Apple Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle

[Stuwil]

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 is unlawful and unconstitutional, particularly if that ruling is costing them millions of dollars.

Incorrect because in my experience most people will do anything to save a buck
It doesn’t matter if it’s a quid or three quid most will do it because it’s cheaper at first at then over time people will stop using IAP
Companies do it all the time
That is why Apple don’t want it & are fighting hard to not implement it by using scary screens & wanting to charge 27%

I’ve just said it’s ridiculous because this company squashes & deliberately puts up barriers if anyone challenges them on anything so they can maintain their status quo yet the minute someone does it back they say it’s not fair.

Again it makes no odds if the fee was 12% because based on Apple’s business model then they are guaranteed a consistent flow of profit compared with other technology companies

What is actually interesting about this is the JUDGE actually got angry because according to her Apple was deliberately circumventing a court order by their actions

 

[Chungry]

I think even the blind saw this move coming. Agree or disagree with their actions, Apple has every right, and a pile of cash to boot, to drag this out for as long as possible.

 

[I7guy]

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

You seem to have agreed with the sentiment that it’s ok for Tim Sweeney to lose hundreds of millions of dollars to wage a war that his company ultimately lost.

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?

Why are you for payment links? It’s between Apple and the dev and doesn’t affect you at all.

 

[Stuwil]

You seem to have agreed with the sentiment that it’s ok for Tim Sweeney to lose hundreds of millions of dollars to wage a war that his company ultimately lost.

Why are you for payment links? It’s between Apple and the dev and doesn’t affect you at all.

How did epic lose when Apple are having to change the rules and regulations for the iOS App Store
If Tim Sweeney lost then Apple fans like yourself wouldn’t want this ruling overturned

I’ve just said because I think developers have a right to offer it if they want to within their own app.
Why are you against it

 

[Chungry]

I keep thinking about what, if any, reputational harm this has caused for Apple. Let's say that theoretically they got all this reversed- what, if any, lasting impact would there be? Could they countersue for damages? Just thinking about all the angles

 

[Stuwil]

I keep thinking about what, if any, reputational harm this has caused for Apple. Let's say that theoretically they got all this reversed- what, if any, lasting impact would there be? Could they countersue for damages? Just thinking about all the angles

Who are they going to sue the judge?
Can’t sue epic because apparently they lost big time according to people.

 

[Chungry]

How did epic lose when Apple are having to change the rules and regulations for the iOS App Store
If Tim Sweeney lost then Apple fans like yourself wouldn’t want this ruling overturned

I’ve just said because I think developers have a right to offer it if they want to within their own app.
Why are you against it

In the first trial, Epic did lose on all but one point. Sure, Apple invited the scrutiny and fallout of this new ruling by maliciously conspiring to comply in a way that was materially worse than if they had complied in good faith. But Epic largely lost the first case.

 

[I7guy]

How did epic lose when Apple are having to change the rules and regulations for the iOS App Store

Is epic back in the App Store? If not, they lost completely. This hubris, at this moment, is about every dev other than epic. Epic, as it were, took a big one for the team.

If Tim Sweeney lost then Apple fans like yourself wouldn’t want this ruling overturned

That doesn’t follow. Epic lost and Apple supporters such as myself wants this ruling overturned.

I’ve just said because I think developers have a right to offer it if they want to within their own app.

That’s between the dev and Apple. You want to insert yourself into that relationship.

Why are you against it

Because developers signed an agreement with Apple.

 

[Chungry]

Who are they going to sue the judge?
Can’t sue epic because apparently they lost big time according to people.

No, of course they couldn't sue the judge. Just curious if this would have any sort of chilling effect on them financially or otherwise cause long-lasting reputational harm. I could see this coloring the news for WWDC this year for instance- sites report on the news but always throwing this and the AI delay into the story.

 

[0049190]

..

 

[I7guy]

I keep thinking about what, if any, reputational harm this has caused for Apple. Let's say that theoretically they got all this reversed- what, if any, lasting impact would there be? Could they countersue for damages? Just thinking about all the angles

It’s my opinion customers by and large do not think anything of this. The war is being fought by a small population in social media, blogs and podcasts.

 

[Stuwil]

In the first trial, Epic did lose on all but one point. Sure, Apple invited the scrutiny and fallout of this new ruling by maliciously conspiring to comply in a way that was materially worse than if they had complied in good faith. But Epic largely lost the first case.

Do you actually think
That Tim Sweeney thinks he lost
When Apple are having to put payment links
In there App Store & not be able to charge a cent for it
Even if they are allowed to charge for it then if it’s 12% he still wins

 

[Ulfric]

If I buy a game on a developers website can I link it to my Epic account and have Epic serve it to me as a download and store my saves? Or will Epic want a cut in order to do that for me?

Don't know aout Epic, but Steam allows it. you can purchase a steam key from an outside vendor & redeem it on Steam.

 

[I7guy]

It’s a very badly drafted law if it can be interpreted differently by different judges.

The law should always be black or white with no grey areas.

Okay it’s badly drafted but that’s not the way things work. There’s an area called grey.

 

[I7guy]

Do you actually think
That Tim Sweeney thinks he lost

Yes, there is no benefit to epic. None at all.

When Apple are having to put payment links
In there App Store & not be able to charge a cent for it

Could be overturned.

Even if they are allowed to charge for it then if it’s 12% he still wins

Epic doesn’t win anything. But devs other than epic could bleed profits from Apple.

 

[0049190]

..

 

[Chungry]

Do you actually think
That Tim Sweeney thinks he lost
When Apple are having to put payment links
In there App Store & not be able to charge a cent for it
Even if they are allowed to charge for it then if it’s 12% he still wins

I think that Tim Sweeney has some wild, Galaxy gass takes and I would expect he could make a victory out of being mauled by a tiger.

 

[I7guy]

You are confusing two separate issues. In the case you cite above clearly the law has been broken by the speeding driver. End of story. Black and white.

However, I this instance there are mitigating circumstances so they judge would take those into account when passing sentence. You still broke the law but might get a reduced penalty.

That is NOT a grey area. The law is black or white. Either you broke the law or you didn’t. The punishment is the only area open to debate.

This is not about Apple “breaking the law”. It’s about judge Gonzales issuing a bad ruling that could be overturned.

 

[0049190]

..

 

[verdi1987]

It’s a very badly drafted law if it can be interpreted differently by different judges.

The law should always be black or white with no grey areas.

What world do you live in? Judges exist to interpret and apply laws. They may get overruled by an appellate judge, who may get overruled by the en banc Circuit Court, who may get overruled by the Supreme Court.

 

[0049190]

..

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, there is no benefit to epic. None at all.

Could be overturned.

Epic doesn’t win anything. But devs other than epic could bleed profits from Apple.

Ok
So if Tim Sweeney never won then why is Apple having to change their App Store
Rules & regulations in regards to payment links & zero commission?

So fundamentally he has managed to change the iOS App Store policy right now

And the reason you don’t want payment links is because Apple don’t want it

 

[diddl14]

Maybe consumers would have the ability to decide with more clarity if any purchase they make through the App Store gets a 30% "fee" added it to during payment. In other words, that game listed for $9.99 actually costs $13.00 after Apple's take of their share? Lots of angry consumers I'd guess. That's probably how developers feel. Right now, it's a "hidden" fee so how could a consumer know?

Proponents of Apple charging 30% to developers would argue the 30% is for all that Apple does to host and distribute their app, advertising, and access to a base of customers. But the customers also get the benefit of a secure location to pay for and download their apps all in one place, so a 30% fee paid by the customer doesn't seem outlandish now, using the same logic the proponents use. Sort of like the "convenience fee" you pay when buying concert tickets online.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support either scenario, just saying it shouldn't be all on the backs of developers if there is going to be any fees charged.

I have an app on the App Store since the early day's of iOS. As a developer, I was more than happy to share 30% of the $3.99 with Apple. Without Apple, the iPhone, the AppStore and all the innovative stuff they provided, I would have never been able to build and sell this. I don't believe small developers or consumers have an issue with the 'apple tax'. It's seems to be really the larger companies that don't like to give Apple a fair share of the revenue they make on top of the Apple eco-system.

 

[Stuwil]

I think that Tim Sweeney has some wild, Galaxy gass takes and I would expect he could make a victory out of being mauled by a tiger.

Yet here we are one guy has managed to get a judge to change Apple’s App Store rules & regulations to now include payment links & zero commission on it.
So he must have made some valid points or else they wouldn’t be forced to appeal against it

 

[diddl14]

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.

Love your take on this and yes, largely agree. Except that it appears the government has been triggered to act based on lawsuits and lobbying. If harm was done is a matter of politics, not objective truth.