Epic Games Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases

[bcortens]

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.)

As I keep pointing out, the original ruling was allowing Apple to take a commission, the reason they got hit like this is because this is a punishment for ignoring the aspects of the original ruling that mattered.

Judges have wide latitude in punitive matters.

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.

The judge originally didn't prohibit Apple from collecting a commission as a referral fee, the problem is that Apple went out of their way to avoid complying with the rest of the order and now this is punitive. I have said the permanent part is weird but there is no reason that say, for the next 15 years (the period for which Apple was in violation), Apple could be prevented from collecting a referral fee as a punitive measure for refusing to comply the first time.

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.

Sure, but I probably wouldn't have tried my best to get around the original ruling.

 

[HighwaySnowman]

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

That's pure FUD.

Are you too afraid to use the web? Never even opened Safari?

Don't bother trying to answer yes, you're here, on this website.

 

[surferfb]

As I keep pointing out, the original ruling was allowing Apple to take a commission, the reason they got hit like this is because this is a punishment for ignoring the aspects of the original ruling that mattered.

I understand that.

Judges have wide latitude in punitive matters.

They don’t have latitude to institute unconstitutional punishments.

The judge originally didn't prohibit Apple from collecting a commission as a referral fee, the problem is that Apple went out of their way to avoid complying with the rest of the order and now this is punitive. I have said the permanent part is weird but there is no reason that say, for the next 15 years (the period for which Apple was in violation), Apple could be prevented from collecting a referral fee as a punitive measure for refusing to comply the first time.

Unless the Constitution says the government can’t do that. Which is what I suspect Apple’s argument will be.

And if appeals courts/the Supreme Court agree, then that part of the ruling will be thrown out, because judges can’t require impose unconstitutional punishments, even if the targets of said punishments deserve it.

Sure, but I probably wouldn't have tried my best to get around the original ruling.

On this we agree! 100% Apple should be punished, but that punishment can’t be unconstitutional.

 

[Stuwil]

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?

 

[Abazigal]

Any summary or time stamps? I dislike being given homework in a forum reply.

 

[Stuwil]

Any summary or time stamps? I dislike being given homework in a forum reply.

It says 30th April 2025
And if anyone is willing to watch it he explains why Apple use certain tactics in regards to the iOS app store

 

[Abazigal]

It says 30th April 2025
And if anyone is willing to watch it he explains why Apple use certain tactics in regards to the iOS app store

That video was a complete waste of 15 minutes, and doesn’t really raise any new points that I haven’t already tackled in the last 4 years. And I will say again - I really detest being assigned homework.

1) Tim Sweeney insists that the iphone (and ipad, by extension) is a computer and should be open like any PC platform. He talks about how we should be in full control of hardware that we paid for, yet conveniently skirts around game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, where users have only one source for their games (even cartridges are subject to approval by Nintendo).

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Many of you here feel that a line should be drawn between smartphones and game consoles, but to me, that distinction feels like an extremely artificial one so that game consoles don’t end up as collateral damage in this war with Apple (and maybe they should). 😉

2) Throughout the entire segment, both Tim Sweeney and the host take great pains to avoid drawing parallels with game consoles. For example, the host mentions how he feels that Apple does not deserve their 30% cut, yet does not talk about why Steam or other game consoles should (I was hoping for at least one throwaway line from Tim; you at least accommodated me in this regard). I am pretty sure that Sony, Xbox and Nintendo block games from being published on their platforms all the time for violating certain rules, yet somehow only Apple receives flak for this.

Again, if I were a game developer, what’s the difference between releasing an app for iOS (and paying Apple 30%), vs having my game hosted in the Steam App Store, and fighting for the ability to sideload Steam onto the ipad, where users can purchase my app and I can then…pay 30% to Valve?

3) It’s pure hypocrisy how Tim Sweeney blames the iOS App Store for being responsible for the state of mobile gaming, when his company manages Fortnite, a free game designed to get people hooked in IAPs. The reason why we don’t get games like Stellar Blade on iOS is because of the absence of physical game controls, and users less likely to have hours to play at a time.

When I am at work, my phone is on me, and it stands to reason that I will gravitate more towards a mobile game which can be played in short internals of 5-10 minutes, because that’s probably all the time I can spare. A longer, more involved game such as Elden Ring will likely wait till I am at home, and that’s where a dedicated PC or console makes sense for the larger screen and more powerful hardware.

Let me just be painfully clear. Tim Sweeney owns an online App Store of his own, so his actions should be viewed through this lens. He is not doing any of this to empower developers or benefit consumers. His endgame is as it always was - get the epic games store onto your iphone where he can not only keep 100% of Fortnite IAPs, but also host apps belonging to other developers while also charging them a cut.

You are all merely trading one master for another, and he is no more benevolent.

 

[Stuwil]

That video was a complete waste of 15 minutes, and doesn’t really raise any new points that I haven’t already tackled in the last 4 years. And I will say again - I really detest being assigned homework.

1) Tim Sweeney insists that the iphone (and ipad, by extension) is a computer and should be open like any PC platform. He talks about how we should be in full control of hardware that we paid for, yet conveniently skirts around game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, where users have only one source for their games (even cartridges are subject to approval by Nintendo).

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Many of you here feel that a line should be drawn between smartphones and game consoles, but to me, that distinction feels like an extremely artificial one so that game consoles don’t end up as collateral damage in this war with Apple (and maybe they should). 😉

2) Throughout the entire segment, both Tim Sweeney and the host take great pains to avoid drawing parallels with game consoles. For example, the host mentions how he feels that Apple does not deserve their 30% cut, yet does not talk about why Steam or other game consoles should (I was hoping for at least one throwaway line from Tim; you at least accommodated me in this regard). I am pretty sure that Sony, Xbox and Nintendo block games from being published on their platforms all the time for violating certain rules, yet somehow only Apple receives flak for this.

Again, if I were a game developer, what’s the difference between releasing an app for iOS (and paying Apple 30%), vs having my game hosted in the Steam App Store, and fighting for the ability to sideload Steam onto the ipad, where users can purchase my app and I can then…pay 30% to Valve?

3) It’s pure hypocrisy how Tim Sweeney blames the iOS App Store for being responsible for the state of mobile gaming, when his company manages Fortnite, a free game designed to get people hooked in IAPs. The reason why we don’t get games like Stellar Blade on iOS is because of the absence of physical game controls, and users less likely to have hours to play at a time.

When I am at work, my phone is on me, and it stands to reason that I will gravitate more towards a mobile game which can be played in short internals of 5-10 minutes, because that’s probably all the time I can spare. A longer, more involved game such as Elden Ring will likely wait till I am at home, and that’s where a dedicated PC or console makes sense for the larger screen and more powerful hardware.

Let me just be painfully clear. Tim Sweeney owns an online App Store of his own, so his actions should be viewed through this lens. He is not doing any of this to empower developers or benefit consumers. His endgame is as it always was - get the epic games store onto your iphone where he can not only keep 100% of Fortnite IAPs, but also host apps belonging to other developers while also charging them a cut.

You are all merely trading one master for another, and he is no more benevolent.

I’m not going to dispute you watched it
However the graph showed it perfectly well that iOS only made up 7% of his customer base that is why he was able to challenge Apple in regards to the IAP fee where as other companies don’t have that luxury because for example if facebook was took off the App Store it would hurt there business.

there is big differences between for example a steam and switch and PlayStation and Xbox digital store compared with the iOS digital app store that’s why Apple are now required to put a payment link into apps like Spotify.
That’s why Tim Sweeney says that Apple can’t justify the 30% IAP fee because it makes no odds to them in the grand scheme of things in regards to their business model

 

[Abazigal]

there is big differences between for example a steam and switch and PlayStation and Xbox digital store compared with the iOS digital app store that’s why Apple are now required to put a payment link into apps like Spotify.

Like I said, the distinction feels overly fine to me (kinda like how the EU went out of their way to frame the DMA in a manner such that it only impacted US companies), so we are going to have to agree to disagree in this regard.

Perhaps Apple will be able to get this ruling overturned on appeal, and maybe the higher courts will refuse to hear this. Maybe I will be the one to end up on the wrong side of history. We will see. I don’t think I have anything more to add here, barring some new information I am not privy to.

 

[Stuwil]

Like I said, the distinction feels overly fine to me (kinda like how the EU went out of their way to frame the DMA in a manner such that it only impacted US companies), so we are going to have to agree to disagree in this regard.

Perhaps Apple will be able to get this ruling overturned on appeal, and maybe the higher courts will refuse to hear this. Maybe I will be the one to end up on the wrong side of history. We will see. I don’t think I have anything more to add here, barring some new information I am not privy to.

There is no chance that this ruling will get overturned turned because then they would have to show that it hurts their business model and it doesn’t that’s why

So that is why Apple is getting treated differently from any other company with a digital store

 

[Abazigal]

There is no chance that this ruling will get overturned turned because then they would have to show that it hurts their business model and it doesn’t that’s why

The ruling might get overturned because there is no law which states that Apple is prohibited from profiting off their IP (there is nothing illegal about Apple’s 30% cut), and the judge’s latest ruling essentially alludes to that - by allowing developers to sidestep Apple’s 30% cut altogether.

This is the pertinent part from Stratechery, dated 2 May.

At the same time, I strongly suspect it will fall to the Appeals Court — and perhaps the Supreme Court — to decide if a federal judge, using a state law, can compel permanent commercial access to proprietary infrastructure — backed by intellectual property — without paying for it, simply because the company acted duplicitously. Apple’s rate may be anticompetitive; it may also be the case that setting it to zero is equally illegal.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, even if it’s Apple.

 

[Stuwil]

The ruling might get overturned because there is no law which states that Apple is prohibited from profiting off their IP (there is nothing illegal about Apple’s 30% cut), and the judge’s latest ruling essentially alludes to that - by allowing developers to sidestep Apple’s 30% cut altogether.

This is the pertinent part from Stratechery, dated 2 May.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, even if it’s Apple.

However did the ruling say for example
That Apple was not allowed to offer IAP from things like Fortnite or Spotify?

Or did it say as I suspect that app developers are allowed to provide a payment link in their app
So if that’s the case then legally it won’t be over turned because the court aren’t stopping Apple from offering IAP as well

So I suspect that if Apple compelled epic for example to offer Fortnite IAP then all that would happen is what epic did before they got removed from the iOS App Store
Would be the IAP purchase price 7.99
And then the link price 6.99
So then Apple are still allowed to make a profit

 

[surferfb]

Or did it say as I suspect that app developers are allowed to provide a payment link in their app
So if that’s the case then legally it won’t be over turned because the court aren’t stopping Apple from offering IAP as well

The order said that Apple must allow a link AND Apple can’t charge a commission on that link. The US Constitution states that the government can’t take property without payment, and there is prior case law that says that “requiring access” to property constitutes taking it, and that intellectual property is considered property for purposes of the Constitutional ban on taking property.

My suspicion is the most likely scenario is that an appeals court returns the ruling to the judge and says “you can’t ban Apple from charging a commission”, she reissues the same ruling without the prohibition of charging a commission, and that’s that.

But it’s not a guarantee, the Supreme Court has latitude to overturn case law, and could decide what the judge did is fine. Or they (or a lower court) could decide that the judge was wrong and Apple was complying, and thrown out the order altogether (to be clear I don’t think that’s likely, because it’s pretty obvious to me they weren’t), or it could be thrown out on some technicality.

 

[Stuwil]

The order said that Apple must allow a link AND Apple can’t charge a commission on that link. The US Constitution states that the government can’t take property without payment, and there is prior case law that says that “requiring access” to property constitutes taking it, and that intellectual property is considered property for purposes of the Constitutional ban on taking property.

My suspicion is the most likely scenario is that an appeals court returns the ruling to the judge and says “you can’t ban Apple from charging a commission”, she reissues the same ruling without the prohibition of charging a commission, and that’s that.

But it’s not a guarantee, the Supreme Court has latitude to overturn case law, and could decide what the judge did is fine. Or they (or a lower court) could decide that the judge was wrong and Apple was complying, and thrown out the order altogether (to be clear I don’t think that’s likely, because it’s pretty obvious to me they weren’t), or it could be thrown out on some technicality.

Right
There will be nothing stopping Apple from changing their IAP price
However what will more than likely happen is epic for example will show a IAP price of
7.99
Then a link price of 6.99 so then legally they are not stopping Apple from making a commission

So that is legally not against the US Constitution because then they are giving people the option of what to purchase at

 

[spazzcat]

That's pure FUD.

Are you too afraid to use the web? Never even opened Safari?

Don't bother trying to answer yes, you're here, on this website

Android users that sideload apps are 80% more likely to have malware.

Unfortunately, because of how sideloading works it exposes users to risk and abuse, something the official app stores try to mitigate with its controlled ecosystem and vetting processes. According to our telemetry, users who engage in sideloading are 80% more likely to have malware running on their devices compared to those who do not. In fact, sideloading is a great contributor to malware risk; in 38.5% of cases where malware was detected, the source can be traced back to a sideloaded application.

Beyond the App Store: The Hidden Risks of Sideloading Apps - Zimperium

Application sideloading opens the door to significant security vulnerabilities increasing the attack surface users are exposed to.

zimperium.com

 

[Abazigal]

Right
There will be nothing stopping Apple from changing their IAP price
However what will more than likely happen is epic for example will show a IAP price of
7.99
Then a link price of 6.99 so then legally they are not stopping Apple from making a commission

So that is legally not against the US Constitution because then they are giving people the option of what to purchase at

You are missing the point.

What Does It All Mean?: A Look at Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Decision in the Epic Versus Apple Trial

Yesterday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple, delivering a ruling in favor of Apple that comes with significant caveats. Although the Judge found that Apple‘s operation of the App Store isn’t an exercise of monopolistic power, she...

www.macstories.net

The crux of the matter here is that based on the judge’s original ruling, Apple is not explicitly prohibited from charging developers who attempt to link users out of the App Store. The underlying implication is that Apple is allowed to monetise its IP, and it is not the place of the US courts to tell Apple just how much or how little it ought to charge developers.

Perhaps Apple went overboard in trying to bill developers 27% (which would actually make it more expensive the defeat the whole point of the ruling), but it does not stand to reason that Apple is not allowed to charge a single cent as a result, because it would mean that developers get to host their apps in the App Store, yet link users to an external website and keep 100% of proceeds, effectively denying Apple a cut altogether.

Which is likely the angle that Apple will argue along when they file their appeal. How that pans out, we will just have to wait and see.

 

[surferfb]

So that is legally not against the US Constitution because then they are giving people the option of what to purchase at

Telling Apple they have to offer access to its intellectual property in a way that people can avoid paying for it appears to be unconstitutional (or at least there is a very credible argument that it is - ultimately the only people who can say something definitively is or isn’t are the Supreme Court justices).

The fact that Apple is allowed to offer IAP has zero bearing on the constitutionality of the government telling Apple they have to let Epic or Spotify have access for free.

To put it another way: The government can absolutely tell Apple they have to allow link outs. But if they do, they can’t tell Apple “you’re not allowed to charge for it.”

 

[Stuwil]

Android users that sideload apps are 80% more likely to have malware.

then ultimately that’s the individual not because you can sideload if you choose to do something dodgy then that’s on you

 

[Stuwil]

Telling Apple they have to offer access to its intellectual property in a way that people can avoid paying for it appears to be unconstitutional.

The fact that Apple is allowed to offer IAP has zero bearing on the constitutionality of the government telling Apple tell they have to let Epic or Spotify have access for free.

To put it another way: The government can absolutely tell Apple they have to allow link outs. But if they do, they can’t tell Apple “you’re not allowed to charge for it.”

Just think about it
If a company puts a link on there app and then it leaves said app to then go on the internet then it is no longer in the app
And has then left the iOS App Store as then no purchase is made on Apple’s app store
That is why Apple aren’t getting a commission.
Unless your actually advocating that if I buy something from the Amazon app on my iPhone then apple should get a commission on that?

 

[Stuwil]

Telling Apple they have to offer access to its intellectual property in a way that people can avoid paying for it appears to be unconstitutional (or at least there is a very credible argument that it is - ultimately the only people who can say something definitively is or isn’t are the Supreme Court justices).

The fact that Apple is allowed to offer IAP has zero bearing on the constitutionality of the government telling Apple they have to let Epic or Spotify have access for free.

To put it another way: The government can absolutely tell Apple they have to allow link outs. But if they do, they can’t tell Apple “you’re not allowed to charge for it.”

Just think about it
Your now advocating that Apple are allowed to make money from purchases made on the internet not done within the iOS app store

 

[surferfb]

Just think about it
If a company puts a link on there app and then it leaves said app to then go on the internet then it is no longer in the app
And has then left the iOS App Store as then no purchase is made on Apple’s app store
That is why Apple aren’t getting a commission.
Unless your actually advocating that if I buy something from the Amazon app on my iPhone then apple should get a commission on that?

Whether or not I think Apple should or should not charge a commission is a different question. I’m only talking about the constitutionality of the judge’s order prohibiting them from doing so.

I asked a lawyer friend (who to be clear, doesn’t really know anything about the case) and at a quick glance he agreed with Ben Thompson’s take than @Abazigal and I have been referencing that he thinks that part of the order is very questionable. But he was also clear that when it comes to courts and the law, especially in the appellate stage, nothing is guaranteed.

 

[Stuwil]

Whether or not I think Apple should or should not charge a commission is a different question. I’m only talking about the constitutionality of the judge’s order prohibiting them from doing so.

I asked a lawyer friend (who to be clear, doesn’t really know anything about the case) and at a quick glance he agreed with Ben Thompson’s take than @Abazigal and I have been referencing that he thinks that part of the order is very questionable. But he was also clear that when it comes to courts and the law, especially in the appellate stage, nothing is guaranteed.

Ok
If I use my iPhone & then safari to purchase a subscription to watch let’s say Netflix then Apple don’t get a cut of that subscription but I use my iPhone to then watch Netflix on it

It’s exactly the same as including a link in an app because the process is not done within the iOS App Store

 

[surferfb]

Ok
If I use my iPhone & then safari to purchase a subscription to watch let’s say Netflix then Apple don’t get a cut of that subscription but I use my iPhone to then watch Netflix on it

It’s exactly the same as including a link in an app because the process is not done within the iOS App Store

I understand your point. I just don’t think it has any bearing on whether or not prohibiting Apple from charging a commission is constitutional.

The App was downloaded from the App Store (Apple’s property), from Apple’s servers (Apple’s property), and the App uses Apple-provided APIs (Apple’s property) to function on iOS (Apple’s property). The US Constitution states that the government can’t take property away without “fairly compensating” Apple, and prior court decisions have ruled that the government “requiring access to property” is the same as “taking property”. Other cases have also ruled that intellectual property is considered property just like physical property under that clause.

Again, I am not saying Apple should charge a commission. I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I’ve posted several times in this thread I think Apple should just drop it.

But I also don’t think that a judge should be able to order something that is unconstitutional just because I agree with the end result.

 

[I7guy]

Ok
If I use my iPhone & then safari to purchase a subscription to watch let’s say Netflix then Apple don’t get a cut of that subscription but I use my iPhone to then watch Netflix on it

It’s exactly the same as including a link in an app because the process is not done within the iOS App Store

No one knows how this will shake out. Apple could be shot down or Apple could enforce an outside iOS App Store payment fee. No one knows.

 

[Stuwil]

I understand your point. I just don’t think it has any bearing on whether or not prohibiting Apple from charging a commission is constitutional.

The App was downloaded from the App Store (Apple’s property), from Apple’s servers (Apple’s property), and the App uses Apple-provided APIs (Apple’s property) to function on iOS (Apple’s property). The US Constitution states that the government can’t take property away without “fairly compensating” Apple, and prior court decisions have ruled that the government “requiring access to property” is the same as “taking property”. Other cases have also ruled that intellectual property is considered property just like physical property under that clause.

Again, I am not saying Apple should charge a commission. I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I’ve posted several times in this thread I think Apple should just drop it.

But I also don’t think that a judge should be able to order something that is unconstitutional just because I agree with the end result.

Ok
But I downloaded Netflix app from the iOS App Store & then I went on safari being the internet to then subscribe to Netflix & then
I opened the Netflix ios app to then watch Netflix on my iPhone
So it’s fundamentally the same thing because I’m using the iOS app & then paying for it on the internet then going back to the iOS app to then enjoy Netflix
Is that not the same as providing a link in an app that then takes you on the internet to then make the purchase?