Nope. Apple is perfectly free to make exceptions, and you can be sure when they reduce the % fee they are getting something else in return - otherwise they wouldn’t make the exception. That’s the free market at work.
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
See my post right above yours: Preventing a Windows user from uninstalling IE was ruled illegal.
1. The appellate court reversed the remedies, not the determination that Microsoft broke the law.
2. I argued that Apple broke the law. I didn't argue for a specific legal remedy.
3. Therefore, my argument is consistent with previous rulings.
Because everything in the NYT is interesting to people?
30% is in line with other digital distribution businesses. Guess what? Even if Apple reduced the fee to 10%, there's a high probability the customer will not see any of those savings.
Its a news story. It affects Apple.
There’s a **** ton of news in papers etc. that most people don’t actually care about.
If Apple closed the App Store and users couldn't download apps, they'd simply switch to Android.
I'm one of the customers who categorically DO NOT WANT third-party payment portals on iOS. I want to know, for sure, 100%, that if I subscribe to a monthly service on iOS that it is APPLE who will cancel it, not some other unknown. I also want to know, for sure, 100%, that if my kid uses my phone that he can't give payment information to some unknown third-party.
Where is the independent third party hardware component in this case?
It’s the entire basis of the case. Your argument is that if we just totally ignore the core and insert a totally different situation then the outcome will be the same.
That’s not how this works!
Let me repeat the quote since you seem to have difficulty understanding it:
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."
This finding does not mention and therefore does not concern OEMs. You say that OEMs are the entire basis of the case, show me quotes.
The dominos are falling, the blinders are coming off and Apple's absurd 30% extortion is being exposed for the sham it is. Kudos to Epic for taking the lead on this.
The sheer number of app stores doesn't mean anything; what presents concern to regulators is market share and whether a dominant position is being abused. I could put up a page on my website and call it an (empty) app store today, adding yet another "app store" to the list of 300+, but that doesn't mean it's of any market significance. Specifically of concern to U.S. regulators is the market share of the App Store and Play Store combined under their jurisdiction, and these two make up essentially all significant mobile spending in the U.S., which will warrant scrutiny.
It's arguable whether the App Store and Play Store are actually competing against each other because iOS apps and Android apps, even when a company offers both (and very many don't!), are separate products requiring separate development, maintenance, and even marketing. It's not like two drugstores competing to sell you the same bottle of Tylenol by any stretch. The problems for Apple which warrant the scrutiny they now receive have two prongs: You can only obtain iOS apps from Apple (except in some edge cases like jailbreaking and B2B, again not of market significance), and Apple competes in its own market (with offerings like Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple TV+, and so on). Inevitably, this combination will lead to cases where it can be argued that Apple is tipping the scales in its own favor as the sole distributor of iOS apps.
As I've said here many times before, Apple would vastly prefer to sort this out themselves with an arrangement that both they and the developer community at large can genuinely accept, instead of having the government do it for them. Eventually, as things stand, they'll go just a bit too far and the hammer will come down in a way that's far less preferable to, say, some combination of:
- Apple retains its position as the sole distributor of iOS apps.
- The annual cost of the Apple Developer Program is converted to a graduated model to potentially increase based on the previous year's app downloads; massive companies would pay much more than a measly $99/yr. The first year would remain $99 for all developers.
- Apps can offer their own in-app payment system only in conjunction with IAP; they cannot discourage the use of IAP.
- Independent arbitration is allowed for app rejections that are irreconcilable through current app review policies.
- The App Store commission is reduced to 15% for all IAP transactions, maybe paid apps too.
And I'm an actual developer. Apple provides:
- A complete suite of development tools,
- An SDK, including detailed documentation (granted, the quality varies),
- File hosting,
- A trusted storefront,
- Payment processing, and
- Dispute resolution.
Opening to outside storefronts makes 4 (which is probably the most important to me as a developer) less valuable, which is why I hope Epic loses this badly.
Your reasoning is perplexing.
Windows cannot force users to use IE, but if Windows exclusively produces the hardware, somehow they can.
The fact is, for most developers its easier to just pay Apple the 30% cut. But for some (larger) developers that have the resources to process their own payments, it should be allowed. Apple easily spouts off "level playing field", "consumer protection" when it suits their interests. I hope Epic wins this one.
If you refuse to use third-party payment systems you will find yourself severely limited as you can't order anything through another app like Uber, Walmart, or Amazon that doesn't use IAP at all. It is going to be the extremely rare person that uses their iPhone exclusively for in-app purchases. Almost everyone is going to have to use a third-party payment system if they order anything other than a game through the app store.
What you have set up is an almost impossible situation where a person only subscribes to services through iOS, only makes purchases through in-app purchases, and refuses to input any payment information into a third-party payment system out of fear their kid may somehow get it and send it on to someone nefarious.
I would say being forced to allow apps from outside of the store is also a very real possibility, the entire situation is caused by the fact that the only real way for app distribution on iOS is through the App Store, if they limitation wasn't there they could make the argument that it's possible to obtain said app directly with whatever payment methods they desire inside it.
I am also a developer.
Everyone else provides SDKs for their platforms, so...not applicable. Apple could always chose not to have an SDK or developer tools, then they'd have no market position.
File Hosting....cheap, as in pennies on gigabytes, don't believe me, go host your files on AWS S3.
Payment Processing..... I can do inexpensive recurring billing on Stripe for 3%
A trusted store front.... sure, when you are buying from them. In app purchases don't use a store front.
Dispute resolution... if you could call it that, if its like other dispute resolution services provided by say Amazon, customer is always right...its not dispute resolution, its refunding whether deserved or not.
They pay every tax that they owe. You can't blame them that the laws allow them to pay less. As they have said, don't like the amount of tax they pay. Change the tax laws.
I think there are three issues:
- Some developers want to reduce the fees Apple takes – a reduced, tapered and/or capped system could satisfy developers and regulators.
- Some developers want to direct people to their own website or services to make payments – this is what Epic has done. Services like Netflix get around this by asking people to login to their account, therefore bypassing the App Store. Not great for the user but Netflix doesn't have to pay Apple 30%.
- Some developers might want their own App Store – I don't think this will happen. I suspect Epic is threatening this but may just want to be able to take payments directly or pay less to Apple.
I agree that different rates could apply, but I think there would still need to be a cap.
Regardless of people agreeing or disagreeing with what’s right and wrong the bottom line is: Epic went into an agreement with Apple to download their games through Apples App Store in return for 30%
There’s no winners here!!
Apple loses a top game developer
Epic loses $$$$$ banned from the App Store
Customers lose out on popular games
litigation in court is going to drag on
There’s no winners here!!
Apple loses a top game developer
Epic loses $$$$$ banned from the App Store
Customers lose out on popular games
litigation in court is going to drag on
I'd say that's more likely to be the government's solution than one that arises from an agreement between Apple and App Store developers.
I am seeing a few things that seem consistent in peoples understanding on how the "Apple Tax" is applied.
Amazon, Uber and other such apps are not providing DIGITAL goods, and as such don't pay the 30%. And I am pretty sure, that if your company builds an app and you only provide physical goods for sale via the app (You cannot buy digital goods from Amazon App) you would be excluded from paying the 30% and from using the payment system.
I buy stuff from Bestbuy via their app, and use Apple Pay to pay, but I have other options on there as well.
There are post way back near the start of this that make a point - we don't know the cost of doing business for Apple. But, we have been shown the proof that the industry standard for digital store fronts is 30%. So Apple is not charing an exuberant amount - they are charging the standard for digital goods. They provide a service, that service cost money to maintain.
I for one, don't want politicians getting their hands on making rules for these kinds of store fronts - they will only get worse. And secondly I buy Apple's hardware, knowing full well that I am going to be locked into their ecosystem, but I as a consumer like their ecosystem and what it offers.
Amazon, Uber and other such apps are not providing DIGITAL goods, and as such don't pay the 30%. And I am pretty sure, that if your company builds an app and you only provide physical goods for sale via the app (You cannot buy digital goods from Amazon App) you would be excluded from paying the 30% and from using the payment system.
I buy stuff from Bestbuy via their app, and use Apple Pay to pay, but I have other options on there as well.
There are post way back near the start of this that make a point - we don't know the cost of doing business for Apple. But, we have been shown the proof that the industry standard for digital store fronts is 30%. So Apple is not charing an exuberant amount - they are charging the standard for digital goods. They provide a service, that service cost money to maintain.
I for one, don't want politicians getting their hands on making rules for these kinds of store fronts - they will only get worse. And secondly I buy Apple's hardware, knowing full well that I am going to be locked into their ecosystem, but I as a consumer like their ecosystem and what it offers.