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
To quote the relevant developer agreement:
"Apple shall be entitled to the following commissions in consideration for its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire under this Schedule 2:
(a) For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User"
I fail to see how Apple would be acting as an "agent" or "commissionaire" for Epic games or other developers on any out-of-app purchases.
They may change that agreement with developers to include sales outside of apps - but would then risk engaging in anti-competitive behaviour even more.
Agree.
This is the only way I can accept it. People here keep saying Apple has a monopoly but that is entirely untrue. As a developer, I have many choices to release my code to the public. And I have alternatives for mobile apps other than iOS. You cannot make the market as small as iOS Apps.
With this logic, Sony has a monopoly on PS5 distribution. Because, even with physical media, Sony needs to have approved and received payments from you as a developer. I cannot fire up Visual Studio, write a game, release it on my website and have people side-load on PS5. I therefore require Sony approval and payments in order to distribute my game.
I don't want this to become going after Apple because its Apple. Lets apply the same restrictions to everyone, gaming consoles included.
The only opinion that matters is the court's opinion, which I have quoted above.
This argument keeps getting brought up time and time again. You can't just breach any and all contracts when you feel its "unlawful". Just like I can't breach my non-compete at work just because I feel like it one day. I can't breach my "no pets allowed" clause in my apartment contract because I feel like it one day when I feel its unlawful. That is not how it works. You can't go off feelings.
Thanks for clarification and sorry for adding to confusion. You are correct, I should not have commented.
No it was your interpretation of the court's opinion, which other attorneys disagree with. (I could be m istaken, but I left a bread crumb trail to a youtube video, where the attorney seems to have a different interpretation)
Last edited:
Yes, they get to continue to keep the 100% of $0 revenue. Big win!
Sorry, clearly you are not a developer. I do a lot of stuff on my own "not using Apple's infrastructure"/ I have a monthly CDN bill of $1,000 and my application is not really that large. In the end, all the marketing, CDN costs, employment for billing questions it ends up being more than 30%.
That is good to hear. You cannot just breach a contract one day because you feel like it and not have any consequences. That is just now how things work.
These analogies are forgetting a big BIG piece of things. Payment is going THROUGH Apple (in your scenario Walmart). Any payment disputes, questions, refunds, whatever it takes time away from an APPLE representative. I have called them many times in the past many years about refunding app purchases and discuss some billing issues. I did NOT contact the developer's representatives. So yeah, who pays that Apple Rep's salary when they are focused on helping me refund WeirdCameraApp123?
So with your and others analogy, if you go THROUGH Walmart to purchase a TV show on Apple TV, and have issues with it not playing or whatever and want a refund, you will be talking to Walmart. So yes, I think its fair that Walmart gets a cut on the transaction.
Maybe epic will offer a service for small developers to handle this for them for free.
It seems to me that Apple clearly was in violation of CA law regarding prohibiting steering in app; but that charging a commission was not unreasonable nor that doing so on non-IAP purchases would necessarily be illegal; rather that would be a matter of contractual arrangements between Apple and the developer. Granted Apple has more bargaining power but they could offer various contract terms to give developers a choice of how to structure fees and the level of the fee; giving some balance to the relationship.
Your position seems to be that the ruling means Apple could not change its fee structure to require developers to pay a percentage of out side of IAP sales to Apple as a condition of being on the app store. If that is the case, what is your reasoning behind such a stance?
By providing the platform for their app.
I'm not so sure, licensing agreements can require a royalty or other fee for sales of products using it; so Apple could follow Epic's lead and charge for use of the developer tools.
A judge did.
They should; as should the ability to sell items for the games outside of their store so Epic could not stop the sale of items held by individual accounts to each other nor collect a fee.
That's just it. If you buy something outside of Apple's IAP you'll have to deal with the developer, not Apple. If the developer is non-responsive you'll have very little recourse.
Free or not, someone will. Once the legal dust has settled and it's legal to do so.
FastSpring charges less than 10% today - so there's room for lower fees than the 30% from Apple.
But that doesn’t mean that apple can’t tack on a 20% fee even though the purchase occurred outside of apples payment processor.
The judge had no comment on them being a monopoly other than to say Epic failed to prove it, up next will be the US Government and that’s when Apples real trouble is going to start 🙄
Over 80% of apps in the App Store are free. How are they contributing their share to the upkeep of the App Store? How does Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, Spotify, Kindle etc. contribute to the upkeep of the app store?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My statement was more for that Apple does indeed deserve the commission for IAP. Because, like I have said, I have contacted Apple about any billing issues. I can't be the only one in the world to have done that, so that rep's salary needs to be coming from somewhere.
If all apps were free and people didn’t buy IAP the App Store would still exist and be subsidized by other apple revenue centers. (As well as the $99 developer agreement)
I....just don't understand this argument either. Apple is not collecting ALL TRANSACTIONS on iPhone. I can buy something with Safari and Apple gets 0 from it.
I don’t see any legal ground for Apple having the right to a percentage sales that occur outside of an iOS app. I’d argue it’s questionable whether they have that right with IAP because that transaction happens after an app is downloaded from the store to an individual’s device. No way would a court rule Apple is entitled to a cut of commerce that happens in the browser. That’s crazy.
It depends and we will have to see how this shakes out. If the link clicked originated in the app it’s possible that apple can get a cut. Obviously this is being debated on MR, we may have to wait to see how this turns out.
I would use an iPhone without the App Store over an Android phone any day. 😀
I'm not Natrium. But again, competition law.
What's to stop them from charging a cut of Amazon's sales in their iOS app? Or in-browser (in-Safari) sales?
The current Paid Applications Agreements only speaks of "marketing and delivery". Not merely "providing the platform". They could (try to) change that - but would then, without doubt, become subject to even more legal scrutiny.
Yes, that seems possible.
IAP is, as the judge found, more than just payment processing.