it's their right".

They are taking 30% of subscription revenue for business services like accounting services which operate PRIMARILY on the web, but also have an app, if the app has a signup in the app.

They are artificially jacking the prices up on everything by bloating the costs without actually adding any value.

Enough with the bootlicking, as customers demand better! We need to get rentseekers out of the value chain.

30% of an in app purchase for candy crush, which was promoted on the App store where I discovered it.... Fine....

30% of a software service I primarily use on the web, like business software. No.

30% of the food I order online, or when sending money to family and friends with banking apps. **** no.

Where is the line is what is being debated - NOT whether they should have a carte blanche right to do so without criticism.

I remember when I first tried out the fantastical app (a subscription-based calendar app). I downloaded it from the iOS App Store, created an account instantly via "Sign in with Apple", subscribed via iTunes, and was up and running in less than a minute. The ease of use here has definitely helped sell a few more subscriptions compared to say, the friction involved in needing to create an account before you can use an app.

People (especially developers) forget what the situation was like in the early 2000s. Nobody downloaded apps, because everyone was scared of viruses and malware. Apple recreated a market that had ceased to exist, and they did it with their promises of ease of use and safety and security. Like if you don't like an app, you can just delete it. You can readily request for an app refund. You aren't going to get scammed because there's only one way to pay. You get to authenticate with face or Touch ID. Even today, there are some services which require you to call in to get it cancelled, vs just terminating it via the App Store directly.

Is this not worth anything?

 

[djphat2000]

Not gonna happen. Too many businesses have already switched and there will be a huge retaliation. But to go with your hypothetical if it does happen, I will be in the position you are, hoping for a reversal again but respecting the judge's decision.

They would just start collecting the fee again. Nothing hard to do in that case.