Photoshop, Affinity, Office, and other apps would still stay on the app store for the exposure it offers... They're perfectly content to allow other avenues of subscribing to their services while having the iOS app act as a client.
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 Says 'We Won't Make an Exception' for Epic Games in App Store Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
it is Apple that benefits from the app ecosystem existing.
Smart phones... they are cool and all, but would they have really taken off with just a web browser, apple's music player and a calendar? Does anyone really think that its only a one way benefit to the developers taking advantage of poor $2 Trillion company Apple? Apple of course has benefitted immensely by developers making apps for their products to the tune of 1.5 billion devices sold.
That’s not the same thing at all. Apple makes the hardware and the software. That case was about MS forcing third party hardware manufacturers to Install MS software over third party software.
Also, Microsoft won on appeal and the sought, and got, an agreement to end the case.
Finally - no SCOTUS decision was made here. You therefore have failed to present conclusive proof that your opinion is fact.
I do not think you can say that with 100% accuracy. ONLY Epic will be out of the App Store?
People will do just that. Apple will force them to. The choice of apps in App Store is already worse than in Play Store (not to mention side loading) and if Apple does not change the rules, the difference is bound to increase.
Apple is right.
Epic games is trying to play the victim and under dog game but in fact they are a huge multi billion company.
Epic games is trying to play the victim and under dog game but in fact they are a huge multi billion company.
Yep. People need to look at the Microsoft vs US case again more closely. Microsoft tried to prevent Netscape from even developing Navigator for Windows 95. Then they tried to get OEMs to not install it.
This case was not because Microsoft was big. Its because of what they did that I mentioned above.
They would remain in the app store if they thought the terms were worth it between the two options. Thats called competition.
Guys, look at this legal case. United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE. And you know what, it was ruled illegal!
Any Apple apologist care to explain?
Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE. And you know what, it was ruled illegal!
Any Apple apologist care to explain?
They never tried to prevent them from MAKING navigator. They never cut off their access to development tools. They did strong arm OEMs into not bundling it, and that they bundled their own product (Honestly, even back then it was more and more evident that some form of web browser was a required part of a modern OS.... since apps started embedding html views, which made it easy to lay out even locally generated content, and would require at least a non-user facing web browser installed). This is the same Microsoft that made OEM's pay based on # of machines sold, not # of machine sold with Windows because their argument was there is nothing else to run but Windows, so clearly everyone is pirating.... of course you could go out and buy OS/2 or get a copy of Linux....
If a company decides to remove themselves from the App Store, it's your choice to not support the company... no one would be forcing you to do anything, if you really want an app outside of the store, you could, but if you want to remain inside the walled garden, you could.
Just as if you wanted android for the features it offers, you could switch to that.
Companies will go where the money is, and more exposure with a higher cut is still more money than low exposure with a lower cut
It would be no different than if epic removed fortnite from the App Store entirely and made it exclusive to Android, you wouldn't be forced to switch to android.
Last edited:
Legal definitions are ambiguous; really almost all grown up things are ambiguous.
1. The final appeal says "We upheld the district court's ruling that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by the ways in which it maintained its monopoly, but we reversed the district court's finding of liability for attempted monopolization" Microsoft broke the law. Plain and simple. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/
2. The agreement forced Microsoft to "share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies". A similar agreement for Apple would drastically undermine Apple's anticompetitive conduct.
3. A case is not case law because no SCOTUS decision was made. Where did you learn that?
Nit sure why you think most people give a rats about this. No matter how popular Fortnite may be, it’s still a minor player in the iOS landscape.
Taking 2019, for example, 78% of players used consoles. The peak Fortnight was August with 80m active players. Let’s be awfully generous and say that Apple had a 15% cut of that remaining 32% - that’s -12m users worldwide out of 1.5bn active Apple devices. Again, let’s pretend that everyone has two devices, so that’s 750m users.
So, at its peak you may have had 1.6%.
Again, let’s be overly conservative and round that up to 5%.
So. At its peak 5% of iOS owners may have been playing fortnight.
Now, really, does that 5% sound like much?
They take different percentages from different stores. For example, APple pays a much lower percentage to mall operators, because the mall operators are compensated by apple in other ways (for example by bringing foot traffic)
I think Epic is being greedy. I remember Epic games were featured in WWDC and Apple supported them. The Apple platform turned lots of these small devs to giants over the years. I can understand why Apple doesn’t want external links for payments.
that beings said, I think Apple should lower their commission on IAP to be fair.
that beings said, I think Apple should lower their commission on IAP to be fair.
Yes there’s never been a scenario where it was unclear what degree of murder occurred
"Relying upon the district court's findings of fact, we determined that Microsoft took three actions to bind IE to Windows: (1) it excluded IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" utility; (2) it commingled in the same file code related to browsing and code used by the operating system so that removal of IE files would cripple Windows; and (3) it designed Windows in such a manner that, in certain circumstances, a user's choice of an internet browser other than IE would be overridden. Id. at 64-65. Although all three acts had anticompetitive effects, only the first two had no offsetting justification and, therefore, "constitute [d] exclusionary conduct [] in violation of § 2." Id. at 67." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/
Preventing a Windows user from uninstalling IE was ruled illegal.
You’ve skipped past some important details here:
1) This was about MS forcing third party manufacturers to install MS software.
2) MS settled with the DOJ and the courts signed off on that settlement which meant that they got away with pretty much everything (To quote Andrew Chin: Microsoft got “a special antitrust immunity to license Windows and other 'platform software' under contractual terms that destroy freedom of competition”
So, still seeing nothing that shows your opinion is nothing more than an opinion.
Apple forced every developer to use the same payment method in order to impose a 30% fees such as subscription and that can constitute antitrust law on the app store.
Guess what? The developer will be forced to increase the price substantially and the customer will be paying more due to the limitation of third party payment.
Guess what? The developer will be forced to increase the price substantially and the customer will be paying more due to the limitation of third party payment.
He said legal definitions are ambiguous. But that's false. Once the facts are clear, the law gives a definite answer
This is a silly take. This story wouldn’t have been in the nytimes if it didn’t stir widespread interest.
But that's the thing. Apple does allow external payments. Need a ride? Use the Uber app to order one and then pay for it right in the app with your own credit card. Want a quick lunch? Order McDonalds in the app and have it charged to your card. None of that goes through Apple's in-app payment system.
Epic, on the other hand, not only can't use their existing payment system; they can't even put a message in the app letting customers know the system exists.
Apple should just make their IAP optional. Smaller and independent developers who don't have the knowledge and scale to set up their own payment system can give Apple a 30% fee for handling it all for them. Larger developers than have the ability to manage payments themselves could do so, just like Uber, Amazon, Airbnb, McDonald's, etc. do for every other type of sale. Others may do what Epic did and offer both methods with the Apple surcharge passed on to the customer. Let the developer decide which system works best for them.