Something that wasn’t clear initially but I read in an update is that the judge said Apple STILL has the right to charge a commission even IF the developer’s using a 3rd party payment system. The developer would have to still pay Apple’s cut AND pay however much it costs them to process a payment through the 3rd party system. So, Apple’s revenue stream wasn’t going anywhere it appears.
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
Sadly you have governments seemingly run by people who don't understand how things really work, are using "things more fair for the consumer" as an excuse of what amounts to protectionism, listen to very small but vocal groups, or want people to think they are something something actually meaningful.
I pointed that out back shortly after the very good Epic v Apple: Judgment Day - Who Won? Who Lost? ...and Why? (VL538) dropped. So most developers not only have to pay credit card transaction fees (3% or higher), they will have to take time or worst pay money to do the paperwork do Apple gets its cut, which apple is still entitled to.
In fact, according to one post I read, Apple has gotten cute with S. Korea where technically they retain the 15% fee but give a 3% credit (which is more than 2% S. Korea will charge for no compliance). Either it is a move of total genius or the most boneheaded thing on the planet. I can imagine the conversation now.
S. Korea customer: Hey, Apple where's my 3% credit?
Apple: Oh, we sent it to your government just like that law you guys passed says as explained to us by our lawyers.
As I said before Epic has demonstrated itself to such a bad actor that Apple would have to a total idiot to trust Epic enough to make any kind of deal with them. More over the ruling stated that Apple still has the right to charge its commission regardless how the money is collected so all this is going to do is make it more expensive for small developers who try to use Apple's store but dodge any commission fee.
A long time ago I compared it to what happened at my university where the sweet arraignment we had was ruined by a bunch of clueless Epic minded idiots who wanted "choice". And as anything with an actual thinking functioning brain could have predicted this "choice" cost us more and we got less.
Last edited:
The devil is still in the details though. Apple will still need to find a means of determining when a transaction has taken place outside of the app, how much that transaction was, and whether it is something that could be taxed (like, how would you differentiate between an IAP and say, something purchased on amazon?).
They would also need a way of auditing each developer’s receipts to ascertain whether the amount they are liable for is accurate, or if the developer is under-declaring. Apple may choose to just close one eye for smaller developers, and focus on the larger ones (ie: those not in the small developer programme).
It’s potentially a lot of added admin work for all parties involved, for no real benefit.
This is actually part of why Apple got their stay. They were able to show that it would take a huge amount of work to do this and, if they won the appeal (which chances are good they will), they would have spent all that money for nothing.
That the judge okayed it means they agree.
It also shows that the ruling from the California judge was wonky as all get out. Despite what some of the people out there think there are a lot of legal and code things to work out to implement what the California judge ruled. Hoeg said odds were the ruling wasn't going to survive and so far it hasn't.
California's wonky anti-steering law effectively allows a judge to go 'if you are close we can treat you as if you violated' which anyone with a functioning brain knows is legal nonsense. It is akin to saying a ticket for speeding in 35 MPH zone is valid because the 33 MPH you were doing was close enough.
How the tables are turning.
www.fosspatents.com
Apple gets injunction stayed as predicted AND deals major blow to Epic-Spotify-Tinder Coalition for App Fairness: U.S. appeals court denies motion to file amicus brief
Epic fail. By that wordplay I don't mean the order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting Apple's motion to ...
The fact that so far every attempt at getting a law similar to how the California court ruled has either failed (North Dakota and CAF was behind that bill), disappeared from the voting docket because its supporters knew it would fail (Arizona and CAF was involved there as well), or has gone to committee and hasn't been seen since (90% of bills "die" in committee) seems to point to the supposed "grass root" movement to be the result of a few vocal people and the Epic funded CAF.How the tables are turning.
Apple gets injunction stayed as predicted AND deals major blow to Epic-Spotify-Tinder Coalition for App Fairness: U.S. appeals court denies motion to file amicus brief
Epic fail. By that wordplay I don't mean the order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting Apple's motion to ...
Epic isn't going to get back access to Apple store and they actually had a better case against Google if even fraction of the claims they made are true. Though what do you expect of a company that can't set up a software based shopping cart to buy software on its store? Something actually competent?
Last edited: