Microsoft sales hardware (Xbox and surface) and they charge 30% through their store so your argument fall flat on its face.
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
Nintendo sells hardware at well above break-even, so perhaps put that Epic talking-point canard (which is also completely irrelevant under the law) to rest.
Sure. But not exclusively and not unlimitedly (for everything purchased in an app).
Are they acting as an agent or commissionaire for Amazon (the local pizzeria) when I order something (pizza) for delivery from Amazon's shopping app (the local pizzeria's ordering app) and therefore entitled for a 30% share of that purchase?
Last edited:
Yup. Pick any way you want and then endlessly argue over semantics.
Maybe it’s time to go against those that forced Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc to sell their stuff at break even or sometimes at a loss.
Also, if Apple suddenly decided to sell their iPhones and iPads at a loss and use that as an excuse to charge 50% or more towards all developers and purchases… well, we can agree that wouldn’t fly.
Uh no, hardware is their primary business because you can't play their first-party software anywhere else. Mario and Zelda is why their hardware sells. You can't even buy a PS5 at-will to play the exclusives. People play Fortnite on their favorite console of choice, and that's just a material fact.
Considering PS4 was the 2nd best selling console of all-time, the only console to ever beat it was the PS2. I don't have to say more.
Humm. I think may be rewriting some things. Never said that Apples’ business practices were illegal. What I’ve said is I believe that practices within the scope of the App Store relationship with iOS, not only Apple but also Google /Google Play / Android, were anti-competitive … as a result as I‘m in favor or regulation around these kinds of devices.
You on the other hand said that did not agree with new regulation because all their practices were legal.
Guess what … according to the Judge that is not the case in the state of California. I don’t know how long California Competition Law exist leading to this ruling. But if they exist say for 10 years, than the App Store policy within this scope has been in breach of the law for 10 years, aka illegal. For that matter, there is an Injunction requiring Apple to remove that policy prohibiting their links to third party payment systems in the next 90 days.
Its not intellectually honest to state a practice is legal when the Judge specifically stated that it was not within the scope of Californian Competition Laws and for that matter ruled an Injunction.
Now, of course the ruling may change as a result of Epics’ appeal. Who knows.
Cheers.
Last edited:
The court could never rule a rate. It is not within the realm of its competences. So ruled nothing in that regard.
Jezz … so much misdirection … anyway in does not matter. It just makes it harder to sympathize with the stance. Even though all of it a side, I may find some merits. Very few things in the matters of the Men are entirely right or entirely wrong.
PS: By the way, I never also said that I believe that Apple has a Monopoly. But being a Monopoly is not a pre-requisite to consider a practice anti-competitive, even illegal. This ruling is the proof of that.
Last edited:
Epic just filed their notice of appeal.
Must have been a real loss for Apple, right?
Must have been a real loss for Apple, right?
Personally don’t think its a real loss for Apple. But it is not a win either.
As for Epic appeal … it is my impression that it wants to push the ruling further and believes that it can explain why.
"...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.”
Sounds to me like the ruling says that Apple can charge a commission even though the purchase is made outside of the app.
The court isn’t explicitly blessing it, because of the context where that text appears, but the court is acknowledging that Apple would have that right.
You're just trolling now. Even hinting that the stock market follows logic and not making knee jerk reactions made me lose all respect for your opinion.
It has nothing to do with stubbornness - you can yell "out of context" all you want but the text literally says that Apple can charge a commission even in the absence of IAP.
Also - Apple is not going to appeal the ruling. Maybe you are confusing Apple with Epic?
Much deflection in some of these posts. There’s one point within that ruling for the App Store that has stood for 13 years. The judge ruled one business practice anti-competitive and not the entire business model. There was one point that Epic won out of the entire suit.
Last edited:
I thought it says any purchase that enhances the app. Buying from Amazon does not do that.
the end of the digital purchases era, EPIC is going to "rollback" the console market to 90's with the physical games.
a digital store with no revenue is a no sense for console makers, so not soo many options here, sell digital licences with a 300% extra cost to avoid "unfair" competition between official and un-official store , or simply delete the store option in the Software and offert only physical games ( 100% control of prices and revenues for console makers)
Last edited:
The “enhances the app” language comes from apples T&C’s, where it is defined to include things like in-app currency, electronic goods, etc.
Apple made the decision to go the freemium model. If they wanted to they could say every app has to cost something and then take a cut of that. Once an app is downloaded to your phone can you really say it’s still part of Apple’s store?
Successful game developers subsidize a lot of big companies. Most of the big companies apps are free. No one pays anything (monetarily) to use Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. What does it cost Apple to host those apps in it’s store? Why do they get to mooch but a game doesn’t?
Some would say that Sony also sells hardware. ;-) Maybe a TV or two.