He is so annoying to listen to these days; long winded, apple-hating, google-loving.
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
This was the case with Netflix, Spotify, etc. However, I think going forward. All apps MUST have both options. Which today, they do not. They do not have to show a payment method that includes Apple. Going forward they will if they have an IAP within the app. And if Apple gets a commission due to the option being a link to outside payments. Then they could actually make more money due to this ruling.
Not entirely sure the "reader" apps would be affected. However, anyone that wants to place a link to 3rd party payment would also have to include Apple's. And either way, Apple would get a commission or the 30%. Unless a user purchases outside of the Apple Store entirely.
This ruling has overall a huge win for Apple. Apple one on all counts except for one, which allows links to third aptly payment options for IAP, BUT the court also found that Apple still has a right to collect a commission for its IP, which means they can still come up with a way to charge those developers that want to use a third party payment option for IAP.
The court ruling that Apple is still entitled to collect a commission on its IP. This means that they can easily come up with a way to still charge those developers a commission. It won't be 30% (which includes payment processing fees) but it won't be nothing either.
Consumers and developers have choices. iOS is not the only mobile platform.
Apple can do a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean Apple won’t end up back in court, getting smacked down again for acting anti-competitively. What you’re proposing would seem to rather go against the spirit of the ruling, if not the letter. It’s 185 pages so I haven’t read all of it.
Apple could change their entire income structure for the App Store, but they atill aren’t likely to make as much money as they have been. It would be rather naive to think Apple doesn’t have it setup as is to make the most money possible. Now this lawsuit would have them going to sub-optimal at best if they decide to change things. Apple is between a rock and a hard place on this one.
Your argument makes no sense. No one, I mean no one is forced to purchase an iPhone or iPad. The fact that Apple devices count for over half of the mobile phone market shows that most people are clearly not unhappy enough with Apples practices to switch to Android.
However, the dev could charge one price for Apple’s IAP and a lower price for going outside of the app for the purchase. Depending on the the difference, many may go outside and net Apple no cut.
How do you figure that? have you even read the whole ruling? The ruling clearly states that it finds in favour of Apple on all counts except the one antisteering (only California law) count.
The ruling is not 185 pages. That’s the findings of fact. And I read it. The injunction is very clear about what Apple is not permitted to do, and the findings of fact point out the rationale, and include nuggets like pointing out that apple is entitled to charge for the use of its IP, regardless of how developers monetize apps.
Nobody said folks were forced to buy an iPhone so I’m not sure what your point is.
Sounds needlessly cumbersome. I will probably stick with iTunes for smaller, one-off purchases (and simply absorb the difference, since I doubt developers are going to pass on the full savings onto consumers at any rate), but to each their own, I guess.
Your are misinterpreting the ruling. The ruling actually states that Apple is still entitled to a commission for its IP on apps distributed through the App Store, not "Purchases made within the app" as you have stated. Also, there is nothing in the ruling that would prevent Apple from say charging different developers a different yearly developer account fee based on the size of the company, for example.
You mentioned Walmart being the only store where half the people could shop. I am simply saying that although half the people have iPhones, that was their choice, they were not forced to buy an iPhone, so your statement about Walmart makes no sense.
Keep fighting the good fight Mr. Sweeney. Maybe the win for Epic today will finally shake Apple out of it's fever dream of having this obsession of making as much money as they can wring out from whatever they have their hands in, no matter what the cost including the QC of Apple's current products and gimmicks it already offers.
The prior QC was reason one I originally signed up with Apple. Because everything always worked as it should. But that was when the 5c was just released and a long time ago.
The prior QC was reason one I originally signed up with Apple. Because everything always worked as it should. But that was when the 5c was just released and a long time ago.
How would forcing devs to use a special “link” mechanism be different than Apple forcing devs to use Apple’s IAP? If forcing the latter is anti-competitive, then the former could very easily be argued as such as well. Basically, it’s too cute by half. Also, do you believe the judge specifically stated everything that Apple is and is not allowed to do? Just because the judge didn’t say Apple couldn’t do something doesn’t mean it will pass muster in court if they do whatever that thing is.
As long as the “link” goes to the developer’s chosen payment processing system, how is that not abiding by the injunction? All Apple does is put up a standardized “here’s what you are buying, here’s what it costs, here are the terms and conditions, do you approve?” box. If the user clicks it, Stripe, or whoever processes the payment, but apple then knows the amount so it knows what cut it is owed.
as for the rest, anyone who has been to law school understands what the injunction means.
Yes and that’s how the market exists today. It doesn’t matter if it was their choice to buy an iPhone. The point is that Apple has substantial power to block or grant access to over half of the market. Walmart does not have that power, hence why the comparison was non-sensical.
Get back to me when Apple implements such a system that goes against the spirit of the judge’s ruling. It sounds suspiciously similar to the way IAP works today, except for using a different payment processor. Again, too cute by half.
This should really have been made more obvious by MR:
They haven’t even marked the article as updated, they just hid a Scribd link below the fold…
They haven’t even marked the article as updated, they just hid a Scribd link below the fold…
The ”different payment processor” is the entire essence of the ruling and the complaint about anti-steering. And as long as the developer can add text to the box, how is this against the spirit of the judge’s ruling? You want me to get back to you when apple implements such a system, but I could say the same to you about after going to law school.
There’s still a lot to come on how exactly this decision plays out. But the idea that Apple is coming away from this unscathed is likely a fantasy.
Apple and Epic both lost today
Apple stands to lose billions; Epic failed to #FreeFortnite
www.theverge.com
