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

[AppliedMicro]

That’s like telling a land owner he must let people use his property to for free!

Once every square foot of land in the entire country has been bought up and divided by two or three rent-seeking companies, other businesses and consumers will complain and clamour for fair terms of land use.

If someone wants to make money by piggy backing off of another company then that other company is reasonable to expect remuneration, surely?

If you have a business yourself, chances are, you‘re piggy-backing off of your internet service provider.
And your electricity company. That doesn’t and shouldn’t mean they should be able to charge a percentage of your revenue.

 

[Bonte]

Apple owns the platform like Target owns their stores. They could just refuse to work with companies that link to external buying locations. I guess it has to do with monopoly powers or something, would be funny to have Samsung forced to open up the TV app marketplace or apps for fridges and microwaves. Apps for Boeing planes and SpaceX.

A forced open marketplace for apps in cars, that would be something. Wouldn’t this ruling not open up car play for everybody?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Imagine going into a shop on the high street, wallmart or anything else. Should the owner of the shop/brand who pays the bills to have security, facilitation and rent have 20%+ for the space they provide?

Unlike Apple, such business owner that stocks products takes real inventory riskShould they be empowered to continue charging 20% on all consumer transactions - once they‘ve checked out and taken home the products they bought?

Should they be able to restrict manufacturers and prevent them from making direct transactions with consumers for products, accessories and consumable in the future? That‘s madness.

if they don’t want to pay for this and expect me to provide a free shopping window that I have to clean and maintain

The shopping window isn‘t free. Apple decided to charge $99 per customer using it - where they could also charge fees according to use or transaction volume.

Which would be fair - Apple just chose not to do it.

 

[zahuh]

Imagine going into a shop on the high street, wallmart or anything else. Should the owner of the shop/brand who pays the bills to have security, facilitation and rent have 20%+ for the space they provide? Would I offer that people can sell their stuff from my apartment or anyone’s property without a fee? No, it’s my property. They can sell it from somewhere else but not use my apartment as a showroom if they don’t want to pay for this and expect me to provide a free shopping window that I have to clean and maintain. That’s exactly the same. This is madness.

Amazon will also get a cut to maintain a shopping window to sell stuff from. Overcharging is probably where this started, exploiting a dominance to make it unreasonably expensive is one thing. No fee for a shopping window is like offering free ads, free display in a shop and expect services in return. Equally unreasonable.

The ignorance is crazy here... I mean wow.
I'm not talking about buying an app from the store. Then YES, Apple deserves a cut, they SOLD the app.

What everyone is talking about is Apple did NOTHING to make Netflix movies or TV Shows but they get 30%. HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? I'm on NETFLIX, not APPLE.

So if your argument is everything purchased on an APPLE device they should be able to get 30%, that's UNETHICAL and you're WRONG because they lost the case on this. YOU LOSE

 

[wbeasley]

The iPhone is a pocket computer. On all other computers we can install whatever we want. The set up with the iPhone should be exactly the same as a Mac. On a Mac we have an App Store, if you want to use it, go ahead and use it. If you don't.. no worries, don't use it. iOS should be the same.

Why should it though?

Apple set up iOS to be different from the start. A reboot on how a device works.

And if you want to buy one you know all this BEFOREHAND.

And you are free to use that phone however you want. But Apple doesnt have to help or make it easy for you to

Like I said, equally, all concept of licensing software must cease to exist. If someone purchases a software product (i.e., if they pay for that software), there should be no IP and they can do what they want with it. Paying money must mean ownership of whatever was paid for.

No, IP is IP.
Protected by laws.

You buy the device.
You licence the software.

Huge difference.
You agree to Apple's terms to use the licenced software.
If you dont agree, you return the device.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[zahuh]

If someone wants to make money by piggy backing off of another company then that other company is reasonable to expect remuneration, surely? Just because a company is large doesn't make them a charity.

You're right!! If APPLE wants to make money from NETFLIX movies and TV shows NETFLIX made, APPLE should get 30%!!! Wait... no. APPLE did NOTHING to make those movies. Apple didn't invest in the movies, they did NOTHING.

I'm not talking about PAID apps. If you pay for an app on the App Store, app deservers some cut. I'm talking about when the user is in the other companies app/website, Apple deserves NOTHING. And guess what, the COURTS AGREE. Developers should be able to put a link to buy from their website. APPLE DID NOTHING, NOT A DIME INVESTMENT TO MAKE NETFLIX MOVIES. THEY DON'T DESERVE ANY OF THE MONEY

 

[wbeasley]

The ignorance is crazy here... I mean wow.
I'm not talking about buying an app from the store. Then YES, Apple deserves a cut, they SOLD the app.

What everyone is talking about is Apple did NOTHING to make Netflix movies or TV Shows but they get 30%. HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? I'm on NETFLIX, not APPLE.

So if your argument is everything purchased on an APPLE device they should be able to get 30%, that's UNETHICAL and you're WRONG because they lost the case on this. YOU LOSE

You dont pay for the Netflix app.
Or many other apps like Spotify.

Apple hosts those free apps when you subscribe outside the AppStore and log in.

The 30% (and more likely 15% cut) is for in app purchases.
That Apple did some transactional work on.
And manage refunds.
Using their platform and IP.

You buy a Netflix card from a supermarket for a gift.
The supermarket get a cut of the amount on the card. Possibly 30% or more.
Shops that used to sell software on the physical shelf often charged up to 90% of the ticket price as their cut.

15-30% is a very reasonable markup for doing business when Apple supply to tools, checking, marketing, payments and refunds. Most devs, even on here, agree that is a win for them. It's a few greedy big names who want to use Apple IP for free.

 

[AppliedMicro]

One is to start with the EU. Apple’s own EU terms peg payment processing alone at ~3%; add fraud/chargebacks

No need to add them. Every mom & pop business and I can accept cards for 3% or less - at scale minuscule compared to Apple.

This is all a technical way to say again that a 5% fee would lose Apple money. The minimum gross breakeven point is about 7%, although 8% is likely closer to reality. That would make the net breakeven point at least 9%.

What this means is that 10% is the bare minimum Apple might be able to charge and still maintain some profit (but much slimmer margins, which would be atypical for services -- look at Microsoft's margins for example).

And yet, most apps on the App Store are free to download. Uber‘s, for instance.
I‘m sure that helps Apple a lot in selling hardware products.

If they’re competitively priced, what’s preventing them from competing on price and convenience then?

 

[Jumpthesnark]

So it’s unconstitutional for Epic to not have to pay Apple 30% but not Netflix or Spotify?

Apple's Constitutional argument is not about paying developers, it's that the injunction includes compelled speech. Though MR brings up many things in this item, only the compelled speech part would be a Constitutional question.

"The new injunction imposes, in meticulous detail, new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages that Apple may convey to its own users on its own platform. These requirements represent an improper expansion and modification of the original injunction—rather than an attempt to enforce compliance with the original injunction—and violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with."

In other words, Apple is saying that the new injunction is telling them not just to comply with the Court's order, but how they need to design the App Store, what they must say and how they present links in order to comply. That's the compelled speech part, apparently.

The linked injunction is ~ 80 pages, I'm not gonna read it. But I skimmed it and it did include an example of Apple's supposed "anticompetitive" linking design. Frankly it doesn't look out of the ordinary to me - it looks like just another style of telling consumers that they are leaving the app store and going to a commercial web site. The Court seemed to make a big deal about this, but jeeze we've all seen links with full-screen takeover just like this. Follow a link to a news story and often you don't get what you want, which is simply the story you're interested in. You instead get a full screen takeover with ads, pleas for subscriptions or a notice that you've hit a paywall. We all see messages like what Apple did, and we see them daily. We may not like those messages ("come on, I just wanted to read that story!"), but they're hardly unusual.

Funny thing is, they offer three examples of linking and all three do the same thing - a pop-up that stops your screen experience until you click through it. The one the Court is upset about is the full screen one that Apple uses. But in practicality, all three do the same thing. You can't do anything else but click through the popup, even though you can see content behind the popup in the first two examples.

If Apple has to use one of the other examples in order to comply, it should make no difference. But there's the "compelled speech" part - the Court is telling Apple not just to use popups, but specifically what they should look like. In that regard, I can see Apple having a point.

This whole Apple vs Epic thing is exhausting. And as someone watching from the sidelines, it's just expensive and pointless.

 

[wbeasley]

You're right!! If APPLE wants to make money from NETFLIX movies and TV shows NETFLIX made, APPLE should get 30%!!! Wait... no. APPLE did NOTHING to make those movies. Apple didn't invest in the movies, they did NOTHING.

I'm not talking about PAID apps. If you pay for an app on the App Store, app deservers some cut. I'm talking about when the user is in the other companies app/website, Apple deserves NOTHING. And guess what, the COURTS AGREE. Developers should be able to put a link to buy from their website. APPLE DID NOTHING, NOT A DIME INVESTMENT TO MAKE NETFLIX MOVIES. THEY DON'T DESERVE ANY OF THE MONEY

Did your supermarket make the milk? Or grown the apples?

No. But they get a cut of what you paid for enabling the ease of buying what you want.

Look how many physical stores are suffering because more people now buy online and wait a few days for delivery instead of paying more immediately. Retail is changing. Rapidly. And malls and workers are bearing the brunt of it.

When people move to buying directly from factories, then $200 shoes are going to cost you $20 for the same item.
It's happening now. Which is why tariffs wont work and save the economy of the US. A 100% tariff on a $20 item will still be significantly cheaper than a shop bought item (also with a much bigger tariff).

 

[Boeingfan]

Once every square foot of land in the entire country has been bought up and divided by two or three rent-seeking companies, other businesses and consumers will complain and clamour for fair terms of land use.

If you have a business yourself, chances are, you‘re piggy-backing off of your internet service provider.
And your electricity company. That doesn’t and shouldn’t mean they should be able to charge a percentage of your revenue.

That's not the definition of piggy backing I was referring to. Internet and electricity are utilities of running a business. Piggy backing is when you utilise someone else's shopfront to sell your merch. The app store is Apple's shopfront, so if someone wants to buy via that shopfront, there's a cost. There are other shopfronts on offer.

 

[Boeingfan]

You're right!! If APPLE wants to make money from NETFLIX movies and TV shows NETFLIX made, APPLE should get 30%!!! Wait... no. APPLE did NOTHING to make those movies. Apple didn't invest in the movies, they did NOTHING.

I'm not talking about PAID apps. If you pay for an app on the App Store, app deservers some cut. I'm talking about when the user is in the other companies app/website, Apple deserves NOTHING. And guess what, the COURTS AGREE. Developers should be able to put a link to buy from their website. APPLE DID NOTHING, NOT A DIME INVESTMENT TO MAKE NETFLIX MOVIES. THEY DON'T DESERVE ANY OF THE MONEY

So, why navigate to Netflix via Apple? Navigate it via Samsung or LG, or Microsoft. However you navigate to Netflix, all of the companies involved in delivering your request will receive a cut, otherwise why would they? Any business that offers some kind of facilitation for free won't be around for long.

 

[Rradcircless]

I am confused and tired of this subject

 

[con2apple]

Yeah this is nuts. A company should be able to run its own company. It’s not about monopolies that’s crazy. There’s plenty of competition.

Tim Cook disagrees. He knows and has also admitted that, at least in the US, there is no competition and people are forced to buy iPhones if they don't want to be excluded by their peers.

But I know that for Apple users who have been complaining about evil, evil Microsoft for years, an Apple monopoly probably only exists when Tim Cook personally threatens them with a gun to buy an iPhone. It can't be any other way.

 

[con2apple]

B

What about your greed?

What greed? What are the 15% or 30% for?
We know that Apple does not control the apps. Gambling apps, as note-taking apps, could end up in the top 5. We also know that Apple favors its own apps. Every day, we see that "careful editing" does not exist. It's always the same ten advertised apps. Plus a sliding game that Apple can really make money with.

What is the fee that developers have to pay for?

Do yourself a favor and take a look at Apple's annual report. Every year, the company makes an ever-increasing double-digit billion dollar profit. A little more each year. Pure profit.
Meanwhile, Apple itself has admitted in court that it doesn't even know exactly how much the App Store infrastructure costs. They don't know.

Once again:
Apple could offer a service. They could finally start checking apps and make sure the App Store is safe. They could finally set up an editorial team and offer something extra compared to free installation.
But they don't.
Because it's not necessary. They are part of the duopoly.
In the US, they are even a monopoly. Apple knows this. That's why they do nothing. Instead, they prefer to invoke the First Amendment.

 

[Avidos1]

I bought something on amazon.com on my Mac, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! I bought something on Ebay app, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! It's done on Apple's device and they should get a piece of every transaction!!! Oh wait, doesn't make ANY SENSE and they've made BILLIONS. I wish someone would sue them and give us developers our money back WE EARNED by a user going to our website/app and buying something.

If you buy something on amazon, amazon get a cut, it is thier shop

In a nut shell this says you can walk into a shop with a tray of goods stand by tbe till and sell those goods to the stores customers, with that store having no right to kick you out or be compensated for using thier customers who you wouldn’t otherwise have access to.

 

[spyguy10709]

Am I only person who tired of Epic Fails?

you mean... epic wins? epic won.

functionally they got everything they asked for, lmao

they get the "buy vbucks" link in fortnite with 0 "apple tax" and this appeal is going nowhere

 

[zahuh]

If you buy something on amazon, amazon get a cut, it is thier shop

In a nut shell this says you can walk into a shop with a tray of goods stand by tbe till and sell those goods to the stores customers, with that store having no right to kick you out or be compensated for using thier customers who you wouldn’t otherwise have access to.

So you agree with me. What on earth is APPLE getting 30% for when I'm on amazon's website/app? Or any other developer. I'm not talking about paid apps, i'm talking about being in the app. Apple did nothing. Either they get 30% from everyone or something is fishy.

 

[zahuh]

So, why navigate to Netflix via Apple? Navigate it via Samsung or LG, or Microsoft. However you navigate to Netflix, all of the companies involved in delivering your request will receive a cut, otherwise why would they? Any business that offers some kind of facilitation for free won't be around for long.

The point is, the INTERNET should not be TAXED by Apple 30%.This INCREASES the price for consumers when APPLE did NOTHING, zero investment to make movies on Netflix and last time I checked, people on Apple devices want to watch Netflix.

 

[zahuh]

Did your supermarket make the milk? Or grown the apples?

No. But they get a cut of what you paid for enabling the ease of buying what you want.

Look how many physical stores are suffering because more people now buy online and wait a few days for delivery instead of paying more immediately. Retail is changing. Rapidly. And malls and workers are bearing the brunt of it.

When people move to buying directly from factories, then $200 shoes are going to cost you $20 for the same item.
It's happening now. Which is why tariffs wont work and save the economy of the US. A 100% tariff on a $20 item will still be significantly cheaper than a shop bought item (also with a much bigger tariff).

So in your view, if Im on amazon.com on a Mac, amazon should take a cut AND Apple should take a cut because im on an Apple device. Correct?

 

[zahuh]

You dont pay for the Netflix app.
Or many other apps like Spotify.

Apple hosts those free apps when you subscribe outside the AppStore and log in.

The 30% (and more likely 15% cut) is for in app purchases.
That Apple did some transactional work on.
And manage refunds.
Using their platform and IP.

You buy a Netflix card from a supermarket for a gift.
The supermarket get a cut of the amount on the card. Possibly 30% or more.
Shops that used to sell software on the physical shelf often charged up to 90% of the ticket price as their cut.

15-30% is a very reasonable markup for doing business when Apple supply to tools, checking, marketing, payments and refunds. Most devs, even on here, agree that is a win for them. It's a few greedy big names who want to use Apple IP for free.

"Apple did some transactional work" NO, THEY FORCED DEVELOPERS to use their PROPRIETARY transactional method which the courts said was ILLEGAL, so you have zero argument there. It's ILLEGAL what they've done.

If I'm understanding your logic, if im on amazon.com and buy something, amazon gets a cut and Apple should get a cut too? Both are supermarkets?

 

[Avidos1]

So you agree with me. What on earth is APPLE getting 30% for when I'm on amazon's website/app? Or any other developer. I'm not talking about paid apps, i'm talking about being in the app. Apple did nothing. Either they get 30% from everyone or something is fishy.

No I am not.
Your example is amazon a shop. They get a cut of the sales, thevapp store is apples shop, they should get a cut of the sales or why provide a store for you to do business in in the first place
My example was to show how an app in the app store functions if it is selling all goods directly even though it wouldn’t brbanle to do so without the existence of the app store

Hope that clarifies

 

[zahuh]

No I am not.
Your example is amazon a shop. They get a cut of the sales, thevapp store is apples shop, they should get a cut of the sales or why provide a store for you to do business in in the first place
My example was to show how an app in the app store functions if it is selling all goods directly even though it wouldn’t brbanle to do so without the existence of the app store

Hope that clarifies

So amazon should get a cut AND apple should get a cut if I buy from a Mac right? Both are supermarkets in your example.

 

[Boeingfan]

The point is, the INTERNET should not be TAXED by Apple 30%.This INCREASES the price for consumers when APPLE did NOTHING, zero investment to make movies on Netflix and last time I checked, people on Apple devices want to watch Netflix.

I agree! Just don't do it via Apple

 

[Boeingfan]

So amazon should get a cut AND apple should get a cut if I buy from a Mac right? Both are supermarkets in your example.

If you buy a Mac on Amazon, of course Amazon and Apple get a cut. Plus the delivery companies that get it from Apple to Amazon, and from Amazon to you. Surely this comes as no surprise.