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
You might have missed the legislative authority Congress has over companies they deem as monopolies and anti-competitive.
One is an opinion and the other is a legal ruling. Maybe missed that?
And how do you buy something from Amazon on a Windows device? A web browser, just like safari.
Is this the argument we are going with now? Apple is deemed not a monopoly by the courts, but never mind! Congress will surely fix Apple one of these days! Just you wait!
Personally, I don't expect much to get done through congress, given the deadlock the government is currently in. Maybe if Democrats control both houses after 2024, but it feels like talk about relying on the government to rein these companies in seems rather premature at this point.
An "opinion" from a body of government who has the power to act on their opinion. That's the part you keep missing.
This is the way the legislative and judicial branches have always worked. Congress makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets those laws. The only power the judicial branch has is if they deem a law unconstitutional, and even if that happens Congress has the power to pass amendments to the constitution that the judicial branch must then follow.
I’m still confused how you’re making a distinction between in-app and out-of-off app purchases. If a user opens the app, clicks a link in the app to purchase digital currency, is taking to a web view (i.e. still in the app) to the developer’s website to handle the credit card transaction, closes the web view, and the app completes gives the user digital currency - do you consider that in-app or out-of-app? I would consider that an in-app purchase (with a non-Apple payment mechanism), which would still be subject to Apple’s 30% commission.
Please don’t make the mistake of grouping everyone together, or reading intent where there is none. Yes, I’m an Apple fan, but this also impacts my job. I’ve read the order, and I deal with legal issues all the time at work; I can easily work with my legal counsel to figure out how this affects our own applications (and will once some of the dust settles). You claim to be a legal professional and you’ve opened yourself up to this discussion, so I’m genuinely interested in your opinion and reasoning. Thanks for your contribution.
Umm nothing, read, she made no such determination and said only that Epic failed to prove it…. It doesn’t matter, the governments around the world will eventually make that determination 🙄
It sounds like your point is that this ruling doesn’t address the situation of Apple’s entitlement to charge a commission for purchases outside the app. So, how is this a blow to Apple? Can’t they just enforce the developers agreement that states they can charge a commission for anything that enhances the app for a payment regardless of how it is enabled? Sorry if I missed where you give your opinion on this.
Who is defending Apple? The judge herself basically defended Apple seems like?
Just seeing basic rational things, Epic didn’t want to pay 30% to apple, wants it’s own payment method (and by extension its own store) on iOS devices… but at the same time pays Sony ABOVE that 30%. Forget about the defending or bashing apple, do you, honestly speaking, do not see a double face attitude here?
From the court filings:
I started hearing this Hoeg Law episode which seems to be a whole lot more centered and not hellbent on click baiting everyone to oblivion:
For what is worth, I like Epic, I like their tech, their presentations, what they are doing by advancing the rendering tech to higher levels is truly remarkable (like Nanite and Lumen) and personally wouldn’t want them to disappear from mac related platforms… it is already in dire need of support as it is already.
A simple solution is for Apple to require developers to make Apple’s payment method an option. Give the consumer the choice as to how they would like to process their purchase. Nothing less monopolistic than choice.
They will surely require that any app that has a link to outside payment options also has to allow IAP.
Me too. I also like being able to cancel a subscription without spending 3 hours on the phone talking to different retention specialists, and then being intentionally hanged up on just before it gets done.
And Nintendo has a dominant position in the Nintendo gaming market and has monopoly power over distribution of software applications on Nintendo devices. Now do you see how silly the Judge's statement is?
Last edited:
IIRC Steve Jobs was very against the Mac being a gaming computer. If I correct that make above very ironic.
I think you missed the point I was making. Steve Jobs was very against the Mac being a gaming computer and yet of in-app purchase revenue 98% are game related.
Sony and Niintento are in primary business of selling games not hardware. Once Apple starts selliing hardware at price of breaking even then these two cases can be put in the same sentance.
I'll say it again: Apple's Developer Agreements only cover transactions where Apple acts as agent or commissionaire.
It's more than just far-fetched to assume that this includes - and would stand to include - outside purchases.
Can they change that agreement?
They can try that - and thereby open up another, bigger can of worms of potential lawsuits against them.
No, I understood your point. But, as a point of numeracy, that doesn’t seem very ironic. 98% of a small part of the pie is a small part of the pie.
Based on Unreal Engine vs Unity 3D Games Development: What to Choose? Unreal is a joke market share wise: "Unity 3D has a 48% market share whereas Unreal Engine is standing at 13%."
The TIGA Survey shows Unreal on par with 'Internal proprietary engines' at 27% with Unity at a 72% in the UK.
I didn’t miss the judges ruling. At any rate Apple is not a legal monopoly. The definition could be changed in the fiture (also known as Monday morning quarterbacks) such that they are.