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 Wins Stay in Epic Case, Won't Have to Implement App Store Changes Tomorrow
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More like 'Waterloo' continues....or Stalingrad (T.Sweeny as General von Paulus....)
There are some that just think “Apple’s made enough money.” Which, I’m sure, is the same argument they use when asking their parents for things. “You’ve made so much money, why should I have to go make any, just give me some of yours!”
At least with android we are not restricted . Apple users are bound by their os . Android users are not
The last guy who claimed he was inevitable didn’t end up so well, IIRC.
I‘m only referring to the date this verdict was given. What were Apple‘s options at that point? They could have prepared all the changes they would have to make to comply in case they were turned down beforehand (which is probably impossible, since it’s a little more than flicking a switch), or they could do nothing and hope for the best, at the risk of having to pay huge fines (I assume). Many companies probably couldn’t afford to do the latter.
Or of course make the changes and roll back in case they win, which is just as stupid.
This is just wrong. First make a final decision, then give the party appropriate time to comply.
(Sorry for my inadequate English)
as if Apple users cant buy an Android phones.
the best thing is the difference of the two, but making iOS to be like Android? why?
Apple didn't ask for a stay for the other part of the injunction. Apple says it has already complied with that aspect of the district court's order by changing its rules to allow the out-of-app communications at issue.Apparently there is a second part of the injunction that is not part of the stay. Wonder how that will play out.
Epic v. Apple ruling put on hold after appeals court grants a stay
“Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions”www.theverge.com
Why do you (or whomever "we believe" refers to) think Apple's commission for IAP made using other payment methods will only be 10% (as compared to 30%)? I would expect that commission to be much higher - something like 20 to 25%, possibly even closer to 30%. That is to say, I think it would be higher than 10% unless some change was made to federal law which abrogated intellectual property rights in a way that limited what Apple and similarly situated others could charge for the use of their intellectual property. I haven't thus far seen where such a change has been proposed.
Last edited:
Where would savings for developers or customers - whoever those supposed savings would effectively fall to - come from? If Apple is eventually forced to allow third-party payments for IAP as a result of this ruling, it will likely require commission payments on such sales high enough to negate any supposed net savings.
There's an aspect of how antitrust law works, as relates to this situation, that I think many don't fully appreciate. Apple has a legal monopoly when it comes to the use and control of its intellectual property. It has the right to charge what it wants in exchange for allowing others to use that intellectual property. Apple could set the commission rate (for sales made through apps using its IP) at 30% or 50% or 70%.
However, what could cause antitrust problems for Apple is tying its legal monopoly on control of its IP to other things which it doesn't have a legal right to monopolize. So it might have problems if it tried to use its control over the use of its IP to maintain dominance when it came to, e.g., IAP payment collection or processing. One way it might do that is to underprice its payment processing services (in connection with the licensing of its IP) so as to give it an unfair advantage over other payment processing services. It might, e.g., charge a 30% commission on IAP it doesn't handle itself and also charge a 30% commission for IAP it does handle itself. That could be seen as anticompetitive behavior that lacked procompetitive justification. It might be seen as illegal tying - an illegally anticompetitive attempt to effectively force developers to use its own payment processing services.
This is where some of the arguments that have been made against Apple's 30% commission rate actually help Apple, and I suspect many who have made those arguments don't realize it. The argument that others could provide payment processing services at a much lower rate - for, e.g., just 5% - would help Apple justify charging a higher commission rate - of, e.g., 25% - for IAP it didn't handle itself. Others actually providing such services at lower rates (if this ruling eventually goes into effect) would even more so help Apple justify charging higher commission rates. It would mean that Apple wasn't effectively charging those who chose to use its own payment processing services an unfairly low - an anticompetitive - rate for those services.
Further, Apple might be able to justify an even higher commission rate for IAP it doesn't handle itself relative to the rate it charges for IAP it does handle itself (e.g., it might be able to justify charging 30% in both cases) based on certain procompetitive reasons for doing so. For one thing, collecting its commission on IAP that it doesn't handle would be more difficult and less reliable. It would be easier to collect that commission from developers who use Apple's payment processing. So Apple might be able to justify, e.g., charging those developers an effectively discounted rate for everything other that payment processing - e.g., 25% instead of the 30% it charges developers who don't use Apple's payment processing services - which offset what it effectively charged them - e.g., 5% - for using Apple's payment processing services. Under current antitrust law, procompetitive reasons can justify what would otherwise be anticompetitive behavior.
At a minimum I think Apple can - without antitrust problems - justify charging developers who use third-party payment processing the difference between what it charges developers when using its own payment processing and what others charge for payment processing. So, e.g., if it charges developers 30% on IAP it handles and other payment processors charge 5% to handle IAP, Apple could justify charging developers 25% when they use other payment processors.
More generally, when it comes to potential changes that might open up the iOS platform (for, e.g, third-party payment processing or side-loading of iOS apps), the more the issue of Apple charging a commission for the use of its IP is untethered from other issues (such as it charging for payment processing or hosting of apps) the more Apple is freed up to charge whatever it wants for the use of its IP without creating antitrust concerns. It's the tying which could, under existing antitrust law, cause problems.
When you are in a walled city, you don't want the barbarians at the gates to set up shop.
You want them to enter the city powerless and conduct their business under armed guard, which have the power to execute them on the spot, if they misbehave.
This consumer is thrilled. Having one place to manage my payment options, is massively superior to having to manage it separately for each app and service. Not to mention easy subscription cancellation. It’s way better than what Epic is trying to get to happen.
We just don't want to give developers any power or choice, since they are bad actors and will misuse it until proven otherwise.
It's better for 1 million developers to be found guilty even if innocent, than for one annoying, horrible, lying consumer suffer even the smallest harm.
This just show that many developers are just horrible human beings, and should be banned from the App Store for life.
It's exactly the reason why we don't want any developer to have any power or choice.
You are temping iOS users to abandon convenience to save money.
One of the most horrible offences you can do to people who can afford iPhones and iPads.
And the free market method for that is to support (or create!) a platform that does that.
Nope. Android has multiple App Stores, you are free to switch and use whichever ones you want. iOS Apps aren’t the relevant market, smartphone apps are. The rulings on that have been clear and consistent.
Hopefully they’re forced to give me a billion dollars. About as logical and likely.
And that's a good thing. I trust Apple more than I trust most developers.
So how many of the small developers reduced their prices when they got their fee reduced from 30% to 15%?
My experience is that most prices stayed the same.
Great, enjoy your Android. Plenty of us prefer iOS and are HAPPY to have only one place where we need to manage our purchases and payments. We see that convenience and simplicity as a BENEFIT. If you don’t, no problem, you do you. But believe it or not not everyone thinks like you or prioritizes what you do, so stop acting like we do or should.