That’s a 20% discount to the customer. Who is getting the other 10%? That’s right Epic. Epic makes more money by not doing the work which Apple was doing for them.That's literally what Epic did though...
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 Pays Apple $6 Million as Ordered by Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That $6 million was rightfully Apple’s, as part of the agreement. Don’t think Epic is coming back to App Store anytime soon.
FWIW the reporting elsewhere is along the lines that it wasn't as 1-sides as MR would have you believe, Apple is going to have to change its policy to allow links to 3rd party purchases and Apple's stock's gone down more than 3 per cent (hint: that's more than $6 million)
Apple can no longer force developers to use in-app purchasing, judge rules in Epic Games case
The trial took place in Oakland, California, in May, and included both company CEOs testifying in open court.www.cnbc.com
Apple can no longer force developers to use in-app purchasing, judge rules in Epic Games case
> Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down the decision in the closely watched trial, and issued an injunctionthat said Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing. Apple typically takes a 15% to 30% cut of gross sales.
> The injunction addresses a longstanding developer complaint and raises the possibility that developers could direct their users to their website to subscribe to or purchase digital content, hurting Apple’s App Store sales, which grossed an estimated $64 billion in 2020.
> Apple stock dropped more than 3% in trading Friday.
> The decision concludes the first part of the battle between the two companies over Apple’s App Store policies and whether they stifle competition. Apple won on nine of 10 counts but was found to engage in anticompetitive conduct under California law, and will be forced to change its App Store policies and loosen its grip over in-app purchases. The injunction will come into effect in December.
> “The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice,” Rogers wrote. “When coupled with Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.”
> However, Rogers said Apple was not a monopolist and “success is not illegal.”
...
Headline is false. Apple can continue to force IAP. Nothing in the injunction prevents apple from doing so. All the injunction says is that if developers want to use a different payment method they can talk about it in the app. Nothing in the injunction says they can put the payment method in the app. Nothing in the injunction says apple can’t make a rule “if you accept payment outside the app you must accept payment using iap as well.”
Oh my word. You're kidding, right? That was clearly a rhetorical, one-word "question" to express how I thought the poster's statement was odd - I wasn't requesting information
I mean, how is it possible NOT to know that? LOL!P.S. Both the "questions" above are also rhetorical questions.
example of actual question: Could you please give me some reasons why Apple should do that?
example of rhetorical questions: Are you kidding me? / Huh? / What?! / etc.
Not if they continue to waste money on appeals. All, if they can't man up and follow the rules...if the trial they claimed that 64% of fortnite users were playing on iOS.
Wait a second. You're telling me it's "mistreating" cashiers to let them do their job? Huh??? I guess you've never been to WalMart, where even poor people do the same thing. Has absolutely nothing to do with money. I personally always use self checkout because I don't like chit-chatting or cashiers commenting on my purchases, but I guarantee you I'm not going to start doing the cashier's job if I have to use a non-self-checkout lane. If I were a cashier, I'd actually be insulted if someone presumed to do that.
Also, I clearly agreed that money does change MANY people for the worse - I would exactly call that a strong "faith in people." I'd say that's a pretty balanced statement, whereas saying money changes MOST people for the worse is overly cynical.
“Sounds like” being the culprit here. Just because a number seems high or low, doesn’t make it reasonable. This is only amplified by you saying it sounds like a “tax”. You (and many others) are just using the word “tax” because it has a negative ring that you want to attach. There are plenty of taxes that are single digit, so the statement makes zero sense. What makes 15% arbitrarily reasonable? What if a “reasonable” fee is 2%? There are plenty of retail segments where gross margins above 70% is the norm. Why don’t we compare with those instead?
Hard disagree that any number is fair “across the board”.
wow fanboys here really think that epic would be greedy and not lower prices if this went through, but apple be so good that they would donate the money to charity?
delusion is a hell of a drug.
I don’t think anyone suggested they would. One argued they *should*. I openly self-identify as an Apple fanboy, but still disagreed… I think you may be the expert on delusion.
For a subscription you can make an argument. For a IAP 30% is still hugely profitable for me and any other developer. For games, IAP are almost always highly profitable things like virtual currency, skins, or extra lives. It lets us turn a $19.99 game into closer to $100 avg across customers. Regardless, if Apple lower the cut I am still going to charge you the same amount and so is everyone else. The AppStore still subsidises other platforms which you need to be seen on but aren't as profitable or in the case of the Epic game store, often run at a near loss because of how expensive that store is.
Clearly you neither work in business sector nor have you been involved in business deals of distribution. Numbers and figures aren’t created out of thin air and laws and regulations aren’t there to intimidate. Every business is subject to law and regulations - written and enforced ones for that matter - for the margins they set for their own model. There is also the consideration of purchasing power of markets.
Banks are the only institutions that are left mostly unchecked for loan landing. That’s why they are free to impose 700% interest if they wanted to. You really should deeper how things operate.
This was the closest example I could give in public forums for obvious reasons. If we ever meet in person, I am more than happy to share my experiences I had with people in my over three decades of work life. Personal experiences are even longer than that. So I will leave things at that.
Yes, Epic loves you and genuinely care about you saving few bucks. They are the most profitable charity but we just don’t know that, right?
Does the court have an "Use Apple Pay to pay your fines" option?
Or did they pay directly?
If they had an Apple Credit Card and payed with that, would they get cash-back?
Or did they write a cheque? Is Luca going to frame that cheque?
Or did they pay directly?
If they had an Apple Credit Card and payed with that, would they get cash-back?
Or did they write a cheque? Is Luca going to frame that cheque?
Bit presumptive of you, I suggested they should donate it as a F U to Epic, 6 million is chump change to Apple. And you appear to be an Epic fanboi
Yeah, I think you'd better. I honestly have no idea what you're on about.
That's where you're wrong.
Not in the US. I don't know which country you live in. Like, Apple has clearly higher margins on phones than their competitors.
Lemme give you an example: There are two gas stations across from each other near me, and they have different prices, which are adjusted at will. One is a Chevron, and its price even differs from another Chevron nearby. If they were all the same, I'd be suspicious of price-fixing.
Last edited:
To be fair, you didn't say that originally - you simply said they should donate it (you didn't say why).
They're selling ingame money. The price already has little to do with the costs and everything to do with how much someone is willing to pay for a different character skin.