Well it’s up to the dev whether to use iap or not. But in the dev uses iap and makes money from an iOS app, Apple should be entitled to a fee, even if some are against it.
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
If I’m a developer & I sell a product for 10.00 then I’m giving Apple 3.00
However if I put a link in my app & offer it for 8.00 then I keep it all & the customer thinks they have a bargain
So that is probably going to happen going forward
Now in regards to Apple getting a fee for a transaction done on a website & not within the app then yes they should not be allowed a penny from it.
The link is the bone of contention and we don’t know how the appeal will go. Isn’t that what the ctf was for? To address this issue.
If Walmart control sales of ketchup to about half of the U.S. population…
And if consumers have to pay hundreds of dollars (a new phone) to be able switch their ketchup supply to a new store…
…I’m all for government intervention to ensure choice and competition.
And I don’t even like ketchup.
The only realistic way that Apple will win this appeal is if they somehow manage to show that it hurts their business and that is going to be difficult to prove
Or that the ruling on appeal was not lawful. Which is a possibility.
Or if they convince the appeals court to at the judge’s order was unconstitutional (which I believe it is)
…subject to what is legal and enforceable in such agreement according to antitrust law.
I wouldn’t call it a loophole that they continued allowing. Apple deliberately created the “reader app” exemption to allow access to content purchased elsewhere.Because they knew they 1. had to have those apps (e.g. Spotify, Netflix) on their platform. And customers wouldn’t be willing to pay twice.
As much using a voucher in a Kellogg’s cereal box involves the use of the Walmart store’s property were it was purchased.
…thereby maintaining Apple’s anticompetitive revenue stream.
How is it unconstitutional when the transaction is done on website not belonging to Apple no payment is made on Apple’s side so that is why they are not getting any commission
There is a reason apple pays about $1B in legal fees a year. Over the course of time Apple has won some and loss some.
Even if all of that is true, a judge cannot order something that is unconstitutional. The constitution is the highest law in the land. It overrides antitrust law.
If Apple are entitled to a commission then if the transaction goes wrong they who does the customer contact to get a refund
Buddy is it Apple or for example epic
Who you made the sale with
Because if it’s epic then Apple aren’t entitled to anything then
Last edited:
Because they want to protect their status quo
Just like every big corporation out there by having the ability to squash the competition with deep pockets
Hence why they have tried to fight this & even then still never complied with it now why would that be?
It doesn’t mean they can’t. There obviously is a lot going on around the App Store. And depending in what happens with the appeal, things may change drastically.
If Apple are entitled to a commission then if the payment is made on a 3rd party website like epic’s and the sale goes wrong then who would issue the refund
Would it be Apple or epic that provides the refund to the customer
Of course.
Maybe. But I wouldn’t call it “very likely”. I trust the judge to deliver a ruling that is not “very likely unconstitutional”.
This isn’t a “public use” case.
That’s an issue that would need to works out. Same as if the credit card was given to a third party website and the cc info was leaked.
Turning Apple into a public utility is what the eu is trying to do. The US has one narrow but major ruling, but as long as it’s in the court system nothing is off the table.
They are as much public utility as cellular or internet services.
I’m not talking about leaked info on credit cards
I’m talking about if the transaction is made on epic’s website then who is responsible for the sale & the refund because then that’s who is entitled to the commission then
What do you mean the EU is turning Apple into a public utility do people not depend on their phones these days for most things?
Hence why it’s getting treated differently to other consumer products these days
They do.
But from what I gathered from @I7guy on that topic, he applies the "is it a matter of life and death?" test.
If it's not, it's a public utility (not one that should be regulated anyway).
I think it comes down to context
Can my 90 plus year old gran get away with not having one absolutely
However in modern society you pretty much require one
That’s why they are getting regulated differently by governments & courts