Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins Stay in Epic Case, Won't Have to Implement App Store Changes Tomorrow

erikkfi said:
I don’t see how offering alternative payment options would be the end of Apple. And I don’t understand why opinions are so strong on this issue generally.
Click to expand...
well people will ALWAYS have strong opinions on something.

I think Ease of Use, centralized billing and notifications of subscriptions in ALL iOS/macOS and iPadOS devices makes seeing any attempt at nefarious billing be visually and easily accessible is the key!

3rd Party Billing:
- will ALL programmers, teams, companies agree that billing will be IN-side the app or via browser externally from the app?
- will these 3rd parties allow easy arbitration? What are policy terms for refunds, subscription $ changes and how it affects existing subscribers?
- how will end users see billing - goes to my first question above.
- during debate on pricing/billing/payment whom will side with user, terms of such discussions?
- what are the rules for pricing changes? Terms and conditions changes - communication sent via email, or will user have to logon via browser or is it displayed in app?

Lots to consider here.

Now going back to PocketPC, Symbian (S60 2nd/3rd Edition and UIQ), PalmOS days ..., there have been a FEW pitfalls in that early era - and no Palm/Handspring did NOT start the modern smartphone era as a recent Verge video on youtube will have you believe. But reading about that will give great insight as to WHY:

Some people are strongly in favour of in-app and sticking with App Stores, or b) in favour of NO app store.

Lastly - there is this latest twist suggestion by Epic for a single universal app store for all your devices - but how will that be managed? Will the same arguments against Apple (not the only one to have an App Store) WHO will be the custodians ... EPIC? lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rfk and hans1972
One day before the deadline… Not many companies can afford to wait that long for a verdict. This lawsuit once again shows many things that are wrong with the judicial system.
 
LivingMyBeachLife said:
How is it a monopoly when it's their platform that they built, consumers have a choice they can go to Android and Apple is not impeding the development of another mobile OS with its own App store? Apple has every right to have a closed ecosystem. Consumers have the choice and right not to choose Apple products?
Click to expand...
The same way that Walmart has a monopoly on the shelves in their stores. /s
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: amartinez1660, secretbum, Haroic135 and 2 others
dguisinger said:
Good, time for congress to sweep in and install new marketplace rules that are worse for Apple than just complying with allowing that link. Its going to happen eventually, Apple should have settled for the lowest impact option and look like they were cooperating.
Click to expand...
I mentioned previously - good luck getting any new legislation to pass given how divided congress is right now.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: mhnd and Maximara
Maximara said:
As a privately held company does Epic even have a board of directors?
Click to expand...
They do. At one point I believe it was five members, two of which were appointed by Tencent. For some reason, I think they are over dozen board members now, but I could be confusing some of the names with another company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
  • Haha
Reactions: mhnd
jgdeschamps said:
If your IAP costs 5.99 and Apple takes 30% cut from that, you are left with 4.19 bucks as earnings... but you are willing to let your earnings go down to 99 cents per transaction and lose 3.20 dollars, as long as people go to your website and pay you directly? Aren't maths a requirement to be a developer?
Click to expand...
As it is for many companies, having access to your email address has value. That’s one of the things buying through Apple prevents. The price difference could be related to how much they’re losing by not being able to track/sell your information over time?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: jdb8167, Krizoitz, amartinez1660 and 5 others
Good victory, as expected, but the bigger point is that the court states that they raised “serious questions” about the merits of the original judgement. The free market has prevailed — good news for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mhnd and linrey
Jimmdean said:
This was pretty much inevitable. Remember she did not say they could not have their cut - she said they could not limit the payment methods. But she kind of placed the onus on Apple to make it happen. It will never work that way. She should have stated that Apple must accept reasonable developer requests for alternative payment systems as long as Apple is compensated just the same as they would be otherwise - or reasonably so based on contractual agreements. That puts the burden back where it should be - the developer that wants to make the change. I mean we already know that sort of thing happens now with subscription-based content providers. She just needed to expand on that into other areas.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the judge she may have been limited by the law as to what she could.
 
elvisimprsntr said:
Apple: You want to distribute games through our infrastructure for free and point users to a third party payment system. OK, no more free or add supported apps where we pick up all the costs.
Click to expand...
I agree. If payment is made outside the app store then THE FILE needs to come from someone else's server. If you don't want to pay for Apple's infrastructure, then source the files yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mhnd and Maximara
dguisinger said:
Good, time for congress to sweep in and install new marketplace rules that are worse for Apple than just complying with allowing that link. Its going to happen eventually, Apple should have settled for the lowest impact option and look like they were cooperating.
Click to expand...
They are cooperating — working within the current laws and defending their position in relation to them.

It isn’t the job of Congress to retaliate over the outcome of a judgement in a court of law. If anything, this case sets a precedent — in Apple’s favor. Not only that, but this recent ruling sides with Apple in raising questions about points in the original ruling.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Krizoitz, amartinez1660, mhnd and 1 other person
Unregistered 4U said:
As it is for many companies, having access to your email address has value. That’s one of the things buying through Apple prevents. The price difference could be related to how much they’re losing by not being able to track/sell your information over time?
Click to expand...
But the individual is not including that "small" tidbit as a variable. They are just showing random numbers that try to cheat their customers into thinking that the App Store's 30% cut for a $5.99 app is equivalent to 5 dollars. And in the end, that's the real life example and smoking gun regarding the risks of outside payment methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara, amartinez1660 and mhnd
The court system is a joke. Don't like the decision in a lower court, appeal it in the next higher court. On and on, back and forth until you get to the Supreme Court. What's the point of wasting time in all the lower courts when judges seem to constantly disagree with the court decision below them? Politics playing a role in these decisions, possibly?
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Xiaojohn, jhfenton and Tagbert
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back