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

[bcortens]

Just because the APIs are accessible on a personal device doesn’t mean you have the legal right to use them for commercial purposes. Access is not the same as a license. You might be able to technically use those APIs by jailbreaking a phone, but that doesn’t grant you the legal right to distribute apps that use them, especially through unauthorized channels. The fact that something is possible doesn’t mean it’s permitted under the law or Apple’s terms of service.

Why didn't Apple ever use this argument to get rid of Cydia? In fact, it was Cydia's creator that sued Apple for blocking alternative App Stores. Cydia didn't lose on the grounds of API ownership.

Cydia distributed apps, for money, that use those APIs, if I, as an end consumer, have not purchased a legal copy of the iOS software how were they able sell those apps for money?

Think of iOS like a rental car. You’re allowed to drive it because you’ve agreed to the rental company's terms. The rental company's terms prohibit you using it as an Uber. You might figure out there is no technical prohibition from using it as an Uber, but that doesn’t mean you’re legally allowed to start using the car as an Uber without permission from the rental company.

So you admit you don't want consumers to own anything anymore, happy to know you are cheering for the wonderful dystopian future in which corporations run the world...

 

[I7guy]

Yes - and we don’t live 20 years ago anymore.

Yes - and a link or a few words about a (non-Apple) company’s offerings is in no meaningful way a use of Apple’s “intellectual property”. When Spotify or Epic tell consumers about their offerings in their apps, it has got nothing to do with Apple. And it isn’t Apple’s business - it’s literally not their business!

…unless, of course, and to the extent that you believe that Apple “owns” their iPhone users.
And that own all (commercial) customer relationships with them.

Apple clearly do believe that and impose that on others.
And that is where government should restrict them.

It is one thing to “own” access to your customer base and monetise access to it in a competitive market.
It’s another if your customer base accounts for about half of the entire population (in a duopoly).

What’s your point? The line has been drawn by the eu and is in flight in the US. We’ll see where it goes.

Government shouldn’t restrict Apple above and beyond the laws in the books. I think we agree we pretty much disagree on this.

 

[I7guy]

Because if we are talking about just the USA
Then as a private business
They are getting told we don’t care that it is your platform and store
You must allow individual developers offer a payment link within your company and your not getting a cent from it right now

Do they do that to any other type of business?

In the US they are not regulated differently. The judge applied an existing rule of law in California to a point in a court case. You cannot have a payment link in a washing machine and hence smartphones in the US aren’t being regulated differently.

 

[bcortens]

The question is a red herring. There is some disconnect in the recognizance that there is no replacement for electricity, but there are replacements for smartphones. Tablets, laptops, desktops, even watches. All made possible by the cellular tech and the internet.

Desktops do not replace smartphones.

Scan a QR code with your laptop/desktop to get access to something while you're out and about... most smart watches don't have cameras. Tap to pay with your laptop or desktop....
Try to use most smart watches without ever connecting it to a smartphone and see how that works.
Tablets are large and unwieldy and are not commonly carried about because they aren't portable like a smartphone. I would group things like the Galaxy Z fold as a smartphone first).

Smartphones are becoming incredibly integrated with the way society runs, from assumptions about communication channels, banking on the go for quick money transfers between individuals.



I again come back to this idea that I think you cannot comprehend that something that was invented in your lifetime could become essential.

In principle I actually agree that the key is that everyone has an always on their person internet connected device. That device today is the smartphone, if smartphones go away they won't need as much regulation, telephone (as in actual land line telephones) were once heavily regulated because they were the backbone of communication. Today we don't talk about landlines much because no one cares, does that mean the regulation was unnecessary at the time it was enacted?

Just because smartphones might one day be replaced doesn't mean that today they aren't the most important device most people own. Today it's a fight to get people to give up their smartphones for even short periods of time.

When do you think cellular become essential? There is no substitute for it. WiFi isn’t a substitute.

I answered that, I said sometime in the 2010s, I wouldn't put an exact date on it, its a fuzzy boundary, a boundary I think we have either already crossed or are in the process of crossing.

 

[surferfb]

Well
If it’s not a win for epic
Then how have they managed to add payment links that bypass IAP fees of 30% and at the moment it’s zero
Then going forward Apple will have to come back with a realistic figure so in turn
If the fee is set at about 12%
Then Tim Sweeney will win because that is what he wanted from Apple originally & they never negotiated & because of that

He then put an IAP on Fortnite and then a
NON IAP that was cheaper to then get Apple to kick them off the iOS app store
So that is how he has won

Sweeney certainly didn’t think it was a win when the original ruling came down:

Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers. Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers.”

And again, Epic still isn’t on the App Store. They lost 9 of 10 counts and the appeals courts agreed with the judge. Sure they got one concession - the smallest one they could have gotten - that they didn’t have before, but they don’t get to take advantage of it.

I’m sure they think it’s better than nothing, but it’s not the alternate app stores, alternate in-app purchases (not link outs) they sued to get. The judge even said Apple was within its rights to not let Epic back in the store. How you see that as a win for Epic (not other developers, but Epic in particular), I don’t understand.

 

[I7guy]

Desktops do not replace smartphones.

They certainly do and can. In a strict sense obviously you can’t out a desktop in your pocket. Nor hold it to the sky to take a picture, but yet both take pictures.

Scan a QR code with your laptop/desktop to get access to something while you're out and about... most smart watches don't have cameras. Tap to pay with your laptop or desktop....

Yes, a convenience.

Try to use most smart watches without ever connecting it to a smartphone and see how that works.

An AW works fine with a CELLULAR CHIP. Not a full fledged comouter but there is overlap.

Tablets are large and unwieldy and are not commonly carried about because they aren't portable like a smartphone. I would group things like the Galaxy Z fold as a smartphone first).

Convenience.

Smartphones are becoming incredibly integrated with the way society runs, from assumptions about communication channels, banking on the go for quick money transfers between individuals.

The functions are.

I again come back to this idea that I think you cannot comprehend that something that was invented in your lifetime could become essential.

This argument is a red herring. People survive without smartphones, just a flip phone.

In principle I actually agree that the key is that everyone has an always on their person internet connected device. That device today is the smartphone, if smartphones go away they won't need as much regulation, telephone (as in actual land line telephones) were once heavily regulated because they were the backbone of communication. Today we don't talk about landlines much because no one cares, does that mean the regulation was unnecessary at the time it was enacted?

Just because smartphones might one day be replaced doesn't mean that today they aren't the most important device most people own. Today it's a fight to get people to give up their smartphones for even short periods of time.


I answered that, I said sometime in the 2010s, I wouldn't put an exact date on it, its a fuzzy boundary, a boundary I think we have either already crossed or are in the process of crossing.

Nine of this means specific regulations have to be applied to smartphones since there is no regulations prohibiting competition. Popularity should not be a criteria as proposed by other MR posters.

 

[bcortens]

They certainly do and can. In a strict sense obviously you can’t out a desktop in your pocket. Nor hold it to the sky to take a picture, but yet both take pictures.

Governments and businesses do not assume that people walk around with desktops in their pockets. That is not just about function but about how they change the way we interact with the world.

Yes, a convenience.

Convenience that is slowly becoming the default assumption about how people interact.

An AW works fine with a CELLULAR CHIP. Not a full fledged comouter but there is overlap.

You cannot currently use an AW as a standalone device, it depends on smartphones.

Convenience.

If I go out to a restaurant with an electronic menu that is no longer convenience, that is being unable to see the menu unless someone brings a smartphone (or just not eating there)

What starts as convenience becomes an assumption about the people who move about the world.

The functions are.

Yes and I have said that right now smartphones are the items which embodies the functions. If we suddenly see smartphones fall away the regulations could be relaxed.

This argument is a red herring. People survive without smartphones, just a flip phone.

Modern flip phones do not feature the app platforms that smartphones do, my bank doesn't have an app for a flip phone, flip phones have limited QR code scanning capability and if the app isn't on the flip phone it doesn't matter even for the flip phones that do have QR code scanning. Flip phones can't do NFC, etc...

You can no longer imagine life without cellular internet, that doesn't mean that people wouldn't survive just fine without cellular internet.

Nine of this means specific regulations have to be applied to smartphones since there is no regulations prohibiting competition. Popularity should not be a criteria as proposed by other MR posters.

Popularity, integration with society (importance, dependence, however you want to word it), and the assumptions of governments and businesses that most people will have a smartphone mean that governments have an interest in ensuring that the companies which make smartphones aren't taking advantage of their dominance to limit competition and access to end users.

People don't switch between smartphone platforms very often. As I have pointed out, smartphone apps aren't generic, and apps purchased for iPhone cannot just be moved to an Android phone.
Furthermore, from the developer perspective, there is no competition, you have to build apps for both major platforms.




I'll ask again, when did electricity stop being a luxury and become essential?
When did cellular internet stop being a luxury and become essential?
Are there any modern technologies that could become essential in your eyes or is it only things that were invented in the past?

 

[Stuwil]

In the US they are not regulated differently. The judge applied an existing rule of law in California to a point in a court case. You cannot have a payment link in a washing machine and hence smartphones in the US aren’t being regulated differently.

we don’t tell Walmart that Coca Cola is allowed to directly from their store & Walmart not receive a cut do we?
But a court can order Apple to in regards to their store

 

[surferfb]

we don’t tell Walmart that Coca Cola is allowed to directly from their store & Walmart not receive a cut do we?
But a court can order Apple to in regards to their store

A court can order it, but again, it's questionably constitutional.

 

[I7guy]

we don’t tell Walmart that Coca Cola is allowed to directly from their store & Walmart not receive a cut do we?
But a court can order Apple to in regards to their store

Smartphones aren’t being regulated differently. A judgement was applied to an existing situation.

 

[Stuwil]

Smartphones aren’t being regulated differently. A judgement was applied to an existing situation.

A judge has ordered a private company to change their terms & conditions on payment options & fees involved
Now have they done that to any other private business?

 

[I7guy]

Governments and businesses do not assume that people walk around with desktops in their pockets. That is not just about function but about how they change the way we interact with the world.

Governments and businesses also don’t assume people walk around with smartphones. I think a reasonable assumption is people walk around with cell phones.

Convenience that is slowly becoming the default assumption about how people interact.

Convience <> regulation

You cannot currently use an AW as a standalone device, it depends on smartphones.

Yes you can. You can’t use it as a generalized computer, but you can use it as a stand-alone device with compromises from more full fledged computing devices.

If I go out to a restaurant with an electronic menu that is no longer convenience, that is being unable to see the menu unless someone brings a smartphone (or just not eating there)

Hypotheticals.

What starts as convenience becomes an assumption about the people who move about the world.


Yes and I have said that right now smartphones are the items which embodies the functions. If we suddenly see smartphones fall away the regulations could be relaxed.


Modern flip phones do not feature the app platforms that smartphones do, my bank doesn't have an app for a flip phone, flip phones have limited QR code scanning capability and if the app isn't on the flip phone it doesn't matter even for the flip phones that do have QR code scanning. Flip phones can't do NFC, etc...

You can no longer imagine life without cellular internet, that doesn't mean that people wouldn't survive just fine without cellular internet.


Popularity, integration with society (importance, dependence, however you want to word it), and the assumptions of governments and businesses that most people will have a smartphone mean that governments have an interest in ensuring that the companies which make smartphones aren't taking advantage of their dominance to limit competition and access to end users.

People don't switch between smartphone platforms very often. As I have pointed out, smartphone apps aren't generic, and apps purchased for iPhone cannot just be moved to an Android phone.
Furthermore, from the developer perspective, there is no competition, you have to build apps for both major platforms.




I'll ask again, when did electricity stop being a luxury and become essential?
When did cellular internet stop being a luxury and become essential?
Are there any modern technologies that could become essential in your eyes or is it only things that were invented in the past?

There is nothing in the above that screams that smartphones deserve any more regulation that what is on the books. That is my final opinion on the matter.

 

[I7guy]

A judge has ordered a private company to change their terms & conditions on payment options & fees involved
Now have they done that to any other private business?

A judge has enforced an existing law that was already on the books. Since California already had an anti-competitive law dealing with this and click to pay links only apply on devices with screens, washing machines, for example would be exempt as would toasters and English muffins.

But Apple was found to violate an existing law and a new law wasn’t created.

 

[Stuwil]

Governments and businesses also don’t assume people walk around with smartphones. I think a reasonable assumption is people walk around with cell phones.

Convience <> regulation

Yes you can. You can’t use it as a generalized computer, but you can use it as a stand-alone device with compromises from more full fledged computing devices.

Hypotheticals.

There is nothing in the above that screams that smartphones deserve any more regulation that what is on the books. That is my final opinion on the matter.

If you don’t think smartphone’s are generally needed in today’s working society
Then why do you own one & not a Nokia 3310?

If that’s the case

 

[I7guy]

If you don’t think smartphone’s are generally needed in today’s working society
Then why do you own one & not a Nokia 3310?

If that’s the case

Convenience. And the company does give out low end phones that does email if you don’t want to BYOD. But many low end phones already allow email to be set up.

 

[bcortens]

Governments and businesses also don’t assume people walk around with smartphones. I think a reasonable assumption is people walk around with cell phones.

91% of people own a smartphone, I doubt people still assume dumb-phones are common.

Convience <> regulation

Yes you can. You can’t use it as a generalized computer, but you can use it as a stand-alone device with compromises from more full fledged computing devices.

You cannot setup an Apple Watch without also owning an iPhone.

Hypotheticals.

This is not a hypothetical, there are businesses, today, that don't have paper anymore for things.
There was a real estate listing near where I live that only had QR codes for the information during an open house, there were no paper handouts.

There is nothing in the above that screams that smartphones deserve any more regulation that what is on the books. That is my final opinion on the matter.

That wasn't the argument for the quoted section. The argument for the quoted section was about whether or not devices can pass from being luxuries into being essential to full participation in modern society.

You seem to have conceded that cellular data is essential (cellular carriers are regulated and aren't using their IP to demand 30% of all transactions that occur on their network), I want to know what criteria you used to decide that cellular carriers should not get a cut of everything but that Apple should.

Cellular networks are arguably more competitive than the smartphone market because it is easier to take my phone from carrier to carrier than it is to move from iOS to Android.

 

[Stuwil]

Convenience. And the company does give out low end phones that does email if you don’t want to BYOD. But many low end phones already allow email to be set up.

If you’re company is giving out smartphones for emails then you pretty much need it
Just like for example having an app on your child’s phone so you can see their location
If you are a 90 year old person like my granny then you don’t need a smartphone
However in today’s society for the people of working age you generally need one

That is why courts & governments can legislate requirements on apple for example that they wouldn’t on most other businesses

 

[I7guy]

If you’re company is giving out smartphones for emails then you pretty much need it

Most phones support email. so yeah, email as a function is needed. Even a Motorola Razr flip phone supports email.

Just like for example having an app on your child’s phone so you can see their location

That’s a unique and personal decision if you want functionality such as that, not a requirement for regulation of a smartphone.

If you are a 90 year old person like my granny then you don’t need a smartphone
However in today’s society for the people of working age you generally need one

Citation or is it an opinion?

That is why courts & governments can legislate requirements on apple for example that they wouldn’t on most other businesses

The conclusion doesn’t follow the argument, especially in the US where there are no additional laws other than health and safety for “smartphones”.

 

[I7guy]

91% of people own a smartphone, I doubt people still assume dumb-phones are common.

The Pew Research Center says the dependence on smartphones is 20% and under for all age groups. Possibly because a smartphone is a form factor and not a unique computing device.

You cannot setup an Apple Watch without also owning an iPhone.

that’s a different discussion than can you use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.

This is not a hypothetical, there are businesses, today, that don't have paper anymore for things.
There was a real estate listing near where I live that only had QR codes for the information during an open house, there were no paper handouts.

A flip phone with a camera could read a QR code. And that is not a situation that goes into the decision making of regulating smartphones.

That wasn't the argument for the quoted section. The argument for the quoted section was about whether or not devices can pass from being luxuries into being essential to full participation in modern society.

You seem to have conceded that cellular data is essential (cellular carriers are regulated and aren't using their IP to demand 30% of all transactions that occur on their network), I want to know what criteria you used to decide that cellular carriers should not get a cut of everything but that Apple should.

It’s a red-herring. Cellular companies get you on the bandwidth. They didn’t start their business with iap. Nor do they pretend to be marketplaces. I want to know why you believe this is an apt analogy?

Cellular networks are arguably more competitive than the smartphone market because it is easier to take my phone from carrier to carrier than it is to move from iOS to Android.

Try to buy bandwidth from the government to form your own cellular company and then come back and tell us how competitive the market is.

 

[Stuwil]

Most phones support email. so yeah, email as a function is needed. Even a Motorola Razr flip phone supports email.

That’s a unique and personal decision if you want functionality such as that, not a requirement for regulation of a smartphone.

Citation or is it an opinion?

The conclusion doesn’t follow the argument, especially in the US where there are no additional laws other than health and safety for “smartphones”.

Ok
Then why is a court telling a private business that they can’t charge what they like for payment links when other companies get to set their own prices
Yet a smartphone company can’t
Strange that?
Because the smartphone is important in today’s society

 

[I7guy]

Ok
Then why is a court telling a private business that they can’t charge what they like for payment links when other companies get to set their own prices
Yet a smartphone company can’t
Strange that?
Because the smartphone is important in today’s society

The above interpretation, I believe, is a blatant mischaracterization of the ruling. It’s not about setting prices, because the dust hasn’t settled in this issue yet.

 

[Stuwil]

The above interpretation, I believe, is a mischaracterization of the ruling. It’s not about setting prices, because the dust hasn’t settled in this issue yet.

The judge throughout Apple wanting to charge 27% for payment links
So the judge is basically telling a private business that they can’t charge what they want as a price
No other business has been told that I believe 👍🏻

 

[I7guy]

The judge throughout Apple wanting to charge 27% for payment links
So the judge is basically telling a private business that they can’t charge what they want as a price
No other business has been told that I believe 👍🏻

This is under appeal right now. And could be overturned, upheld or go to the Supreme Court. Either way the dust hasn’t settled in the point.

As the saying goes: “it ain’t over till it’s over”. So don’t go celebrating yet.

 

[Stuwil]

The Pew Research Center says the dependence on smartphones is 20% and under for all age groups. Possibly because a smartphone is a form factor and not a unique computing device.

that’s a different discussion than can you use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.

A flip phone with a camera could read a QR code. And that is not a situation that goes into the decision making of regulating smartphones.

It’s a red-herring. Cellular companies get you on the bandwidth. They didn’t start their business with iap. Nor do they pretend to be marketplaces. I want to know why you believe this is an apt analogy?

Try to buy bandwidth from the government to form your own cellular company and then come back and tell us how competitive the market is.

Yeah that report by the pew research center might say that dependence is under 20% & under for all age groups
However that is not a true reflection in today’s working society in the world
Because context is everything

 

[Stuwil]

This is under appeal right now. And could be overturned, upheld or go to the Supreme Court. Either way the dust hasn’t settled in the point.

As the saying goes: “it ain’t over till it’s over”. So don’t go celebrating yet.

The payment links won’t get overturned because Apple don’t have a legitimate argument to not allow a developer have a link in there app.

Regarding the commission she has already said do one regarding the 27%
So Apple needs to come back with a legitimate figure that the judge will accept and Apple as a company are not willing to do that so she will more than likely set a figure