Comparing an unsafe product to online business practices is apples and oranges
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
It’s apple and oranges, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. If you don’t like App Store policy go to android
Completely not thought through. So Apple has to allow purchases outside if the store what’s to stop devs from selling free apps on the store and all payments outside the store. Sorry but you gotta pay your dues folks your not entitled to everything.
I'm on the boat of not giving my CC information to dozens of developers outside of App Store secured walled garden. This is a big loss for developers no thanks to Epic Greed.
I still think all these App developers that are complaining are getting it wrong. If I have a product to sell, and I want to sell it in a certain store, then they are entitled to make a profit on my products. The mechanism is slightly different, be it that I might sell it to the store, the store slaps on a 30% profit margin and sells it to the consumer. In the App store case, I hand my product to the store, they sell it for the full consumer price, retain 30% and give the rest to me. Same difference. No where in the world can I demand that the store uses a different payment system or that customer inside that store pay me direct, it just doesn't happen and it's total nonsense. if Epic wants to sell their product elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do so, but if they want to sell it through Apple's store, then comply with their rules. Simple.
The year-long dispute between Epic Games and Apple reached a milestone with Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers delivering a middle-of-the road verdict that isn't quite what Epic Games or Apple wanted.
Apple will not be required to support third-party app stores as Epic Games pushed for, but Apple will have to let developers offer "buttons, external links, or other calls to action" to direct customers to in-app purchase alternatives.
In a statement on Twitter, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that the company was not happy with the verdict, and at the current time, there are no immediate plans for Fortnite to return to the App Store. Sweeney said that today's ruling "isn't a win" for developers or consumers.
He also said that Fortnite will return to the App Store when Epic can offer "in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment," which is unclear.
At the current time, the specifics of the judge's ruling are unknown and the exact parameters of what Apple is required to provide have yet to be established. How the ruling is interpreted and what's ultimately implemented in terms of alternative payment methods remains to be seen. The ruling, for example, does not prevent Apple from requiring developers to support in-app purchases, it simply calls for Apple to also allow for other payment methods.
What's clear, though, is that Fortnite will not immediately be returning to the App Store, and Fortnite's return isn't even up to Epic. The judge's ruling makes it clear that Epic Games violated its contract with Apple, and that Apple's decision to terminate Epic's developer account was "valid, lawful, and enforceable."
Apple is under no obligation to allow Fortnite back into the App Store, and further, the injunction preventing Apple from banning the Unreal Engine developer account has ended. Apple is well within its rights to remove Epic's access for Unreal Engine development and distribution.Epic Games also needs to pay Apple 30 percent of the $12 million that it brought in while offering the direct payment option that was in violation of Apple's App Store rules.
Though Epic is unhappy with the decision, other companies that have been in disputes with Apple support the ruling. Spotify legal chief Horacio Gutierrez said that Spotify is "pleased" with the finding while also calling for legislation to further address Apple's anti-competitive conduct.Though Apple did not score a total win, Apple lawyer Kate Adams told members of the media that the ruling was a "resounding victory" that validates the App Store business model. Apple's official statement highlights the anti-trust portion of the ruling, which went in Apple's favor. Apple has yet to comment on the outside payment requirement.Epic Games plans to appeal the parts of the ruling that it does not agree with, and Apple too will likely submit an appeal to push back on the anti-steering requirements the judge has enacted. Apple's lawyers told members of the media that they're still analyzing the judge's decision.
As of right now, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has given Apple 90 days to comply with her ruling and allow developers to add links and buttons to direct customers to alternative payment methods. Apple has sort of already taken steps toward the implementation of such a system with its announcement earlier this month that said "reader" apps could offer a link for account signups outside of the App Store.
Article Link: Epic CEO: Judge's Decision 'Isn't a Win for Developers or for Consumers,' Fortnite Not Immediately Returning to App Store
I'm doing the wrong thing by assuming here. Would this not require that Apple put up another "front end" to know when a transaction was completed? So, a user clicks the link to go to the 3rd party payment system. Apple would need to be made aware of a complete transaction. Not just that a user went to another system. Otherwise a user could just repeatedly click the external link and claim payment was made and charge the developer. LOL.
I'm thinking it would be a link, that opens up another window that stays within the App Store. User puts in their info, accepts, and fully completes the transaction. Apple knows, gets their commission, developer gets notified of the purchase, etc.
All Apple has to do here is come up with a commission rate that at minimum breaks even on the IAP before this change. Or if they want to charge more for the work involved, they can end up making the 3rd party rate more expensive for developer (when combined). If the average 3rd party processing rate is say 5%. Apple would charge a 25% commission on all 3rd party transactions. The user would see virtually no price difference, and most likely not bother going through the trouble. If a user wants to purchase completely outside of the store (gift cards, from the manufactures site, or other platforms). Nothing has changed there at all. You could always do that. Other than the fact that Apple will allow that Dev to place said information at time of purchase. Along with all kinds of long winded verbiage the user will have to scroll endlessly through before clicking ACCPET and then entering payment information.
I think the big loser here is Microsoft, who has been in the background of litigation like this providing amicus testimony, information, and dirt against Apple, Google, and Amazon in a myriad of different antitrust cases, yet Microsoft never is on the docket these days as being under investigation themselves. They are just behind the curtain whispering into every regulator’s ear in Europe and the US.
Unpopular opinion: Maybe Google / Android should spend more time and effort to figure out why their own option for _not only_ 3rd party App Stores -and- 3rd party payments, but entirely skipping app stores all together (direct download / side loading) isn't more attractive or popular to developers.
That is to say, *really unpopular opinion*, the lawsuit shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Developers have had all the necessary ways to eliminate or reduce fees on Android. Moreover, Android is at least 80% of the mobile market. But, few consumers and customers want to actually spend money in the universe of Android's marketplace(s).
So why the hesitancy from paying customers? Is it because Android apps are less appealing or useful? Is it because piracy of Android apps is too easy? I mean, Apple's restrictions, limitations, the monopoly on its own iOS marketplace, lockout of certain hardware features or API, arbitrary or capricious bans, rule changes, or lack of app approvals in the first place should just make the iOS market far less attractive to developers. Like developing a Nintendo system port of a video game.
The lawsuit wasn't about Apple limiting developer access to iOS customers because of contract exclusivity. And, I'm not saying that the lawsuit couldn't happen. But, again, why don't Android owners care to spend on mobile apps in the Android universe.
Apple's bad or illegal behavior couldn't survive with viable competition from Android.
Last edited:
Yes. They’d have to define a standard interface to the third party so that the receipt that comes back to the device is in a standard format. Apple doesn’t need to have any access to the payment information other than the thing being bought, the price, and a yes/no as to whether the charge was successful. They need to know what was bought in order to integrate into parental controls and subscription cancellation, presumably. This would all happen in the background in much the same way the current mechanism works. To the user it’s transparent.
Link to outside payments will be allowed now. Epic games should be satisfied
Depends how many moms and dads add epic.com to their kidsafe blacklist 😈
No, they can keep their name “Epic” and just add ”failure” to the end.
"Allowed to shop at"? Okay, so let's follow your counter-analogy. Let's say these consumers had, by choice, purchased a "Walmart Membership," and Walmart said that only people with those memberships could shop in their store. What say you, then? Because that's much closer to what's going on here, and that's an established model by companies like Costco.
In this case, what you're calling "allowed to shop" is an opt-in choice made by the consumer. Imagine an Apple account as a "club membership" and then see if your argument holds up.
At least two reasons that Apple, rightly, will try to limit this are relate to them being the one’s that will have to deal with any increases in malware etc. when they inevitably come.
Do you really think small developers are going to be able to develop and offer a system for managing/mitigating piracy and malware as robust as Apple’s? Because android has done so well on that front!
And this then directly relates to the larger view of Apple’s ecosystem. Apple have worked long and hard to develop this ecosystem and I note that developers dont seem to be running away in droves. As a consumer, I choose Apple because I trust them slightly more than Google and I trust their platform a whole lot more than Android to protect; precisely because of their model.
And as others have pointed out before, developers are delusional if they think this will end up well for them. Pirates, yes. Consumers, maybe. Developers no. Just watch the teeth gnashing as more and more pirates Apps proliferate, along with malware. And who is going to be blamed? Why Apple of course.
I only wish that Judges and Government officials could be held liable/culpable for stupid, ill-thought-out rulings and laws.
Last edited:
It's also similar to people renting their house on airbnb then complaining about their fee structure, demanding they create their own. You have the choice to rent the house yourself and not use the platform if you don't like the TOS. This argument breaks down in the case of monopolies because I would have no other choice. This is why it''s essential to break up monopolies in order for capitalism to function. The question of law in this case is whether or not the App Store is a monopoly and the ruling was that it is not. A dev has a choice to develop on Android, which is the dominant installed base, if they don't like the rules. What courts cannot, and should not do, is tell private parties how they should conduct business because the legal system, agencies, and government, is terrible at this. One exception may be in the case of public safety which is not the case here. This is nothing more than Epic trying to put money in their pocket instead of Apple's pocket. Neither party is fighting for you as capitalism is not about altruism.
Has there been a statement from "The Coalition for App Fairness" yet?
I'm curious to hear what they think of this recent news...
I'm curious to hear what they think of this recent news...
Wonder if Apple will start charging for the developer tools for the developers that decide to go with alternate payment methods
The fees will definitely be shifted elsewhere which will help some and hurt others. When airlines faced rising costs they decided to add fees to everything that was previously free - luggage, blankets, snacks, headphones, etc. This benefits people like me who never checks in bags while others cover my cost. Travelers with lots of check in baggage are paying what was potentially an increased ticket cost to me. Nobody knows how the fee structure will change for the App Store but it's 100% certain that there will be a redistribution given that Apple is not a non-profit. Ultimately the consumers lose as this is how things will play out:Wonder if Apple will start charging for the developer tools for the developers that decide to go with alternate payment methods
1) Developers will bypass the App Store payment to put the 30% fee in their own pockets. No, they will not be simply passing savings to the consumer. If possible they may compete with the App Store via a lower price but this will eventually go away
2) Apple will shift fees elsewhere to make up the loss
3) Developers, via social media, will raise their prices as they now have cover to shift blame to the evil big tech company increasing costs to consumers.
This is 100% equivalent to devs increasing their prices by ~30% to have customers cover the fees. This is something they can do today but would not go over as well as the steps discussed above.
Last edited:
I think it’s safe to say that Apple will continue to double down on fee collection from the larger developers.
It is in Apple’s interest to ensure that the App Store remains attractive to small developers who make up the majority of the apps you find, and therefore contribute chiefly to the vibrancy to find inside.
As such, I don’t think Apple will want to chase them away by introducing initiatives that make it harder for them to publish apps, such as increasing the annual developer fee, or charging them for API usage, especially since many of them are not generating any income of their own. They even carved out a special exemption for small developers by lowering their cut to 15%.
My take is that when we talk about developers, it may be useful to see them as two separate groups. The iOS developer base is not a homogenous group with similar wants and desires when it comes to the App Store.
The App Store continues to provide a lot of value for smaller developers (which make up over 90% of apps), and my guess is that most will continue to use iTunes billing regardless for the convenience and ease of use. Many of the problems being highlighted in the lawsuit simply do not affect them at all.
Meanwhile, larger companies like Epic, Netflix and Spotify don’t care about the same issues that stand to impact smaller developers. They want privileges like being to launch their own App Store on iOS, and to be able to use Apple’s platform as they deem fit, saving billions of R&D in the process etc.
It would certainly explain Epic’s reaction to the judge’s decision yesterday. In the midst of all this discussion, it is important to bear in mind why Epic embarked on this reckless gamble in the first place, and it is certainly not to empower developers or benefit users.