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

[I7guy]

I don’t get what you mean it’s not over till it’s over are you an Apple lawyer?

Epic lost over a billion dollars with this stunt and got locked out of the iOS App Store in the US. Apple by not acting on the original trial points got scolded by the judge. (Which I think was deliberate in order to file an appeal in case of a punitive action…and it worked) as far as me being an Apple lawyer are you an Apple insider?

But Fortnite only had 7% market share of their app on iOS App Store that is why
Tim Sweeney took Apple to court because his game doesn’t rely on iOS because it’s on other platforms
Hence why he took them to court

And they lost 1 billion dollars give or take a dollar or two. A billion dollars used to be real
Money, not Monopoly money.

there is an appeal process going on because Tim Sweeney took Apple to court and as a consequence of that they are now having to put payment links into the App Store with zero commission so how did Apple actually win?

Did Apple lose the current appeal in the appellate court? Maybe I missed that in the news.

 

[Stuwil]

Epic lost over a billion dollars with this stunt and got locked out of the iOS App Store in the US. Apple by not acting on the original trial points got scolded by the judge. (Which I think was deliberate in order to file an appeal in case of a punitive action…and it worked) as far as me being an Apple lawyer are you an Apple insider?

And they lost 1 billion dollars give or take a dollar or two. A billion dollars used to be real
Money, not Monopoly money.

Did Apple lose the current appeal in the appellate court? Maybe I missed that in the news.

I don’t get it you keep bringing up the fact epic has lost money it’s not my money I don’t care buddy

All I know is Tim Sweeney has changed the rules & regulations for the iOS App Store for every developer going forward and that’s a good thing for developers
Yet for some reason people are mad is if it directly affects them

 

[I7guy]

I don’t get it you keep bringing up the fact epic has lost money it’s not my money I don’t care buddy

It’s a relevant topic to remind us all that where epic goes they incurred a massive hit to their bottom line.

All I know is Tim Sweeney has changed the rules & regulations for the iOS App Store for every developer going forward and that’s a good thing for developers

Until the rules get changed again. In case you forgot, this has been appealed. And we don’t know which way this will wind up. Tim S. Could end up crying in his soup.

Yet for some reason people are mad is if it directly affects them

Yeah I agree. People have this emotional connection to external payments when it doesn’t effect them, other than to spread around their cc information.

 

[Stuwil]

It’s a relevant topic to remind us all that where epic goes they incurred a massive hit to their bottom line.

Until the rules get changed again. In case you forgot, this has been appealed. And we don’t know which way this will wind up. Tim S. Could end up crying in his soup.

Yeah I agree. People have this emotional connection to external payments when it doesn’t effect them, other than to spread around their cc information.

I’ve just said I don’t care that epic has lost money taking Apple to court because it’s not my money

Why do you actually care if Apple loses this appeal
Because I’ve explained why it’s a good idea for payment links in apps
Because it’s good for developers
Yet yourself never gives a legitimate reason as to why your against it

 

[I7guy]

I’ve just said I don’t care that epic has lost money taking Apple to court because it’s not my money

I think it’s a salient point. His insolence has cost the company money. And these changes may be only temporary based on the nature of the appeal.

Why do you actually care if Apple loses this appeal

I care whether they win or lose.

Because I’ve explained why it’s a good idea for payment links in apps

I disagree it’s a good idea.

Because it’s good for developers

If developers want that there is a platform, called android. It’s unlikely Apple can walk this back but hopefully this will get overturned to an extent that they aren’t getting $0 commission.

Yet yourself never gives a legitimate reason as to why your against it

You never gave a legitimate reason other than, it’s a good idea, as to why you’re for it.

 

[Stuwil]

I think it’s a salient point. His insolence has cost the company money. And these changes may be only temporary based on the nature of the appeal.

I care whether they win or lose.

I disagree it’s a good idea.

If developers want that there is a platform, called android. It’s unlikely Apple can walk this back but hopefully this will get overturned to an extent that they aren’t getting $0 commission.

You never gave a legitimate reason other than, it’s a good idea, as to why you’re for it.

Yeah I did because that means developers get to keep more of the income to them help their app grow

Again it’s not my money involved in this case if two companies want to spend money fighting between each other then that’s up to them

Ah I get it now why your using this type of argument & language in regards to epic and this court case

 

[I7guy]

Yeah I did because that means developers get to keep more of the income to them help their app grow

But this may only be temporary. If the devs hate the relationship so much, there are alternatives.

Again it’s not my money involved in this case if two companies want to spend money fighting between each other then that’s up to them

It's not my money either, but by any measure $1B is a lot of money. $100M in court fees. They sure arent going make it back in spades on the new payment platform, which could be very short lived.

Ah I get it now why your using this type of argument & language in regards to epic and this court case

👍

 

[damienDevZ]

That answer is already available. Epic already has a PC game store and they charge nothing to serve you games or keep your save files. I can't say the same about Nintendo.

Epic charges a 12% percentage fee to buy games on Epic. Nintendo charges a 30% fee, just like Apple.

 

[Abazigal]

I’ve just said I don’t care that epic has lost money taking Apple to court because it’s not my money

Why do you actually care if Apple loses this appeal
Because I’ve explained why it’s a good idea for payment links in apps
Because it’s good for developers
Yet yourself never gives a legitimate reason as to why your against it

The reason has been provided numerous times. You just are not acknowledging it for some reason. Basically, declaring that Apple is not allowed to monetise its IP via IAP by allowing developers to link users to external payment options may well be a violation of Apple’s property rights, though it’s still something which needs to be established in court.

The ruling doesn’t affect me either way. It’s possible that reversing said ruling may even be to my disadvantage in some way in the future. I am not here to debate about what benefits me or what doesn’t, but about what does happen.

I would suggest you heed your own advice and not pop champagne too early.

 

[Stuwil]

The reason has been provided numerous times. You just are not acknowledging it for some reason. Basically, declaring that Apple is not allowed to monetise its IP via IAP by allowing developers to link users to external payment options may well be a violation of Apple’s property rights, though it’s still something which needs to be established in court.

The ruling doesn’t affect me either way. It’s possible that reversing said ruling may even be to my disadvantage in some way in the future. I am not here to debate about what benefits me or what doesn’t, but about what does happen.

I would suggest you heed your own advice and not pop champagne too early.

Tbh
I’ve not once said that Apple should be entitled to zero
What I have said is I don’t get why people don’t think app developers should be allowed payment links in apps?

I’ve consistently said it should be about 12% the fee based on Apple’s business model

I just don’t understand why people are so angry about a company trying to get better terms and conditions
Why are individuals taking it so personally

 

[Abazigal]

What I have said is I don’t get why people don’t think app developers should be allowed payment links in apps?

Because then it would reduce Apple's cut to zero. Something which you have been cheering on with glee in these threads (or at least it comes across that way to me).

I am sympathetic to the argument that iTunes makes it impractical for businesses like selling ebooks. Considering that Apple gets most of its App Store revenue from freemium games anyways, I guess I would be fine with a further segmentation of the App Store. ie: games (like Fortnite) must use iTunes for IAPs and pay Apple 30% with no option of using external links. Non-gaming apps such as Netflix, Spotify, Hey, ebooks and productivity / subscription-based apps would be exempt, and be allowed to keep 100% of revenue. The revenue loss would be a rounding error on Apple's balance sheet.

I’ve consistently said it should be about 12% the fee based on Apple’s business model

How would you suggest that Apple collect 12% from developers who use payment links in their apps to redirect users to external payment options then?

Besides, 12-15% is just as arbitrary as the original 30%.

Why are individuals taking it so personally

I could be mistaken, but I recall you replying to @I7guy numerous times about how Tim Sweeney has effectively won by succeeding in getting the courts to change the manner in which Apple collects in-app payments from developers. You are also supremely confident that Apple will have to allow Fortnite back into the App Store.

Tim Sweeney is not a messiah. His goal is, as it always has been, to get his Epic Store onto iOS where he can keep 100% of IAP from freemium games such as Fortnite, as well as host other developers' apps (and charge them a cut). He is not doing any of this to benefit consumers or empower developers.

Either way, let's see how Apple's request for an injunction goes.

 

[Stuwil]

Because then it would reduce Apple's cut to zero. Something which you have been cheering on with glee in these threads (or at least it comes across that way to me).

I am sympathetic to the argument that iTunes makes it impractical for businesses like selling ebooks. Considering that Apple gets most of its App Store revenue from freemium games anyways, I guess I would be fine with a further segmentation of the App Store. ie: games (like Fortnite) must use iTunes for IAPs and pay Apple 30% with no option of using external links. Non-gaming apps such as Netflix, Spotify, Hey, ebooks and productivity / subscription-based apps would be exempt, and be allowed to keep 100% of revenue. The revenue loss would be a rounding error on Apple's balance sheet.

How would you suggest that Apple collect 12% from developers who use payment links in their apps to redirect users to external payment options then?

Besides, 12-15% is just as arbitrary as the original 30%.

I could be mistaken, but I recall you replying to @I7guy numerous times about how Tim Sweeney has effectively won by succeeding in getting the courts to change the manner in which Apple collects in-app payments from developers. You are also supremely confident that Apple will have to allow Fortnite back into the App Store.

Tim Sweeney is not a messiah. His goal is, as it always has been, to get his Epic Store onto iOS where he can keep 100% of IAP from freemium games such as Fortnite, as well as host other developers' apps (and charge them a cut). He is not doing any of this to benefit consumers or empower developers.

Either way, let's see how Apple's request for an injunction goes.

I never once said Apple was entitled to zero
What I have consistently said was developers
Should be entitled to include payment links because it will increase their income going forward.

I don’t purchase anything from epic however I do think he’s right that based on Apple’s business model then there is no need for them to take any more money than 12% for IAP fees because there business model is different compared with other technology companies

Well Tim Sweeney did win because Apple are having to change there iOS App Store policy & regulations as a consequence of a court ruling now if Tim Sweeney had lost then Apple wouldn’t be doing that

The reason why Tim Sweeney is confident that epic will be back on the iOS App Store in the USA sooner or later is because it is not in Apple business interests to reject his developer account because no good will actually come of it long term
That’s why
now individuals on MR might think stuff epic but it will eventually lead to bigger problems down the road for Apple business wise
That’s why

 

[surferfb]

Well Tim Sweeney did win because Apple are having to change there iOS App Store policy & regulations as a consequence of a court ruling now if Tim Sweeney had lost then Apple wouldn’t be doing that

If Tim Sweeney won, why did he say he lost after the original ruling? All of the appeals were denied so nothing has changed.

 

[Stuwil]

If Tim Sweeney won, why did he say he lost after the original ruling? All of the appeals were denied so nothing has changed.

If nothing has changed then why is he trying to put Fortnite back on the USA ios App Store and no where else in the world
If nothing has changed 🤔

Plus what you will probably find is it’s not in Tim Sweeney’s interest to say publicly that he’s won it’s better for himself to downplay it

 

[surferfb]

If nothing has changed then why is he trying to put Fortnite back on the USA ios App Store and no where else in the world
If nothing has changed 🤔

As I said previously, I suspect he’s trying to put pressure on Apple to drum up support for a proposed law that would require alternate app stores.

Plus what you will probably find is it’s not in Tim Sweeney’s interest to say publicly that he’s won it’s better for himself to downplay it

Compare and contrast the parties’ statements after the ruling.

Apple:

Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law.

Sweeney

Today's ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers.

I think most people would reasonably interpret Apple won and Epic lost after reading the two statements.

 

[Stuwil]

As I said previously, I suspect he’s trying to put pressure on Apple to drum up support for a proposed law that would require alternate app stores.



Compare and contrast the parties’ statements after the ruling.

Apple:


Sweeney


I think most people would reasonably interpret Apple won and Epic lost after reading the two statements.

bingo
So what Tim Sweeney is doing is deliberately downplaying payment links & zero commission as a win

To continue to chip away at Apple’s current rules & regulations
It’s a deliberate strategy because now he has managed to chip away at one section
And will continue to do so

 

[I7guy]

bingo
So what Tim Sweeney is doing is deliberately downplaying payment links & zero commission as a win

To continue to chip away at Apple’s current rules & regulations
It’s a deliberate strategy because now he has managed to chip away at one section
And will continue to do so

As long as an appeal is in motion epic hasn’t won anything. Since we are speculating, if apple wins the appeal then game over for epic.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The reason has been provided numerous times. You just are not acknowledging it for some reason. Basically, declaring that Apple is not allowed to monetise its IP via IAP by allowing developers to link users to external payment options may well be a violation of Apple’s property rights, though it’s still something which needs to be established in court.

The ruling doesn’t affect me either way. It’s possible that reversing said ruling may even be to my disadvantage in some way in the future. I am not here to debate about what benefits me or what doesn’t, but about what does happen.

I would suggest you heed your own advice and not pop champagne too early.

again Apple is allowed to monetize their IP

well they already have it..

• The Yearly Developer fee 99$
• The App store 15-30% commission.
• The proprietary In App Purchase mechanism 15-30% commission.
• The proprietary Link outside the app mechanism 13-27% commission

None of this is prevented or banned to continue. They just now need to compete with:

• Apple pay implementation (allegedly a 0.15% commission)
• Some standard payment mechanism (stripe/shopify/paypal etc) 2-6% commission + $0.30 fee
• A custom payment implementation of the app developer
• Other mechanism

And personally i would rather apple tried to standardize using the Apple Pay function instead. cheaper, simpler and more convenient to everyone. They should be better

 

[I7guy]

again Apple is allowed to monetize their IP

And what about 3rd party app stores? Apple is not allowed to monetize that. And that’s the problem with this line of thought.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And what about 3rd party app stores? Apple is not allowed to monetize that. And that’s the problem with this line of thought.

Well Apple can still monetize 3rd party AppStores if they opt for apples services.

Just how Epic monetize any app that uses their Unreal engine.
Apple can monetize any developer using Xcode

 

[I7guy]

Well Apple can still monetize 3rd party AppStores if they opt for apples services.

Just how Epic monetize any app that uses their Unreal engine.
Apple can monetize any developer using Xcode

But they can’t reallyy monetize their ip, from the forced regulations of the DMA.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But they can’t reallyy monetize their ip, from the forced regulations of the DMA.

They can as long as its an option

DMA and the U.S. ruling doesn’t prevent the developer fees from being levied.
They could make it a revenue shared model for those using Xcode.

They can say apps in the AppStore must have an Apple payment option as an option compared to their payment method.

They can say any app that wants to have a certificate of security must pay a fee.

They can say any app that uses Apple services have to pay for its use.

If apple have the better option then it will be used.

Just how I think if Apple had pushed Applepay it would likely be used in the Amazon app or Uber etc etc because it’s simply superior than just about any payment service

 

[I7guy]

They can as long as its an option

DMA and the U.S. ruling doesn’t prevent the developer fees from being levied.
They could make it a revenue shared model for those using Xcode.

They can say apps in the AppStore must have an Apple payment option as an option compared to their payment method.

They can say any app that wants to have a certificate of security must pay a fee.

They can say any app that uses Apple services have to pay for its use.

If apple have the better option then it will be used.

Just how I think if Apple had pushed Applepay it would likely be used in the Amazon app or Uber etc etc because it’s simply superior than just about any payment service

So they can’t really monetize their IP. The Robin Hood effect of the DMA won’t allow it. So if one changes to Apple cannot monetize all of their IP, that’s a true statement.

 

[bcortens]

So they can’t really monetize their IP. The Robin Hood effect of the DMA won’t allow it. So if one changes to Apple cannot monetize all of their IP, that’s a true statement.

Telling Apple how they can monetize their* IP is different than saying they cannot monetize said IP.

I think the CTF would maybe** have been able to stand if Apple hadn't tried to steer devs to terms that did not have the CTF. The EU explicitly took issue with the fact that there were two sets of terms and one of those terms prevented devs from taking advantage of their rights under the DMA, and that set of terms, the non-DMA terms, didn't include the CTF.

There is a reason Apple tried to keep CTF free terms around, one of those reasons is obviously that they want to keep their high level of control over devs. The other reason (I suspect) is that Apple doesn't want to anger Netflix, Uber, Amazon etc... by putting in place a fee where previously the apps were free.

*Note 1: Apple advertises the phone as an app platform, so one could argue that they are already getting paid for the
IP by the end user who buys a phone that is advertised as being able to run third party apps.

**Note 2: I think Apple will have trouble with a CTF even if they apply it to all devs because Apple competes with the devs (Apple competes with Netflix, Spotify, Game Devs, News Apps, Fitness and Medical, etc...)

If all Apple did was create the platform the CTF would be pretty uncontroversial (if universally applied) but since they also want to compete with Apps on the platform they are likely to get in trouble.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So they can’t really monetize their IP. The Robin Hood effect of the DMA won’t allow it. So if one changes to Apple cannot monetize all of their IP, that’s a true statement.

They are fully free to monetize their IP, they just need to convince people to pay for it, or they can use something else that isn’t their IP.

If the developer agreement say they will have a revenue sharing model for any revenue made they’re in the clear.

They just can’t make the choice to just monetize some of them