Which is ridiculous for Epic to say yet not prove😂.
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
They literally lost on 9 out of 10 counts and can’t get back on the AppStore unless apple allows it (which they won’t).
Apple and Google get their cut when someone buys the app from the App Store. If I want to pay the developer for coins or to unlock something, Apple or Google need nothing to do with that transaction.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 do understand that Apple designed and forces it to be that way, right? If Apple doesn’t want free-riders, then allow the existence of other spaces.
You have a valid point, I agree that consumers prefer to make payments through Apple, there is no doubt about that. It's seamless, secure, convenient to cancel, etc. But the reason why this infrastructure exists is because Apple mandated it. If Apple is ordered to lift the mandate on in-app purchases going exclusively through Apple, developers will push their users to other payment methods. There's too much at stake when 15-30% of your company's revenue automatically goes to Apple just for payment processing. For many companies, the extra 10-25% in revenue from in-app purchases could mean operating at a loss vs profitability.
Those of you who think Apple was crushed by Epic on this…
A U.S. federal judge struck down a core part of Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) App Store rules on Friday, forcing the company to allow developers to send their users to other payment systems in a win for "Fortnite" creator Epic Games and other app makers.
But the judge did not require Apple to let app makers use their own in-app payment systems, one of Epic's top requests, and allowed Apple to continue to charge commissions of 15% to 30% for its own in-app payment system.
Epic said it would appeal the ruling, with CEO Tim Sweeney tweeting that the ruling "isn't a win for developers or for consumers."
A U.S. federal judge struck down a core part of Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) App Store rules on Friday, forcing the company to allow developers to send their users to other payment systems in a win for "Fortnite" creator Epic Games and other app makers.
But the judge did not require Apple to let app makers use their own in-app payment systems, one of Epic's top requests, and allowed Apple to continue to charge commissions of 15% to 30% for its own in-app payment system.
Epic said it would appeal the ruling, with CEO Tim Sweeney tweeting that the ruling "isn't a win for developers or for consumers."
tell that to to Sam Machkovech who did a cheap shot at Apple with a pro epic/anti Apple headline
Major win for Epic Games: Apple has 90 days to open up app store payments
Permanent injunction caps Epic Games’ year-long legal offensive against Apple.
arstechnica.com
This is as it should be. They signed a CONTRACT, they very deliberately VIOLATED the contract.
By default no company has monopoly powers unless given so by Congress or the state, or through a court ruling.
By ruling Apple not having monopoly powers, the court implicitly says it isn't a monopoly.
Epic had to prove two things:
1) Apple had monopoly power in a relevant market
2) Such monopoly power was misused in an illegal way.
They failed on both accounts.
From the judgement:
"Apple’s market share is below the general ranges of where courts found monopoly power under Section 2.[...]
In considering direct evidence of monopoly power, Epic Games has failed to demonstrate that there is a necessary restriction in the output of the relevant product—here, mobile game transactions. [...] Given the Court has found the record, at best, incomplete, the lack of evidence of decreased output for mobile gaming transactions and mobile game apps is fatal in demonstrating monopoly power using direct evidence. [...] With respect to indirect evidence, a more mixed result emerges. [...] In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market."
If it cannot conclude Apple is a monopoly, then it isn't a monopoly until someone can prove it.
Do you think Walmart would stock the printers if they were free and Walmart didn’t make a dime stocking it and giving it away?
Apple still has a right to charge a commission. They just won’t be able to require devs use their payment. I guess companies will have to self report or be forced to use a new API that calculates everyone a third party payment is made.
Everything I follow is RED - it looks like the markets are down, not just Apple.Stock is crashing.
It should be noted that once you buy your Apple product from Walmart, you don't then have to buy all your apps, etc. from Walmart. Apple sells their products through the stores of other companies, and then direct you to their own marketplaces from within their products.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.
Would you prefer that Apple and Google mark up every app an additional 30%?
The court just ruled in that very judgement that Epic failed to prove Apple had monopoly powers.
There really aren't any winners with this ruling. Apple has to give some ground on its App Store rules (potentially a slippery slope that could lead to ruining their entire business model). Developers are allowed to create extremely cumbersome ways to accept payments. It makes sense for subscription services, but for games and apps that rely on in-app one-off purchases, it's less than ideal.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slope part of things. If App Store rules continue to be needled away at, there is less incentive for Apple to maintain or offer it and more reason for them to hike prices on their hardware.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slope part of things. If App Store rules continue to be needled away at, there is less incentive for Apple to maintain or offer it and more reason for them to hike prices on their hardware.
They use Apple’s tools to develop it. This was one of the issues at the heart of the original case. Judge temporarily blocked them from terminating this separate developer account because of how much damage it would do, but now says they are free to do so.
Okay, That is why I posed the question that way, as I am not a dev so I have no real details, but I would expect that to be some more handed to Apple in exchange for being in their store...it does cost back end money to run. So a middle ground is perfectly fair, I suspect that this will roll down to other online operations like the Apple app store.
Important indexes are down 0.5% while AAPL is down over 3%, so it's not just because markets are down. And just a cursory look at other tech stocks shows AAPL down much more. Though it's hyperbole to call this a crash. Clearly investors don't like the decision though. What's telling is that GOOGL is an outlier as well, down almost 2%. Almost certainly because they're much in the same boat as Apple on this one.
It will be interesting to see how will this be materialized.
No more reader Apps I guess. I think all apps selling digital goods and digital services will required in-app purchase support … nevertheless will be able to also provide links to other forms of payment.
It will be interesting to see how this is reflected in the price of apps and subscriptions. Because I don’t see users opting for other payments options without incentives to do so … such as lower price comparatively.
Apple might also ask higher yearly dev subscriptions to companies that want to offer alternative payment options.
There are many ways Apple can implement this.
I think the company knows that its a lost cause not allow what the judge ruled … but they will try to delay as much as possible … buying time to build a strategy around the ruling.
No more reader Apps I guess. I think all apps selling digital goods and digital services will required in-app purchase support … nevertheless will be able to also provide links to other forms of payment.
It will be interesting to see how this is reflected in the price of apps and subscriptions. Because I don’t see users opting for other payments options without incentives to do so … such as lower price comparatively.
Apple might also ask higher yearly dev subscriptions to companies that want to offer alternative payment options.
There are many ways Apple can implement this.
I think the company knows that its a lost cause not allow what the judge ruled … but they will try to delay as much as possible … buying time to build a strategy around the ruling.
Last edited:
Ironically for your analogy, that's exactly what HP and most other printer manufacturers does with print cartridges. They even install software in their printer that detects if you're using a non-HP ink cartridge and lock up the printer from working.
Wouldn't letting developers direct customers outside of Apple's in-app purchase give Epic and all developers a way to bypass Apple for any and all payment options and Apple's 15-30% cut completely where the App Store is literally only used for hosting and discovery? It's not like you'd necessarily have to fumble with navigating back and forth between an app and a browser to make purchases, which would annoy users. Seems like it could be an in-app button provided by any other payment processor (thinking Square or Stripe) that seamlessly and internally steers customers to a different payment system for all in-app purchases that would function the same as Apple-only IAPs, so a developer can have an entire digital store within their app without paying Apple anything.
Maybe I was lucky but been buying white label cartridges on Amazon never had my printers locked.
"...Apple or Google need nothing to do with that transaction." Are the add-ons delivered from a server in Apple or Google's app store? If so, then they are most definitely involved.
First of all... the 15-30% fee isn't just for payment processing. It's the flat-fee that Apple charges for developers to use ALL of their services. It's a package deal that encompasses hosting, bandwidth, payments, worldwide tax collection and reporting, updates, app review, etc.
And developers know that before they even set foot inside the App Store. And they sign a contract.
So if you think the App Store is simply a Stripe or PayPal alternative... you're mistaken.
But look at it from the other side. You could not put your app in the App Store... and you'd be getting 0% revenue.
Yeah... you might be thinking "ZOMG... App Store fees are too high! I can't pay my mortgage!"
Meanwhile the alternative is no income at all. Pick your battles carefully.
And look... I'm not saying 15% or 30% is the correct number. It probably isn't... especially for tiny digital IAP purchases that take a fraction of a second to process in a datacenter somewhere.
But Apple should get something... would you agree? Apple is providing the store and everything with it.
Hershey can't sell a candy bar in a gas station without the gas station getting something, right? That's how stores work. Stores always charge some kind of fee.