Apple will be forced to finally update their archaic business model.
a better Mobile store for users and developers.
Real Service innovation instead of peddling the industry status quo.
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 Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
a better Mobile store for users and developers.
Real Service innovation instead of peddling the industry status quo.
What loss of income?
Because it’s not going to hurt there overall business
It’s not Walmart or target so how is it giving up control of their own products
When it’s a payment link
There is nothing stopping Apple from making
IAP mandatory on every app going forward as well to compete with payment links
The loss of income from app developers putting links to another payment system in their app and/or removing the Apple payment system.
Absolutely Apple could change the developer agreement to make IAP mandatory in all apps. But that sort of change is exactly why Apple are seeking an emergency stay on the injuction.
It would speed things up, but it would also erode confidence in the judicial system. The fact that you can appeal to multiple different courts means that no one court, or group of judges, has all the power.
A case can be made that the judge overstepped her boundaries in a bid to make a show of punishing Apple.
Two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right here.
Basically exactly the point I'm making and why I think Apple will be granted the emergency stay. It would certainly be unprecendented for a judge to be able to force Apple to give it's products and services away for free even as a punitive measure. I've never heard of any other company being legally obliged to do that.A case can be made that the judge overstepped her boundaries in a bid to make a show of punishing Apple.
Two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right here.
The Kindle app finally having the “Get Book” button because Apple is not injecting themselves into my purchase of a book was all I needed to support this.
Apple 'inject' themselves because it's how they monetise the app store. Which is why there needs to be an appropriate alternative if collecting the fee this way is no longer permitted.
It’s not Walmart or target
So why should app developers not be allowed to put payment links in apps
There’s a certain inherent contradiction in the judgement when you think about it.
First, Apple was found to not be a monopoly, and have a right to IAP and not offer other payment options inside the App Store. Yet on the other hand, Apple is supposed to allow links that possibly lead to external payment options which allow developers to eschew Apple’s IAP options. On the surface, there seems to be nothing wrong with a company like Netflix providing a link to their website, given that most people are already signing up via their website these days. But i don’t think the intent is to allow an app like Fortnite to avoid paying Apple 30%.
I don’t know what the right answer is. Should Apple try to draw a distinction between games and non-gaming apps (like e-books)? This would solve the number one gripe users have with the App Store, and freemium games make up the bulk of App Store revenue anyways. I imagine it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple to defend this by attempting to draw parallels with gaming consoles. I suspect many of the common reasons cited for why something like the Switch App Store gets to keep its 30% cut wouldn’t pass muster in courts either.
Continuing to insist to its right to every last cent of IAP is risky (and will only serve to further antagonise its developer base), but again, the judge did originally rule in 2021 that Apple is entitled to it. Pushing back on the one part of the ruling that Apple did lose is incredibly risky, but high risk, high reward, I guess, and further cement Apple’s control over their App Store?
I don’t think the right move now is to capitulate, however, In for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose. What’s done is done, so let’s see where the dice land.
I think there is some confusion here
The JUDGE has not said Apple give your products away for free or services away for free
Because Apple don’t actually own the app all the company does is host it.
Because it’s not Walmart or targetThere’s a certain inherent contradiction in the judgement when you think about it.
First, Apple was found to not be a monopoly, and have a right to IAP and not offer other payment options inside the App Store. Yet on the other hand, Apple is supposed to allow links that possibly lead to external payment options which allow developers to eschew Apple’s IAP options. On the surface, there seems to be nothing wrong with a company like Netflix providing a link to their website, given that most people are already signing up via their website these days. But i don’t think the intent is to allow an app like Fortnite to avoid paying Apple 30%.
I don’t know what the right answer is. Should Apple try to draw a distinction between games and non-gaming apps (like e-books)? This would solve the number one gripe users have with the App Store, and freemium games make up the bulk of App Store revenue anyways. I imagine it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple to defend this by attempting to draw parallels with gaming consoles.
Continuing to insist to its right to every last cent of IAP is risky (and will only serve to further antagonise its developer base), but again, the judge did originally rule in 2021 that Apple is entitled to it. Pushing back on the one part of the ruling that Apple did lose is incredibly risky, but high risk, high reward, I guess?
I don’t think the right move now is to capitulate, however, In for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose. What’s done is done, so let’s see where the dice land.
That is why the judge has allowed payment links
Capitalism and companies don't exist in a vacuum.
Rather, they exist within societies and make use of their currencies, markets, and legislation to conduct business.
Without laws, contracts, or currency, what would you pay with? How would you enforce payment or agreements?
You couldn't.
It is the government's role (it is represents the people, after all) to ensure that workers, consumers, and the environment are not harmed by business practices.
Without the government, there would be no consumer protection, worker's rights, or safety and environmental regulations, and I personally like to think that most of us agree that those things are valuable for a functional society.
If Apple's App Store practices are seen as harmful, then the government has an obligation to intervene since the market is clearly unwilling and unable to do anything about it.
Whether the remedies the government imposes are the right ones (or not), that's a whole different topic.
And the legality of that is currently being challenged by Apple, as I thought they would. I feel like my response you quoted tackles the various issues present in said ruling.
The judge said Apple must allow app developers to put links to alternative payment systems in their apps, and they must do that without charging them a commission. As the commission is the way Apple makes money from the app store, it is exactly the judge ordering Apple to give it's products and services away for free.
The judge could have easily said that app developers are free to put links to alternative payments systems in their apps, but they will still owe Apple a 10% commission on all purchases that originated from an iOS app, and I think Apple would have a smaller chance of having a stay granted (because they'd still be making some money).
As it stands, the judge's verdict might actually give Apple a stronger argument for an emergency stay to be granted.
But there is interpretation of the law that’s required. That’s why we have judges.
I understand that, it does not mean that I have ever appreciated it as a customer. I understand them taking a cut, but I have never appreciated the inconvenience Apple causes the user with their policy. Also, I do not believe that Apple deserves 30% of the money from a Kindle book that I buy.
I can see a hybrid commission/service fee developer agreement coming out of all of this.There’s a certain inherent contradiction in the judgement when you think about it.
First, Apple was found to not be a monopoly, and have a right to IAP and not offer other payment options inside the App Store. Yet on the other hand, Apple is supposed to allow links that possibly lead to external payment options which allow developers to eschew Apple’s IAP options. On the surface, there seems to be nothing wrong with a company like Netflix providing a link to their website, given that most people are already signing up via their website these days. But i don’t think the intent is to allow an app like Fortnite to avoid paying Apple 30%.
I don’t know what the right answer is. Should Apple try to draw a distinction between games and non-gaming apps (like e-books)? This would solve the number one gripe users have with the App Store, and freemium games make up the bulk of App Store revenue anyways. I imagine it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple to defend this by attempting to draw parallels with gaming consoles. I suspect many of the common reasons cited for why something like the Switch App Store gets to keep its 30% cut wouldn’t pass muster in courts either.
Continuing to insist to its right to every last cent of IAP is risky (and will only serve to further antagonise its developer base), but again, the judge did originally rule in 2021 that Apple is entitled to it. Pushing back on the one part of the ruling that Apple did lose is incredibly risky, but high risk, high reward, I guess, and further cement Apple’s control over their App Store?
I don’t think the right move now is to capitulate, however, In for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose. What’s done is done, so let’s see where the dice land.
Commission for those who only accept Apple IAP.
Service fee for developers who link to external payment providers.
That way developers can choose whatever payment options they like and Apple maintains revenue stream from the app store.
What is and isn't legal is black and white (normally). Whether someone has actually done something illegal or not is the big bit of grey in the middle that's open to interpretation.
I would expect something like that, yes. Or maybe even more granular than that (developer tools fee, app review fee, app download fee etc).
The hosting and delivery isn’t “covered by the annual dev fee”. Just serving one app the size of Spotify probably costs Apple $500k-$1m, depending on how much Apple’s bandwidth costs. I suspect Apple’s overall cost for hosting the App Store is $50-$100m just for bandwidth, assuming they’re getting a good deal.
Every needs to realize the $99 dev fee was set with the assumption Apple would also be getting money on the back end from paid apps. If that assumption goes away, expect the dev fee to increase and additional fees to be added.