It is. The eu for example has mandated Apple give away much of its up for free. That’s playing Robin Hood and giving away apples property for free.
It’s still a locked ecosystem. No matter how it’s portrayed. We’ll have to disagree on this point.
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 Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
we are not taking about the EU
We are taking about spotify or epic having an app on the iOS App Store & then including a link so the customer can purchase something regarding that individual app.
Nobody is disputing the PS5 is locked down but why would you want the PS5 to actually do anything much else apart from playing PS5 games or potentially a streaming app like YouTube?
Because it's a computer. It's perfectly capable of running any software of the owner's choosing. And Playstations used to do that.
Linux for PlayStation 2 - Wikipedia
Sony's behavior is just as reprehensible as Apple's. Both companies need to be smacked down HARD for it.
Again there is a big differenceBecause it's a computer. It's perfectly capable of running any software of the owner's choosing. And Playstations used to do that.
Linux for PlayStation 2 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sony's behavior is just as reprehensible as Apple's. Both companies need to be smacked down HARD for it.
I bought my PS5 in 2020 how do I buy a PS6 now about 5 years later?
That’s the point in regards to the App Store and having the ability to put a link to purchase outside the iOS App Store
It’s all about context
The price for your games are 30% higher than they should be according to the current argument. It’s not about the rate at which hardware is bought by the consumer.
I'm sorry, I just don't see hardware release frequency as a relevant difference.
It's not like I buy iPhones any more often than that. My XS Max still works fine.
It’s about context
I bought my PS5 in 2020 & they are not refreshing that according to reports to 2027
That is why the digital store on iOS is fundamentally different to the PlayStation digital store
That what it comes down too.
The reason why you don’t see hardware release frequency as a relevance is because your still using a 7 year old device
Where as a console maker brings one out every 7 years or so
That’s the difference in regards to the app stores
Last edited:
Still not really relevant though.
My washing machine cost about as much as a Playstation. I'd be very much rightfully angry if I could only buy detergent and fabric softener from Whirlpool.
Rent-seeking is consumer hostile and should be unlawful no matter whether it's Apple or Sony or Whirlpool or BMW doing it.
Selling a thing should NOT be a guarantee of future revenue.
I think you could have more traction by approaching it from the number of units sold. Over the course of 7 years a console will sell tens of millions of devices whereas Apple is going to sell many hundreds of millions of devices in the same timeframe.
the difference is if you purchase a games console then your chosen to make that purchase unlike the other items you have mentioned.
However if you bought a switch in 2018 you couldn’t buy a switch 2 until this month I believe so that is why most people don’t have an issue with the switch digital store fees unlike the iOS or android fees because of how the business model is setup
That’s the difference
Nope, that's the same crappy argument that gets used with iDevices. It's a computer, it should be able to run software of the owner's choosing.
That's just not relevant. Apple could release new iPhones every 8 years, Sony could release new Playstations every year. It's still a computer, it still runs software, it's still owned by the person who bought it and NOT the manufacturer once it's been sold, and neither company should be allowed to lock the owner out of it.
it is relevant in regards to the iOS App Store because Apple sell new hardware every year so fundamentally they make big profits every year irrespective of the iOS app store
Where as console makers it’s different because they sell the same generation of product for about 7 years
That’s why it’s different
Rent seeking while not illegal doesn’t apply to Apple. Rent seeking is about revenue resulting from social engineered factors not innovation.
Apple has decides its infrastructure is worth “x”. That is not rent seeking.
And the judge’s order is very likely unconstitutional. So it might get thrown out, even if Apple’s behavior warrants punishment (which, believe it or not, I agree with you and the judge that it does).
Judges have wide latitude when issuing rulings, I am not particularly confident that it is unconstitutional given that the constitution doesn't really have anything to say about the economics of referral fees in smartphone platforms.
It would take a fairly broad reading of the constitution, one that would have rather unfortunate impacts on the right of a a customer to freely enter into an agreement with the creator of a product if the store they bought the product in had a perpetual right to monitor and control that communication.
The unconstitutional part isn’t monitoring and controlling communication. The unconstitutional part is saying Apple isn’t allowed to charge commission for use of its property.
The constitution says
The judge’s ruling says companies are entitled to iOS APIs and App Store distribution without having to pay Apple anything. That is, by I think a pretty reasonable definition, taking private property, for public use, without compensation. Particularly if you consider Supreme Court precedent (see this case, which as Ben Thompson points out, determined that compelled access to property constitutes “taking,” and this one, which determined the takings clause applies to intellectual property.)
I’m not a constitutional law expert, but I suspect the current make up of the Supreme Court will take a dim view to the idea that a federal judge, using state law (from a state most of the justices are inherently skeptical of), can compel commercial access to a company’s private property without payment. Does that mean Apple is guaranteed to win? Of course not - the Supreme Court changes precedent all the time, and I suspect the most likely scenario is the Supreme Court kicks it back to the judge and says “you can’t prohibit Apple from charging commission” but leaves most (all?) of the rest of the order intact.
Again, I personally think the best thing for Apple to do is drop it, take the loss, and try to get started adjusting to the new reality. But it doesn’t sound like they’re inclined to do that, and I suspect if you felt the government was taking your property away without compensation, you’d want to fight it too.
I think people are missing the point about this people are treating this like a brick’s & mortar store it’s not. You ultimately don’t have a choice on mobile that is why companies are allowed to offer an alternative payment option.
Again it’s not stealing Apple’s property because if that was the case then companies like Spotify wouldn’t be on the App Store in the first place.
I find this absolutely fascinating the percentage of people that are complaining about companies like Spotify & epic for pushing to get an alternative payment option yet have no intention of using their product so it’s not going to make a difference to them
Apple opening up the App Store for ‘ Out of App Purchases’ only means that Apple customers will suffer when Malware and Viruses are put on people’s devices
Why would Iwant to do an out of App purchase and risk having problems I personally want to stick with Apples App Store if possible as Apple checks each App for harmony, safety etc
Why would Iwant to do an out of App purchase and risk having problems I personally want to stick with Apples App Store if possible as Apple checks each App for harmony, safety etc
That’s just scare tactics to suggest that if you click on a payment option from a company it will ultimately involve malware and viruses
My 13 pro max is close to 4 years old. Apple may release a new iPhone annually, but I am certainly not upgrading every year. Apple’s decision to monetise a user base which is upgrading less often is entirely logical - higher prices, more accessories, services, apps and features like Apple Pay.
The only difference is that there seems to be enough bad blood and acrimony aimed at Apple that Tim Sweeney felt a lawsuit against Apple could prevail. People don’t hate consoles enough to care, and he certainly doesn’t seem to mind paying 30% to Nintendo. At least, he doesn’t show it in public.
Tim Sweeney picked his battles. If he felt there was a way he could get the epic game store onto the switch and PS5, where he could host develops’ apps and charge them a cut while undercutting the console makers, he would have gone for it. And maybe he will someday in the future.
Funny thing too. He has all this money to fight lawsuits, but not to improve the design and user exploding his own epic games store apparently. Same with Spotify.
I guess the enemy of your enemy really is your friend.
again that is entirely your choice if you choose to keep a 4 year old device
However Apple as a company release new iPhone generation every year & in turn make big profits every year based on APPLE’S business model.
Where as Sony for example release a new generation once every 7 years so if you buy that in 2020 when it came out then Sony aren’t getting a big purchase from you until about 2027
Where as Apple’s business model means they are getting fat profits every year based on hardware so that is why the iOS app is getting treated differently to the PlayStation Store.
On the surface it looks the same but it’s fundamentally different
Is it such a bad thing for Apple to have their cake and eat it too? For them to have both a successful hardware business and a lucrative App Store model which builds on it? As a profit maximising business, are you really allowed to have only one or the other, but never both?
Yes but there is a big differenceIs it such a bad thing for Apple to have their cake and eat it too? For them to have both a successful hardware business and a lucrative App Store model which builds on it? As a profit maximising business, are you really allowed to have only one or the other, but never both?
On the surface let’s say Apple & Sony both charge 30% percent on their digital store that would be correct
Because its profiteering based on how Apple’s business model is setup and that’s what it comes down to nothing else
That’s why it’s getting treated differently from games makers stores