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 Games Accuses Apple of Charging 'Unjustified Fees' for Required Non-App Store Purchase Link
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue for Apple is that freemium applications get to use apples eco system for free and make millions of dollars.
Instead of making a genuine sale at the front door of the shop people come into the shop and take it for free then pay you for it later outside the shop. However the shop has hosted your product and giving it floor space, wrapped it up annd gave it to the customer but the dev ended up paying nothing for that. That’s actually not that fair either.
Apple feel that without them building the shop they would never have been able to do that. Since apple spent billions creating the eco system they want at least some compensation for the opportunity they have created.
yes but you do realise the spirit of the $99 dev kit was to equal up the game for independent devs vs big development companies with billions in the bank right?
When you develop for a console you have to pay thousands for a dev kit to get access to api’s and support. On top of that you pay a license to console maker who then distributes your games.
Apples app store literally made the indie dev viable. People left their full time jobs and because devs on their own because apple did this. Before the App Store it was very hard to compete and get an indie game distributed on other platforms. And that’s not even mentioning piracy issues.
When people have eaten their dinner they often forget who made it for them…
Every time I read about this ongoing litigation, all I can picture is a rich kid and a really rich kid fighting about the other not playing fair. And when I think about it that way, I stop caring altogether. Both of them are just trying to take as much of my money as they can.
maaaaannn Apple should develop a game to be pure trolls on this.
It might actually be worth it to make the point.
Beat epic at their own games.
My guess is nothing.
What’s Next for Apple and Epic’s Legal Disputes?
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court told Epic Games and Apple, “No, thank you,” and Apple served up an ugly alert to developers who can now offer payment options outside the App Store. If you’re thinking, “Wait, didn’t this all get resolved ages ago?” I feel you. The legal system moves at its own...
www.macstories.net
Epic charge 12%, not 30%.And so the solution is clearly to allow Epic to host other apps and charge them 30% instead.
It's all fine and dandy when it's not Apple collecting the money, I suppose.
And yes, it’s fine and dandy since they compete with other games or gaming stores - the barriers to switch from the Epic store to buy somewhere else tomorrow are zero - whereas
I didn’t bring up music - I responded to someone else bringing up music and the music industry.
Being successful and popular isn’t illegal. Does Spotify control the industry for music publishing. Not even nearly as much as Apple (and Google) for mobile apps. Also, I’m not aware of Spotify competing
You are not forced to do anything. Don’t like the terms? Don’t sign up.
This is such a gullible way of thinking in a commercial world driven by profits. Take a look around you and you can apply the same arguments to almost every company in the world (e.g. most make bank but underpay their workers, CEOs get millions while that Amazon delivery guy struggles to pay their rent).
That‘s simply not how the world works and you know it.
The Australian government is too stupid, spineless and shortsighted to have a go at that. Tech is not the Australian way, coal and sheep exports are all they know.
Last edited:
Epic are right to take this matter further because what Apple is doing is a disgrace. Rather than allowing developers to just edit their code to add links to their website Apple is forcing app developers to sign up to the newly introduced 'StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement Kit' (as explained here https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/16/us-app-store-alternative-purchase-option/) which has costs attached to it. The worst part for me is this part of the entitlement kit
Meaning if a user clicks the link in an app that takes them to the dev's website and then subsequently makes purchases from that website within a 7 day period, Apple can claim commission on EVERY purchase made within 7 days of the user clicking the link. Who the hell does Apple think they are!!!!. That's the sort of thing people would expect from dictatorships.
Meaning if a user clicks the link in an app that takes them to the dev's website and then subsequently makes purchases from that website within a 7 day period, Apple can claim commission on EVERY purchase made within 7 days of the user clicking the link. Who the hell does Apple think they are!!!!. That's the sort of thing people would expect from dictatorships.
That's the agent model which isn't unusual. Businesses can in general agree to any kind of agent and commission agreements.
Here in Norway, the rent for a restaurant is very often a percentage of the revenue of the restaurant.
1st agreement: The $99 fee is a membership fee for the Apple Developer Program. This allows Epic to use the development tools.
2nd agreement: In addition, each developer appoints Apple to be their agent and commissionaire for the their paid app and its sale and distribution.
It's the second agreement which allows Apple in the US to collect money from Epic.
In the EU, the agreements are different.
I think you missed the point. I'm building a new house, so you think it would be ok if I use all your tools, materials, car, gas, food, stay and your place - everything for free. And then I sell the house with all the profit going for myself?
dude, have you ever been in business? You sound so naive. It is very common to charge fee for large corporations based on revenue or licenses, etc.
The legal reason for this is because the developer agreed to it. They appointed Apple to be their agent commissionaire.
This injunction isn't about in-app purchases. Epic already lost that argument. It's about anti-steering provisions.
You have misunderstood. This case is about the US and has nothing to do with EU and the DMA.
I think it's fair to bring EU law into this, since the other way around happens all the time under DMA threads.
US courts have already determined this everything Apple does with regards to commissions from developers are legal, with the exception of anti-steering provisions.
This case is only about Epic arguing that Apple still have provisions to that effect which violates an injunction.
No, because the injunction against Apple is based on a California law if I remember correctly. The injunction is only about anti-steering provisions. Everything else in the Epic v Apple case, has already been found legal by the courts in the US.
What happens in the EU will not influence at all if Apple has violated that injunction.
That's not legally relevant. The developer agreed to Apple taking a commission. That's the legal basis.
Serious question:
Have Epic ever said they would be willing to pay any commission to Apple?
Or does "excessive commissions" simply mean "more than zero"?
(The DMA does not say Apple cannot charge a commission for the use of its platform.)
Have Epic ever said they would be willing to pay any commission to Apple?
Or does "excessive commissions" simply mean "more than zero"?
(The DMA does not say Apple cannot charge a commission for the use of its platform.)
Legally, developers agrees to this voluntarily. Epic lost every argument, except for anti-steering provisions, which is what this is about.
Doesn't matter. For the purposes of debate it's useful to imagine how a foreign entity would react to a multinational corporation limiting another on a global scale.
This is what the case is about.
It's not about Apple charing a commission or taking a 15% or 30% fee, hosting or non-hosting, if in-app purchases fee are legal or not, etc.
It's only about if Apple has broken an injunction against them with regards to anti-steering provisions.
The DMA doesn't regulate phones or tablets at all. In fact, phones are explicitly outside the scope of the DMA.
The DMA regulates certain services and software products/services.