Of course it means what I think it means. It’s cool and trendy to call everything fascist today, even if it’s not. I’m just jumping on the bandwagon to call Epic’s actions and ruling, fascist. 👏
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
Of course it means what I think it means. It’s cool and trendy to call everything fascist today, even if it’s not. I’m just jumping on the bandwagon to call Epic’s actions and ruling, fascist. 👏
The American Heritage Dictionary entry: fascism
The American Heritage Dictionary entry: fascism
Perhaps we can tone down the rhetoric in this thread?
Put simply, because they agreed to that when they signed on to use Apple's development tools and App Store.
That would be up to the developers, not epic. They could in theory make the game free to download and then have a mechanism that allows you to activate it after downloading it.
You mean by "competent", a judge who will side with Apple instead of following the law? Sounds vaguely familiar...who else has tons of money to litigate until he finds a judge he's bought?
The richest company in the world with great products will prosper regardless of any services fee and now have to adjust. The only thing in jeopardy is the stock price. Which of course is important to stock holders but not the company, at all.
Once you see that you realize people are not defending Apple because they’re defending the company, but because of their own greed.
Once you see that you realize people are not defending Apple because they’re defending the company, but because of their own greed.
Just because developers signed up for something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be challenged
Unless you think that people shouldn’t challenge anything at all in life?
So you believe judges accept payola from Apple? Or is it possible Apple believes Judge Gonzales made an error and they way to clarify it is through appeal?
Once people realize that people are not defending Apple because of greed but because of the right to conduct business legally, people will see the light.
Sure challenge it. Epic lost and they aren’t come back to the App Store. They have a temporary win until this too turns into a loss. Apples internal and external attorneys aren’t stupid.
I know we often disagree, but credit where credit is due and couldn’t have said it better myself! 👏
Ok
But it was a judge that said payment links & zero commission for it
Not epic
Why does it matter if an app developer has a payment link inside an app anyway
You do understand that Fortnite on the App Store only made up 7% of its business
I suppose in life we shouldn’t challenge anything at all & just accept the terms and conditions as is.
This is a quibble, but the share price is absolutely important to a company like Apple. Stock grants are a vital part of compensation, which directly affects Apple's ability to attract talent. If your option is to do the same job at Company A vs. Company B, but Company A's stock price is high (and/or growing) and Company B's is lower (and/or stagnant) and a significant part of your compensation is in stock, which one are you more likely to choose, if all else is equal?
I think that's a bit much. I, for example, own exactly zero shares of Apple stock (or any individual company's stock, for that matter - just total stock index funds), and I am pretty sure anyone who has been reading this thread would throw me in as an "Apple defender" (despite the fact that I think Apple has behaved badly, I wish they wouldn't charge commissions on link outs, and they're just making things worse for themselves). I just don't philosophically agree that they should be prohibited from doing so.
Do you know what IMHO
Nobody what have a problem if they complied with the order & not tried to put scare screens & a ridiculous figure of 27% just so people don’t use IAP
No wonder the JUDGE told them to do one
Plus the fact they are putting in an extraordinary order to stop the need to comply with this is absolutely ridiculous until the appeal process is complete says it all
Really
Apple isn't going to give up its cash cow without a fight.
The anti-steering rule Apple had was kind of ridiculous. How do they justify allowing external payments for physical goods but not for "digital goods"? That distinction is so arbitrary
The anti-steering rule Apple had was kind of ridiculous. How do they justify allowing external payments for physical goods but not for "digital goods"? That distinction is so arbitrary
I agree. But, if what I and Apple think is correct, and that the judge isn't allowed to say "you can't charge anything", then two wrongs don't make a right. If Apple and I are wrong, then the appeals court will say so, and that will be that.
I mean honestly what do you expect? I would expect no less that filing for an injunction. It's millions and millions of dollars at stake. It's not "extraordinary" or ridiculous. Apple is being financial harmed literally every day this ruling is in place, so of course they want to put it on pause while another court decides whether or not the judge was correct in her ruling.
That doesn't mean the appeals court has to grant it, and whether they do or not might give us some insight into what they think the strength of the argument is.
Last edited:
Okay but this is now under appeal. Hence the thread title.
Ask Apple.
are you playing fast and loose with epics money? Epic made hundreds millions on the iOS App Store. You would be happy if they didn’t make that revenue?
Do what you think is best. IMO, don’t expect to win at every juncture.
did you not say to me it would make no difference regarding payment links because the majority of people will still use IAP for it’s convenience?
Now your saying it’s going to cost apple millions upon millions?
Yeah it is ridiculous because they have done everything they could to make it as difficult as possible & the judge saw right through it that is why her tune changed towards Apple this week.
Tim Sweeney actually tells you this & shows a graph that Fortnite only had 7% of its customer base on iOS
That is why they could afford to challenge Apple unlike other developers
It makes no odds to me if Spotify or epic or whoever puts payment links in their app
However your against it and I just wonder
Why?
I said that I expected the majority of developers (not all) would find that using a link out would net them less money than IAP. I also said I did not expect that to apply to the biggest companies, as well as things like gem purchases for games, which make up a significant potion of Apple's revenue.
I don't think there is anything ridiculous about Apple do everything it can to fight a ruling it thinks is wrong and will cost it millions of dollars.
Ok
But one minute your telling me I’m wrong and majority of people wouldn’t pick the cheaper option being the payment link
And then your now telling me it’s going to cost Apple millions upon millions in lost revenue if they don’t ask for this injunction to stop this 🤔
There is nothing wrong with appealing against court rulings however I find it ridiculous that for once the big company that tries to squash anything that gets in its way is now crying that they don’t like it & it’s not fair
You’re playing fast and loose with someone’s else’s money. Epic made hundreds of millions, are you saying it was a “mere bag of shells” to epic? And for the greater good they could throw it away. Didn’t do epic any good.
Why are you for it? Do you derive any benefit?
No
what I said was Tim Sweeney has said because Fortnite customer base was only
7% on iOS then that gave them the ability to challenge Apple because his game was not dependent on iOS because of its low percentage
Again it makes no odds to myself if an app developer puts a link in there app but it should be up to them
Why are you against payment links?
I have not once said that the majority of people wouldn't pick the cheaper option. You have incorrectly stated that as my argument multiple times, but I have not said it (and as far as I remember, I have corrected you every time you did).
What I said was most (again, not all) developers would find that they earn less money using link outs than they would have if they stuck with in app purchases, even after factoring in Apple's fee, because fewer users would end up actually completing the purchases that would have completed purchases with IAP.
I did not say that users won't prefer the cheaper price. I expect they will. I expect most of them will click on the link with a cheaper option, and then many of them, for whatever reason, will not end up completing the purchase (e.g., don't want to create a new account, don't have their card on them, etc.), and that the majority of those users would have completed the purchase using IAP, since to do that you just double tap and look at your phone.
That doesn't mean all developers will make less money, or that Apple won't lose millions and millions of dollars they would otherwise be entitled to. Don't forget every single sale that a developer loses is also a loss for Apple.
Is your argument that Apple isn't going to lose millions of dollars because of this judge's ruling? If you agree that they are, then why do you think it is "extraordinary" and "ridiculous" that Apple is fighting as hard as they can against a ruling that they see as incorrect on the facts AND with a remedy that they see as unlawful and unconstitutional, particularly if that ruling is costing them millions of dollars.
Last edited:
And different judges can interpret the laws differently. That’s the definition of gray.
I suppose much upstaging of usual keynote fare was done by "Apple Intelligence" last year, but WWDC 2024 still had about 120 sessions specifically for developers. (Agreed, at least, that it's hard to gauge interest in them by traditional impression-gleaning from the live audience reactions at sessions.)