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
First, moving instantaneously is not the sign of a reliable indicator. How many stock traders yesterday do you think understood the ruling versus reacted to the headlines?
Second, I will repeat yet again, that Friday’s movement was literally in the noise. This is a plot of AAPL since roughly the start of the pandemic, except I took yesterdays change and inserted it on a random day (numpy.random.random()) in the series and set yesterday’s change to 0.
Tell me what day I moved it to. If yesterday’s reaction was significant, this should be easy.
The only part the judgement effects is the part highlighted in red. Click below to skip directly to the discussion. 2:14 to 2:16 specifically.
Well, it’s a good thing governments are starting to look at them as well, so this one case means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, but keep on pounding that chest 🙄
Are developers forced to load apps through browsers on pc? No. They can create actual apps. There is a reason for this.
I bet if Apple could turn back time, they would give Epic that deal they gave to Amazon. They would avoid this whole court case and save themselves billions.
That changes the subject. The fact is, right now there is a way for developers to distribute apps via browser. None of them want to do so because they want the benefit of the app frameworks that Apple provides. Those app frameworks are Apple’s intellectual property. And the court, rightly, pointed out that Apple is entitled to be compensated for the use of that intellectual property.
I bet if Apple could turn back time they’d find an app other than Infinity Blade to give precious stage time to.
The stock market is a joke in determinating how good a company is actually doing much less its future. I still remember all the dotcom companies whose stocks were flying high...right up to the point they went out of business. I would like to point between the two of them Tom Sweeney and Chinese conglomerate Tencent Holdings (TCEHY) own 90% of Epic Games stock making them less subject to fluctuations and investor public. Apple by comparison only owns 57.67% and is far more diversified in who owns the rest.
Have you noticed that there seems to be no mention of Epic Games stock increasing? If it was that much a win certainly their stock should be rising and yet the press has been silence on such a thing happening.
Last edited:
If Apple could turn back time they would more likely put in a binding arbitration clause for developers that make over $1 million. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if something like that didn't appear in their future developer licensing agreements. Also I could also see them putting in something in their code (protected from study by the DMCA) that would cripple attempts to go around the store.
Did anyone else notice the footnote number after the quoted part of the ruling allowing Apple to terminate its contract with Epic? Footnote number was "666" (see the attachment to that post). Now recall that the price of the original Apple I computer: "$666." Not a numerologist, but there might be some kind of irony here.
To clarify, the documents showed that in 2018 to 2019 over 98% of Apple's in-app purchase revenue came from games.
"Game transactions" - I assume purchases of premium games and game in-app purchases combined - accounted for 62.9% of App Store revenue in 2018.
(source: first paragraph of page 124 in the judgement document)
I don’t know if binding arbitration would be to their advantage. Though it seems logical that an agreement between two parties would preclude one party from challenging the agreement after the fact, but here we are…
Yes, in the absence of Apple’s In-App Purchasing system they can still charge a commission for in-app purchases. You are still using this quote out of context. It is in the section about whether restricting developers to use Apple’s system for in-app purchases is legal. It has nothing to do with purchases outside apps.
The stubbornness of people here is unbelievable. Stop defending Apple. This ruling is a major blow to them. That’s why they are going to appeal.
I’m done explaining. Read all major newspapers. Follow Apple’s stock. They all came to the same conclusion as me.
In this context you are such a negationist man that is impossible to reason with.
Apple was found guilty of illegal anti-steering practices against the market. Anti-steering … an anti-competitive behavior according to State laws illegal.
Just the other day you were saying that Apple was doing nothing illegal. Now that is found that it is … the remedy is just procedural. There was nothing in the law that mandates specifically the contents of the injunction in such case.
An injunction is an attempt to stop a behavior not: “oh if you do this you are off the hook”. It’s bit like if you are arrassing an entity the judge rules to stay away from the residency …”. But that does not give one a green card to do it through other means. In fact it’s a warning that if you do it consequences will be harsher.
Your opinion on how Apple should conduct it would lead to the conclusion that you seam not want. Neither do I.
In your opinion Apple should than charge 30% in royalties if the devs sells directly and keep the 30% fee on sales through the App Store. That would lead to harsher measures in further law suits. No one would understand why royalties aren’t being included also in the App Store fees and would simply conclude that was a measure to rise the prices up outside the App Store … again anti-competitive.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Which is what is wrong IMO. Because in that scenario that you just describe, Apple is providing a service/platform without any fee! And surely that is not fair.
I have said before that somehow the whole "app free and content purchase outside" will cease to exist. Apple will probably add some T&C that if there is any paid content available, the app developer must pay some fee for every x app downloads. Otherwise who pays for the iOS maintenance?! There are no free lunches.
...non-exclusively: "Your appointment of Apple as Your agent or commissionaire, as the case may be, under this Schedule 2 is non-exclusive"
I fail to see how Apple would be "delivering" in-app content purchased outside of the app. Even their own definitions of delivery suggest they don't. So according to the current agreement in force, I fail to see how they'd be entitled for such transactions.
The court also clearly believes that Apple's 30% rate is not a competitive rate - and that's what hurting developers and consumers.
While that's true in theory, that is not how it works in practice (and probably neither for billing purposes of the App Store). For $100 product, they apply 25% VAT for a final price (not cost) of $125 - and then reclaim VAT paid on materials separately.
Why should 70% be gross? They created the content that is "sold" in that microtransaction. Apple didn't - they only provide a means of transaction at a rather generous (some say supracompetitive) rate of 30%.
It doesn't. It states that they can do so when acting as agent/commissionaire on that transaction. They don't when it's purchased outside of the app (see above).
They'd probably prefer a lower revenue-based IP license fee than a higher 30% commission.
No one does.
Apple benefits from Apps offered in the App Store by selling more hardware devices.
Apple benefits from a generous commission rate on in-app purchases.
Developers only receive a share for their work.
And without the power company providing electricity to Apple and consumers, Apple would receive 0% of 0%.
Google pays to be the default engine: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-15-billion-default-search/
I'm sure Apple will change if someone pays more?
Seems you won’t accept that Apples’ business practices are legal and apple iOS store isn’t a monopoly.
And yes apple was told to allow links in 90 days to external sites. Was it illegal as in a criminal sense? No. The court did affirm that apple can still collect commissions on those payments. So yeah legally apple can collect on external payments. The exact method is tbd. That one thing does not mean the way apple conducts business is illegal or immoral.
And sure all parties can appeal and all can change.
The court let the 30% rate stand.
And you’re correct about one thing. It seems navigating to “www.mypayments.zzz” apple is not entitled to a cut. But clicking a link within the app to the same website, apple is entitled to a cut.
I agree, one of us is delusional but it isn't me:
"Apple has significant and durable market power in the market for mobile operating systems and mobile app stores, both of which are highly concentrated. Apple’s iOS mobile operating system is one of two dominant mobile operating systems, along with Google’s Android, in the U.S. and globally. Apple installs iOS on all Apple mobile devices and does not license iOS to other mobile device manufacturers. More than half of mobile devices in the U.S. run on iOS or iPadOS, an iOS derivation for tablets introduced in 2019. Apple’s market power is durable due to high switching costs, ecosystem lock-in, and brand loyalty. It is unlikely that there will be successful market entry to contest the dominance of iOS and Android.
As a result, Apple’s control over iOS provides it with gatekeeper power over software distribution on iOS devices. Consequently, it has a dominant position in the mobile app store market and monopoly power over distribution of software applications on iOS devices."
Source: Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, Congressional Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law