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.
Epic CEO: Judge's Decision 'Isn't a Win for Developers or for Consumers,' Fortnite Not Immediately Returning to App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's fine. I was just attempting to help clarify any confusion.
It bears repeating:
This is likely going to SCOTUS no matter what. If I were you, grab your popcorns ready because this is going to get ugly.
This is likely going to SCOTUS no matter what. If I were you, grab your popcorns ready because this is going to get ugly.
So with this ruling why would anybody ever offer a paid App in the App Store? Just list it as a free App and put a link in the free version to pay the dev directly and take Apple out of the equation entirely.
Get all the benefits of the App Store and pay nothing for it…. seems perfectly fair.
Get all the benefits of the App Store and pay nothing for it…. seems perfectly fair.
It would depend on how Apple structures the fees, but it is clear they are entitled to collect fees for the services they provide.
How much is debatable, but Apple will find legal ways to make up for the lost revenue, whether via d/l charges, higher developer fees, licensing fees, etc.
Probably, but I doubt the court wants to decide what the fee should be.
Apple will find new ways to makeup for the lost revenue, which may hurt smaller developers less able to absorb the costs.
Not going to happen.
Boiling done the verdict in simple terms.
1. Apple has the right to throw Epic out of the App Store for violating the terms of the agreement.
Important point: There is no judgment that says Apple has to allow them back in. It lies at the discretion of Apple, and it should be noted that Apple has permanently banned apps from their store in the past for developers breach on contract.
2. Epic does not get its own separate payment store in App Store.
Important point: This was the single most important reason Epic went to war, to have a payment system embedded in the App Store and did not get in this ruling.
3. Apple is ruled not have used unfair monopolistic practices.
Important point: Helps free Apple of further legal entanglement.
4. Apple is not allowed to prevent developers and their app from directing the customer outside the App Store.
Important point: But there is no judgment that says that Apple cannot charge extra service fee if a developer chooses to use outside payment exchange. It's moot for Epic since they have not been reinstated back into the App Store and therefore can not benefit from Apple's loss.
Other note: Epic has to pay 3.65 million for not paying the fees during their 3 months escapade in 2020, not to mention the loss of earning in the last 10 month since being booted off the App Store.
No clear win for Apple. Clear loss for Epic.
1. Apple has the right to throw Epic out of the App Store for violating the terms of the agreement.
Important point: There is no judgment that says Apple has to allow them back in. It lies at the discretion of Apple, and it should be noted that Apple has permanently banned apps from their store in the past for developers breach on contract.
2. Epic does not get its own separate payment store in App Store.
Important point: This was the single most important reason Epic went to war, to have a payment system embedded in the App Store and did not get in this ruling.
3. Apple is ruled not have used unfair monopolistic practices.
Important point: Helps free Apple of further legal entanglement.
4. Apple is not allowed to prevent developers and their app from directing the customer outside the App Store.
Important point: But there is no judgment that says that Apple cannot charge extra service fee if a developer chooses to use outside payment exchange. It's moot for Epic since they have not been reinstated back into the App Store and therefore can not benefit from Apple's loss.
Other note: Epic has to pay 3.65 million for not paying the fees during their 3 months escapade in 2020, not to mention the loss of earning in the last 10 month since being booted off the App Store.
No clear win for Apple. Clear loss for Epic.
Apple seems to think it's a clear win...
Apple describes Epic Games ruling as a 'resounding victory' for the App Store - 9to5Mac
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers today handed down her decision in the Apple vs. Epic legal case over the App Store....
9to5mac.com
Epic's whole approach was flawed from the jump. They chose the exact worst way to go about making their case and the results reflect exactly that.
FFS, they planned the intentional breaking of their contract and an entire multi-million dollar PR stunt for months, using their user-base (most of which are ten year old kids) as ammo and slandered Apple in the court of public opinion (also for months). Not exactly the way actual pros would handle their business. But with Sweeney, non one expects otherwise. "Amateurs, Dude."
As I said in another post, if I were an Epic shareholder or employee, I'd want Sweeney out. What a tool.
Regarding point 4. The ruling says Apple would be entitled to collect their commission on IAP, even if it were facilitated through a third-party. If a purchase is made outside of the app, Apple has no claim to a cut of that revenue. That is where Apple loses, along with dev's ability to inform their customers of such a purchase option.
Do you have any reference for this? Epic, makes Billions of dollars a year from Fortnite alone. Not to mention the Unreal engine is becoming even more important for games and movies. As far as I know its the only engine, that runs on Linux, MacOS, Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, PS4/PS5, Android, iOS and Windows.
No, it's definitely a resounding victory for Apple since it sets a lot of legal precedent in their favor, states they are not an illegal monopoly, and validates their ban of Epic and all of its products from their platform for TOS violations.
They might have "loss" on anti-steering but Apple still maintains a lot of power in how it is implemented since the ruling also explicitly states that Apple is entitled to seek a commission regardless of what payment processor is used. That means Apple can set a commission fee that makes outside payment processors untenable. They already say that their 30% is not tied to payment processing, so they'll probably continue to demand the same fee.
They don't really want a "link", they want a button that says EPIC PAY right next to APPLE PAY. With the price showing how much lower EPIC PAY is vs APPLE PAY. And Still be "IN" the AppStore. They know most people will not click on EPICPAY link and go through all that jazz all over again to purchase some vBUCKS for a dollar less. They want the whole F*****G cake, and eat it too.
Good time to buy. This ruling will have virtually no effect on apple's earning.
The judgment does not say they cannot apply a service fee at the end of each pay cycle and charge per transaction. Other forms of businesses have extra service charge like this all the time for indirect service.
But really, you think most users would take the time to sign out of the App Store, fill user name and password or punch up an payment app to save a few pennies, especially to a developer they really have little trust it outside of the iOS ecosystem.
It will be nice to be able to manage my Netflix account with a clear link to "the web".
Attachments
So will apple charge developers larger fees for those who use outside payment methods. Since the developer is basically using apples infra for free.
These two numbers don't mean the same thing. One is a credit card transaction fee. The other includes that PLUS being in the store and all that comes with that.
You can't have treatment "only" for the Apple AppStore. This has to apply to ALL. Which makes zero sense because why should any store allow a way for a customer to purchase via a register that doesn't belong to said store? Free rent anyone? But, if they still have to pay a commission back to that store at whatever % that turns out to be. Then it may fly. But, otherwise I think Apple and others will appeal that part of the ruling.
YES, oh YES. Maybe something like if your ad supported, you can pay $49 a year developer fee. If you support IAP via Apple only, stay at the $99 yearly fee. If you do IAP via both Apple and 3rd party, say $1000 a month. Or something ridiculous like that.
Because the injunction allows apple to make a rule that if you offer a payment outside the app you also have to offer it in the app Using the App Store.
If a dev puts a link to the dev’s site in their app, which they’re now allowed to do, Apple will have no way to know anything about any purchase that may have been made. This is no different than how Netflix works right now, except devs will now be free to advertise within the app to their hearts content.
And if users are saving 15-20%, many will bother. Apple gets 70% of App Store revenue from 10% of users, so some people are spending quite a bit of money. Someone making a one time $3 purchase maybe not, but they aren’t responsible for most of the money Apple makes anyway.
Unless apple dictates the manner of the “link” to go through a standardized front-end. Nothing in the injunction seems to prevent that.
In the alternative, Apple just says “if you offer links to your own payment processor, we charge you [a flat fee | a fee based on how many people install your app | an additional fee based on how many people use the App Store to buy in app purchases in the app]”