Apple can change the developer contract at will without negotiating with developers. It's in the contract. They have done so many times before.
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
Apple can change the developer contract at will without negotiating with developers. It's in the contract. They have done so many times before.
I think the easiest solution for Apple in the long run is to allow apps to be installed from places outside of the App Store, with the caveat that they are sandboxed and severely gimped. Maybe have an external app area that operates separately from everything else, has no access to personal info, etc.
Then Apple can keep focusing on providing a seamless App Store experience and give developers the freedom that some of them want (albeit without the support of the infrastructure that likely made their apps successful in the first place).
Then Apple can keep focusing on providing a seamless App Store experience and give developers the freedom that some of them want (albeit without the support of the infrastructure that likely made their apps successful in the first place).
Phone network operators are providing a platform as well..
They're, quite literally, bringing customers to businesses and vice versa.
They can also change their terms and conditions in providing service to consumers and businesses.
Yet they don't charge a fee or 30% on any sale conducted or service provided over the telephone network.
Why not? Don't these network operators wish they could?
In the end, the question will or would, again, be dealt with through (competition) law and politics.
It‘s an ongoing process with (legal and political) twists and turns.
Last edited:
I believe the court documents showed that in 2018 and 2019 98% of app store revenue came from games. Apple will do everything in it’s power to ensure that gravy train continues to exist.
I’m still skeptical with the argument that Apple deserves any percentage of sales of digital content that is cross platform. I watch Netflix using Roku on my smart TV. Why should Apple get a cut of my Netflix subscription just because I have an iOS device? Same with Spotify or Kindle books. Honestly I think the only thing Apple should get a cut of is digital content that is iOS only where one could make the argument it wouldn’t exist if not for Apple.
I was joking about epic because we all know this lawsuit was epic trying to help the little guy. So, yes, the big winners with this decision will be the companies that supply payment services to the small developer.
That would, again, open them up to legal challenges about anti-competitive behaviour.
The commonly used argument (on this forum and similar threads) is that Apple created the platform - and as a business should be free to allow, disallow, do and charge whatever they want to.
And that content providers (be it Netflix for movies or Epic with their game and in-game world) do have to abide by each and every rules set by Apple on a "take it or leave it" basis.
Right. So this argument that the 30% commission is necessary to fund running the App Store is crap. Basically what you have is game developers subsidizing everyone else. The App Store didn’t start out with IAP but once Apple realized how much money they were making off of micro transactions in games they were never going to give it up. In some ways it’s kind of gross how one of Apple’s biggest growth areas has come from addictive games that get people to spend lots of money buying coins and stuff. I don’t think that’s something to be proud of.
1) Epic is doing it for their Unreal Engine. Apple can require transactional evidence for their income.
2) Apple has done this several times before. Apple changes the contract and it takes effect within a certain date. After that date the developer is not allowed to update any apps in the App Store until they accept the new agreement. This forces developers to agree to the new contract.
3) I think this is the only reason why Apple wouldn't do it.
Apple didn’t create the platform for Netflix or Spotify or Kindle books. You could maybe argue they did for Uber and Lyft but those transactions aren’t considered digital so Apple gets nothing from them.
I can’t see any developer adding a link that kicks you to the browser if Apple would still get a cut of that transaction. What would be the point?
Nope. That if the App Store revenue was $0 but operated with a loss doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
According to what I’ve read, apple is entitled to a commission in its intellectual property. The implementation of which is up to them.
Strictly speaking, when you sign the agreement you agree that Apple is your "agent" and "commissionaire." When the user downloads the app from the App Store, that's Apple acting on your behalf.
1.1
You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those countries listed on Exhibit A, Section 1 to this Schedule 2, subject to change; and (ii) Your commissionaire for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users
(c) For the purposes of this Schedule 2, the term “Licensed Application” shall include any content, functionality, extensions, stickers, or services offered in the software application.
In-app purchases simply "unlock" content already contained in the app itself:
3.1
... However, You are responsible for hosting and delivering content or services sold by You using the In-App Purchase API, except for content that is included within the Custom Application itself (i.e., the In-App Purchase simply unlocks the content) ...
Apple can no longer restrict you from using a third party paying mechanism, but everything else here still applies.
In the court's ruling, they agree Apple can still collect commission on IAP paid for by third party payment methods:
Page 150
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. 617"
Their footnote 617 states:
"617. In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission
while benefitting from Apple’s innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers."
If this ruling stands, I think Apple will need to amend its developer agreement to add rules about how it would monitor, audit and collect commission on payments outside IAP. That's going to be a huge pain for Apple and its developers.
Finally, in the sections related to Epic's breach of contract (Page 173), the Court found that Epic violated this section of the developer agreement:
"... In particular, Epic Games’ actions violated the DPLA provisions (1) requiring developers not to “hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality” in their apps and not to “provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store,” and (2) requiring Epic Games to pay Apple “a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user” through the App Store.
As noted, plaintiff has admitted that it breached the DPLA as Apple alleges and has conceded that, if the Court finds that the breached provisions of the DPLA are enforceable against Epic Games, then Apple would be entitled to relief as a result of the breach."
When they calculating commission due, the Court used the amount paid through Epic's Direct Payment (e.g. third party) (Page 179):
(1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment;
The Court clearly believes Apple can legally collect commission on payments made using a third party mechanism.
How? People are generally kind of lazy, especially children.I doubt the majority will click a different link, to go to a webpage to pay for something they want.
IMO, the vast majority will just click the fastest and easiest method.
Which is BS. Apple is under no obligation to support other companies by providing them a platform. The App Store has been mutually beneficial for Apple and developers as a way to add more functionality to phones, but access to the platform is not some right that devs can assert. I think a workaround for people that whine about Apple not doing what they want would be a step toward shutting those people up.
Some here claimed that based on this ruling Apple is entitled to charge a 30% commission on all purchases even outside apps. I tried to show that this is incorrect, since this claim is based on quotes from the ruling that are irrelevant and taken out of context. The court has not mentioned this hypothetical possibility, let alone ruled on it. One could however deduct from the ruling that charging 30% commission on purchases made outside apps would violate the law. In the context of the monopoly issue regarding in-app purchases using Apple’s In-App Purchasing system the court has mentioned several times that the 30% commission has not been justified sufficiently by Apple. It would seem impossible to justify this rate for purchases outside apps that do not even make use of Apple’s system.
Then why was Epic ordered to pay Apple 30 % of the money that Epic made outside IAP with their alternative payment system?
Read my previous reply:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rnative-payment-methods.2310292/post-30253823
Lost nothing? They were ordered to pay millions of dollars to Apple, they lost a year’s worth of revenue from the App store, and they still aren’t on the App Store. Care to explain how they lost nothing?
That’s not true at all. You don‘t have to buy an Apple phone. If you really want Fortnite (chocolate) you can buy an Android phone (we’ll call that K-Mart). Then you can deal with Google.
Last edited:
Sure and it would be basically useless and go the way of the 🦤. As 99% of users would not use it without an App Store.
😂 good luck as apple would be sued to the ground in EU for breaking the law of every contract law in the union. A new contract must be negotiated and signed by both parties
