A free, ad supported game get to mooch just as much as facebook - which is a free, ad supported cancer of an app
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
A free, ad supported game get to mooch just as much as facebook - which is a free, ad supported cancer of an app
Ya keep using the same lame excuse. Any company can develop an actual app to install onto windows and windows gets zero money from them. You can't do that on iPhone. Your web browser example is lame. No one wants to use a web browser for their phone app. Just like apple, they don't make any app for the browser. They actually build stand alone apps. Geez.
One doesn't rule out the other.
Especially when their lawsuit included multiple individual counts.
Even having just one count decided against them could be a "real loss" for Apple.
No need to be gloating.
(When) Did they officially say so?
The point being? Apple so far prohibited other purchasing methods for app enhancements. If that is deemed anticompetitive or illegal and if app developers can legally offer app enhancements outside of the App Store and/or IAP, I still don't see how Apple still wouldn't be acting as an agent/commissionaire.
They surely aren't on the streaming video subscription that I buy from Netflix to enhance my Netflix iPad app, are they?
The gaming app and audiovisual is Epic's work and IP. And if Epic are selling me gaming content or enhancements thereto, without Apple's involvement, that's no different, is it? Well, it currently (only) is, because Apple makes that arbitrary distinction between "Reader" apps and gaming app - whose content can also be cross-platform, so not really tied to Apple's iOS ecosystem.
Last edited:
As it seams it stood unnoticeable illegally in California. Of course it does not mean that Apple is not entitled to get paid for its IP. That wing is and always was absurd … a diversion of the actual point. But as per ruling not at expense of the user in app choosing to deal directly with the digital service provider given the option.
Apart from appeals et al … the question now is what will be Apple licensing and host and distribution approach to digital services that choose to to give their customers such option in app.
In my opinion its to Apple advantage not to rush through emotions. Why?
1. Can still enforce App Store payments as mandatory in app, even though digital services provide links to alternate sales channels.
2. These alternative sales channels in-app better work hard if not also in price to actually convince users to opt out the mandatory App Store payment. As a customer there is still sIgnificant advantages in using App Store payments:
- Consolidated billing
- Consolidate purchases and management
- Easy to cancel
- Easy and problem free App updates
- Family Share
I doupt differences in prices of 1 euro in 10 will be that convincing to customers, 2 or 3 euros monthly maybe. Especially when it comes to minor digital services. The larger s one such as Office 365, Netflix, Spotify …., well those people are already used to pay them directely anyway so it just a bit more convenient now.
Rushing into stupidly high royalties fees if any, just to not require users direct action to open a web browser to access their digital service accounts and pay, and instead simply click in app opening the same page, may actually help Epic in further cases.
Why is Epic appealing? App Store keeps on being the entry point to install and update apps, Internet end-points if you will, on users devices. Apple still fully controls which apps and what content will or not ever and how be in users devices flowing from the Internet. Case in case a Net Neutral platform transformed into a non neutral one through the device and its OS. This was not addressed by the court in any shape or form. In other words, Apple and Google devices and OS can keep being non Net Neutral on top of Net Neutral Internet while having 48% of earths population using their mobile platform to access the Internet. I suppose in California, Apple alone may be even way higher. But the company, Epic have been failing to articulate this stance and instead talked about Apple‘s huge profit margins and market share as anti-competitive to the point the Judge needed to say … Success is not Illegal.
Last edited:
My questions were related to how do things stand now with the current agreements along with the recent ruling. Dont they already have exceptions in their agreements to cover the reader situation like Netflix?
Sure they can change anti-trust law; the danger is not the bullet tech companies names on them but all the "To Whom it May Concern" bullets causing collateral damge. Governmnets can pass lawas but lawyers get to find creative ways to use them that the lawmakers never thought of when passing the law.
Sure, it's no different if I sell a software product that's subscription based and my sales agreement included a cut of all subsequent revenue form that customers subscription. Pretty standard agreement, and what makes it worthwhile to be a representative for the company producing the product.
Because Apple decided so based on what the add to iPhone demand, and most of those do not charge a subscription fee anyway. Games, OTOH, probably represent a smaller market with lucrative subscription revenue via IAP that Apple provides access to developers to in exchange for a cut.
The developer agreement were obviously not designed to govern payment outside purchases. They were instead designed to mandate any additional purchase go through Apple.
Any outside purchasing option - with a certain exception for "reader" apps - is pretty much prohibited by the terms. I can't see a clause that would let Apple charge for something (outside purchases) that they weren't even allowing in the first place. Though they may - and I believe will - have to eventually:
South Korea Passes Bill Banning Apple From Requiring Developers to Use App Store In-App Purchase System
South Korea today passed a bill that bans Apple and Google from requiring developers to use their own respective in-app purchasing systems, allowing...
www.macrumors.com
They do, in that they're explicitly allowing "reader" apps to display external content - as long as they're not linked to in-app. Though this "no linking" provision seems to be relaxed soon as well, under pressure from, in this case the Japanese competition authority.
For unlocking in-app features or functionality though, they are requiring the use of their own distributing and purchasing mechanism.
Maybe because they’re selling a product directly to users? I don’t know, but I agree that the other apps you mention should be contributing more. I believe Instagram owes much of its success to the iOS platform.
People are getting confused as to what the terms mean.
Apple’s IAP is much more than payment processing, the judge stated as much in the judgement. The payment processing part is actually handled by a third party anyway, such as Chase bank/ Visa (again, explained in the judgement). I agree that Apple should probably rename this API to remove the confusion it is causing.
Any extra functionality enabled in the app such as “jewels, in game currency, extra levels etc” will still be handled by Apple’s IAP API. Apple has been ordered to allow links, buttons or mechanisms to a developers website or to allow a third party payment processor.
A developer still cannot add any extra content or unlock functionality not already in the app. Any extra functionality unlocked becomes part of the “Licensed Application” and is treated as such for commissions. Apple is able to recover commissions regardless of the mechanism used to unlock that functionality….it’s just easier to do it via IAP.
So as it stands, the only way to enable extra functionality in the app is through IAP API’s, which the judge ruled was lawful. You can make a purchase off site but if that purchase enables extra functionality, the IAP API will be used to enable it and it becomes part of the Licensed Application and as such, the developer will be required to pay a commission to Apple for use of it’s IP.
All that changes is that Apple will send an invoice to the developer vs directly taking their cut and paying the remainder to the developer. However, this will be extra work for developers (increasing their costs) in having to deal with these payments and due to not avoiding Apple’s commissions, will be a more expensive option. The judge noted this in her ruling:
” 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.”
“Section 3.4 of Schedule 2 provides the basic 30 percent rate and reads:
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 located in those countries listed in Exhibit B, Section 1 of this Schedule 2 as updated from time to time via the App Store Connect site, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User”
“3.3.3 Without Apple’s prior written approval or as permitted under Section 3.3.25 (In-App Purchase API), an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store, Custom App Distribution or TestFlight.”
”1.3 All content, functionality, and services offered through the In-App Purchase API are subject to the Program Requirements for Applications, and after such content, services or functionality are added to a Licensed Application, they will be deemed part of the Licensed Application and will be subject to all the same obligations and requirements.“
“2.4 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to send any software updates to Your Application or otherwise add any additional executable code to Your Application. An In-App Purchase item must either already exist in Your Application waiting to be unlocked, be streamed to Your Application after the In-App Purchase API transaction has been completed, or be downloaded to Your Application solely as data after such transaction has been completed.”
”2.6 With the exception of items of content that an end-user consumes or uses up within Your Application (e.g., virtual supplies such as construction materials) (a “Consumable”), any other content, functionality, services or subscriptions delivered through the use of the In-App Purchase API (e.g., a sword for a game) (a “Non-Consumable”) must be made available to end-users in accordance with the same usage rules as Licensed Applications (e.g., any such content, services or functionality must be available to all of the devices associated with an end-user’s account). You will be responsible for identifying Consumable items to Apple and for disclosing to end-users that Consumables will not be available for use on other devices.”
Last edited:
We begin with:
then move to:
defended by:
then:
and finally retreat to:
And so completes the arc of a failed argument by assertion of credentials.
then move to:
defended by:
(ie. not a lawyer)
then:
and finally retreat to:
And so completes the arc of a failed argument by assertion of credentials.
A COMPREHENSIVE BREAKDOWN OF THE EPIC V. APPLE RULING - The Verge 9/12
The whole article is a good read
Last edited:
I, on the other hand, refer to myself as an illegal professional.
And I’ve gotten this far being legally unprofessional.
Epic games is a private company and not on the stock market. Yes, there is an EPIC ticker, but it is not for Epic games. So no, there is no Epic games stock price to be reported on.
Two things move stock price. News, which analysts interpret for effects on future profits, this is known as fundamentals analysis; and human sentiment on what people think the stock will do, thus the booms such as the dotcom boom, and this is known as technical analysis. Bitcoin is a classic instrument that is almost entirely driven by technicals. Big companies like Apple are mostly driven by fundamentals. However, every stock and investment instrument is moved by both, but even those that are in the throes of technicals are also moved by big news items.
You work it out from here mate. If you can't see that this court ruling is being interpreted as a loss for Apple by the market, then whatever man.
It doesn‘t need to. Epic or any other developer could. There’s nothing technolgically that prevents a developer from adding it by themselves, without using Apple‘s API (though yes, the question is if they’re legally able to do so).
It‘s not just about payment processing. „Purchasing mechanisms“ are explicitly referred to.
…which, curiously, contradicts many if not most mainstream media interpretations of the ruling.
I‘m not saying you’re wrong here. But this prohibition is likely to fall, eventually. Maybe in or from South Korea (see above), maybe somewhere else.
…if, as you quote yourself, offered through the In-App purchase API.
Developer may want to forgo that API altogether.
Yep, and every one of those moves is either caused by fundamentals, or technicals, or both. This move wasn't huge (well not yet anyway. I'll be curious what this week brings), but it was significant, and especially significant in that it jumped down, not up, on the court ruling. You have maths understand, but not stock market understanding.
The market seems to have shrugged it off. The movement on Friday was within the noise margin for the prior two weeks. Let‘s see if there is bigger movement tomorrow.
AFAIK, app developers set the prices. From memory, the iOS App Store started as a paid or free model. There was no IAP then. I believe it was the developers that requested for IAP as a business model.
They could, but history has shown that they didn't. This would probably upset many non-profit org. tho. So it just goes to show that you cannot possible please everybody. Apple is in business to make money, and they have the rights to dictate any business model they think will maximise their profits.
IMHO, Apple considers the iOS App Store as a component of the iOS platform. So it is within their rights to monetise their IP in whatever form they see fit, as long as they operate within the boundaries of the laws they operate in.
I think you cannot deny that Apple made possible the ability to install apps for their platform, and they would like to benefit from any businesses that benefit from this feature. This is really no different from the other platforms. Some business sells their platform at a profit (e.g. Windows) while others develop their platform as a cost of doing business and tries to monetise it (e.g. iOS, Xbox, PS). So again, it is just different business model, based on what makes the most sense to the businesses.
That is EXACTLY the point….they CANNOT enable any extra functionality in the APP without using Apples IAP API. Go back and re-read my post. You are confusing what the IAP API does.
Yes, they can take payment outside the app, but they then must use the IAP API which unlocks that content. This is in the developer agreement and the judgement doesn’t change ANY OF THAT. The Judge was quite specific that IAP doesn’t breach any laws. Trying to enable functionality without using the IAP API will result in exactly what Apple did to Epic - they were booted from the App Store and the judge deemed it not only legal, but that Apple could also ban all subsidiaries and affiliates.
I have literally quoted every relevant part of the developer agreement, and the judgement, and yet you still try to argue the point. Quoting MSM for ANYTHING is probably not a good idea as they are looking for clicks only.
There is a video in this thread, posted many times, which breaks down the judgement in a legal sense AND BY A LAWYER. Watch it.
This is correct. Though developers were mostly demanding some sort of mechanism for free trials and upgrades, not specifically IAP, and IAP is what Apple provided.
I wonder if Apple will offer an upgrade option in the future — this would probably limit the number of apps moving to the subscription format.
I’m not even sure how it would work, because it could easily become messy, but I’m sure some developers would welcome the opportunity to have that option.
I think developers would be ecstatic. It would solve so many problems.
Yeah, and if it continues that way, soon everything will be subsidized multiple times till nothing is left to the dev or content creator. E.g. under this ruling TV and Display manufacturers could simply start building a system to request 30% of everything that wants to show up on their Panel, because it’s their IP.
That’s insane! Hopefully EU & Co. will come to the rescue.
Displaying a television picture on the panel doesn’t invoke their IP, at least no IP that isn’t already exhausted under the law.
Yeah, I’m all for it. Offering new versions of apps as a paid upgrade would probably be difficult to implement, but I’m sure it could be worked out.