Me saying microsoft, obviously meant Xbox, not Windows...
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
That's a pretty standard business practice for licensing agreements. No reason Apple couldn't do it.
What a stupid argument, Apple can be anti-competitive because they can? Wow. Fortunately the government sees things differently and will eventually take action.
Yes, for licensing highly specialized software components. I’ve never heard this being applied to use of general-purpose OS frameworks. If Apple ever did anything like this they would instantly become enemy number one of the entire developer world.
Game engines are often licensed. Apple isn't licensing theOS but the tools , APIs, etc. needed to run on it.
Given the lucrative user base developers would come around, especially if it merely replaces the 30% store cut.
There are not "two marketplaces for apps" even in the mobile space,
"In essence, Epic Games ignores these marketplace realities because, as it presumably knows, Apple does not have market power in the smartphone market."
But game engine is a software component (no matter how critical) where you have a choice. Don’t like licensing terms? Choose a different one or write your own. OS-level frameworks is something where you don’t have a choice. It is simply not possible to write useful software without calling into OS APIs.
What you are proposing is literally „build any software on our OS and you owe us“. This is unprecedented, unacceptable and contrary to what Apple has been building all these years. Their rich, open APIs are a matter of pride for them. To use them as commercial blackmail will undo decades of work and make Apple into a true tyrant.
Apple has been charging for access since the App Store first opened. This is entirely what this law suit was about. Apple made it easy to collect their commissions from developers using the IAP API. Epic has now given developers another option….either continue paying in the current format or receive an invoice at the end of the month.
I thought people wanted choices?
Where do you get all of this from? The only relevant outcome from this lawsuit is that the developers are allowed to include information about app-external payment methods. There is no provision that would allow Apple to send additional invoices of any kind to the devs. Sure, Apple could change their terms if agreement to add such provisions, but they are no idiots to actually try anything like that.
Just think about it, if that kind of approach would have been realistic, they would have long done it to go after Facebook‘s profits.
P.S. And no, Apple never charged for access. You can go out there, download the tools and build macOS/iOS software for free, completely legally /yes, you’d have to pay the membership fee if you want to publish on the store). They charge for success, not for the access, which is a completely separate thing.
Nothing in the injunction prevents Apple from doing so, and the findings of fact hint that it is ok.
Sure, but it would be an immensely stupid thing to do, for reasons I have mentioned in my previous post. Apple wants to be seen as an visionary tech company and platform and not a ruthless software tyrant. App Store has democratized software development, this proposal would plunge it into Dark Ages.
I have linked to the developer agreement, IAP agreement and judgement many times in our discussion and showed how apple can take commission on any purchase within or external to the app, which subsequently enables extra functionality within the app. It has been ruled legal. Any ”extra functionality” is treated as part of the main Licensed App, and therefore attracts commission for the use of Apple’s IP. In agreeing to this, the developer also agrees that if they don’t comply, their account can be terminated.
Again, what you are also missing is that the Judge has also ruled that Apple isn’t just acting as a payment processor. In fact, Apple don’t even handle the payment processing - that is done by Chase bank/ Visa. The judge ruled that Apple’s IAP API is much more than payment processing alone. This API is what enables that extra content after the payment is made….it doesn’t matter where that payment is made, it has to go through the API for the content to be unlocked. This is what allows Apple to audit all the extra‘s that people are purchasing.
So what this looks like:
Currently: Apple processes the payment from the users stored payment type and takes 30% before giving the developer 70%
In future: Apple processes the payment from the suers stored payment type and takes 30% before giving the developer 70% or if the developer chooses to use their own payment processor, the developer takes 100% and Apple sends an invoice for their 30%.
Whether you believe it or not, these are the facts.
Last edited:
Oh, I agree that I think Apple will be very careful. It would not surprise me, though, if they try and collect some % of sales outside the store, under some circumstances.
I said that 48% of the population uses smartphones. Considering that Android and iOS are …. it is not far from that. In the US is around 85%.
Don’t have to cite. Do your research.
Not overstated that as much you have your arguments . Don’t understand your point.
I don’t think this is a very constructive stance. Epic didn’t reach the verdict, the jury did. Abs Apples rules were indeed in violation of the anti-competition laws. If Apple implements draconian measures, it’s not Epics fault, it’s Apples.
I am sure that Apple will find a reasonable solution. They are smart.
Seems to me that this lawsuit has all but validated Apple’s business practices. Ironic, given what Epic set out to achieve.
I will say their reckless gamble has been bad for the developer community. Prior to this, Apple might still have been amendable to making concessions here and there precisely to avoid a lawsuit, the outcome of which was still uncertain.
Now, the judge has ruled in favour of pretty much everything Apple does, and laid to rest just about every argument that critics have had of the App Store for well over a decade.
1) Apple doesn’t have a monopoly over iOS app distribution, because you can’t have a monopoly over a service only you can provide, which is what I have been saying right from the very start.
2) IAPs is considered part of the core iOS experience, and consumers benefit from a safe, secure and centralised purchasing experience. Apple is even entitled to get a cut of profits earned via alternate payment services, like Stripe, which was specifically called out as not being a viable substitute.
3) Switching costs from one platform to another is not considered to be an issue.
4) There is value in Apple’s App Store curation model, however flawed the current implementation.
5) Only problem is Apple’s anti-steering practices, which to me was inconsequential in the bigger picture.
Now, we still have Epic’s trial vs Google, but I think it’s pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point.
I will say their reckless gamble has been bad for the developer community. Prior to this, Apple might still have been amendable to making concessions here and there precisely to avoid a lawsuit, the outcome of which was still uncertain.
Now, the judge has ruled in favour of pretty much everything Apple does, and laid to rest just about every argument that critics have had of the App Store for well over a decade.
1) Apple doesn’t have a monopoly over iOS app distribution, because you can’t have a monopoly over a service only you can provide, which is what I have been saying right from the very start.
2) IAPs is considered part of the core iOS experience, and consumers benefit from a safe, secure and centralised purchasing experience. Apple is even entitled to get a cut of profits earned via alternate payment services, like Stripe, which was specifically called out as not being a viable substitute.
3) Switching costs from one platform to another is not considered to be an issue.
4) There is value in Apple’s App Store curation model, however flawed the current implementation.
5) Only problem is Apple’s anti-steering practices, which to me was inconsequential in the bigger picture.
Now, we still have Epic’s trial vs Google, but I think it’s pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point.
Ive said many times in our exchange that such number included both companies, Apple and Google, at planetary level. It seams that was not overstated after all.
Now, since this was ruled in California what is that number there?
What is kind of sad is that regulation is coming to the sector while Apple and Google evolve to higher ground in this context and some people will have no clue why and how was that even possible … while looking for ghosts.
Last edited:
(re-answering as my previous reply was deleted, must have stuffed the quoting up)
It wasn’t an argument. My whole post was rejecting Apple is a monopoly whilst acknowledging they can be anticompetitive.
I wasn’t stating they should be.
Oh go away, your argument is full of logical fallacies. Over and out.
Oh, I definitely agree that it wasn't a big move. It is merely significant in that it was a move downwards, and not a move upwards, thus signifying that it wasn't considered by the market to be an actual win for Apple, and most certainly not a big win for them. But yeah, it also wasn't considered a big loss for them either. Just saying that all the commenters on this thread who are celebrating the great win for Apple, aren't being joined by the market.
The more likely scenario is that it was an organic pullback from an all time high. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
So the stock is up today. From that should we assume that now that everyone has had time to read what the court actually wrote they think Apple won?