No, apple’s contract was not found to be illegal. Where do you get this stuff? Read the 170+ page order. Nowhere does it say the contract is illegal. Not once.
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 vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, apple’s contract was not found to be illegal. Where do you get this stuff? Read the 170+ page order. Nowhere does it say the contract is illegal. Not once.
Correct... the judge did not make a ruling on whether Apple is a monopoly. She basically passed on it.
But if there was ever a case to prove that... wouldn't this be it?
Epic v Apple was a HUGE case. Lots of visibility. And the way some people talk around here... they were sure Apple would be classified as a monopoly.
Hmmm... So I guess we have to wait for the next court case to finally prove Apple is a monopoly?
Or... maybe Apple is not actually a monopoly at all... who knows... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The court obviously disagrees with you, seeing that they refused to acknowledge App Store to be a monopoly.
And also, I can’t say I agree with you. If you are a small crafts manufacturer, you have pretty much three choices: Amazon, Ebay or Etsy. Or you could sell your stuff at your aunts Stella corner shop or on the street, well, good lunch with that… Its just that with physical goods, the economic argument is more obvious. Digital goods can scale like crazy however, changing the perception. Nobody has offered a good solution to this so far.
Judge didn't declare the terms illegal. Judge said Apple's contract with Epic was valid and that Epic signed it willingly and knowingly. Judge said that moving forward she wants Apple to allow 'links' to third party payment providers. Something Apple already allowed as long as App also provided for IAP.
If it is in the App Store contract that Epic cannot use other payment systems, then that contract provision is in violation with state law under the judges ruling preventing anti-steering of payment systems. A contract provision is void when in violation of state law.
Epic will likely appeal the judge’s inconsistent ruling finding breach of contract for offering another payment system, as the judge in the same decision granted the injunction preventing Apple from blocking payment systems based on state law. Apple will likely appeal to narrow the violation of state law to California instead of nationwide. Just goes to show how meaningless this lower court decision will really be, as the appellate courts will have to fix this rushed decision.
You pay 99 dollars a year for a dev account. Are you just making this up? Nice try, Tim Sweeney.
Seems to me that the price difference between using Apple's payment system and the 3rd party system could end up being quite large. If I don't want Apple to take 30%, I don't just drop that markup by half on my end to increase my profits. I crank up the price on Apple's end until it is unpalatable, while keeping the 30% markup on my end. Now I get everything I got before, AND the markup that Apple was taking.
Maybe this doesn't matter with apps looking for a one-time purchase. But people who are addicted to micro-transactions are surely going to be looking for deals. If they can get twice as many whatever-coins for the same amount of money from the maker of a game than I can from Apple, they're going to go that route.
I just don’t understand how they can be forced to have others market on their storefront. Target would never let Walmart have a sign in the store saying “hey, we have this exact same thing for $5 cheaper! Come to us!” Or Verizon at AT&T, or Chevrolet at a Ford dealership, etc etc etc.
I get that the digital storefront is slightly different, and that digital laws (or lack thereof) makes this kind of the Wild West right now, but it still feels off. I suppose this is a good middle ground though, as long as they can require that if a developer chooses to link externally that they also must provide an option for in-app purchase. That way we as consumers aren’t forced onto potentially shady websites entering our card info if we WANT to stay within the walled garden.
I get that the digital storefront is slightly different, and that digital laws (or lack thereof) makes this kind of the Wild West right now, but it still feels off. I suppose this is a good middle ground though, as long as they can require that if a developer chooses to link externally that they also must provide an option for in-app purchase. That way we as consumers aren’t forced onto potentially shady websites entering our card info if we WANT to stay within the walled garden.
By Epic's logic, I could go into a Walmart and buy a printer, but then use paper and ink I bought directly from the manufacturer.
Because it's not in their storefront. It is in the product itself.
They most certainly can. In regards to Epic specifically…Epic breached the contract. Apple has every right to refuse to let them back on.
Agree. Just imagine how many millions of dollars they could have kept 70% of over the coming years. BIG loss for Epic who won’t be doing business on iOS or macOS again.
You must not have finished the article. The judge did not say Apple was or was not a monopoly. They simply said that Epic had not made the case that they are. That is different than “Apple is not a monopoly.” The judge however did say that Apple was acting in an anti-competitive and anti-consumer manner.
And that’s what all developers with paid apps will eventually take advantage of. Move the payments in-app. App Store is reduced to just a collection of free apps.
You do understand Walmart gets paid for having the item in their store, they get a cut. Walmart gets a cut because it’s there store and they host the item, they don’t do it free or for a one time fee.
I suspect Apple and Epic will come to some arrangement once all legal remedies are exhausted on both sides, since both sides would benefit from Epic's Fortnite being back on the Apple App Store since it is a popular game and would make both sides money.
Walmart takes Apple’s product and marks it up. They don‘t sell it at cost. At Walmart…The average percentage of markup across all products from all manufacturers is 32%.
Investor blog discusses retail markups
A recent blog on MarketWatch.com highlighted the range of retailer markups and the effects they have on wholesale costs.
www.retailcustomerexperience.com
Would you prefer that Apple and Google mark up every app an additional 30%?
You seem to imply that just because an app uses an alternate payment option they will be free to skirt Apple’s cut. Thats not the case developers are still in the hook for Apple’s fee and you can even see it in this ruling.
"then compete in that space"; You do understand "that space" belongs to Apple, maintained by Apple, servers belonging to Apple, right?
The judge is allowing payment options. The judge isn’t allowing Developers to stop paying Apples cut. Even with an alternative payment option developers are still required to pay for the service Apple provide with the app store.
Your lack of understanding is because of your refusal to acknowledge reality or perhaps just your ignorance of it. Apple is the only store over 50% of consumers can download smartphone apps at. This is also entirely Apple’s doing, as they could allow app downloads from other sources. Conversely, you can buy a bottle of Heinz ketchup from Walmart, Target, and many, many other stores.
How does this mean they can’t develop their own engine which literally has nothing to do with Apple? 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Apple will NOT be appealing, though Epic has already indicated that they will.