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
Happy customer is what matters most. Choice could be good. Maybe certain types of apps will benefit - for example, crypto payments…. That’s really the main good use for offsite payments. But again - I likely would need a big enticement to pay outside of the Apple AppStore easy way of doing things.
Why not? My firm (and thousands of other businesses)has an app we conduct business through all the time. We haven’t paid a dime to apple. We never will. But then again I wouldn’t do a business In such a way that apple would have a chance at leeching revenues.
If this ruling stands then the real loser here will be the small developers that won't be able to afford the definite increase in fees that Apple will pass along to make up for any loss in income. Say good bye to only having to pay $99 a year to develop/release a free app. Say hello to nickel and diming. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it as well as the consequences of it.
correct - major loss for Epic. you could already buy vbucks other places. Epic does not want people to even have the option to buy from Apple. They will not get that. They will have to settle with Apple, apologize, and cut their losses.
But… but… but… all the forum antitrust experts told me it was an open and shut case and apple would lose as they are undoubtedly a complete monopoly…
Phew. This was the best outcome Apple could have hoped for. The ruling on the alternate payment method was expected and seems reasonable. Being forced to allow 3rd party app stores would have been disastrous for Apple.
I doubt it. Worst case Apple gives 2 options (from a billing perspective). If developers do not want to change the status quo I doubt Apple would make them.
If by "greedy" you mean still coming in at a lower cost with a higher value prop than the alternatives, then yes, quite greedy.
Given Apple's statement (added to article) I'm guessing they're not going to appeal ...
Welp, there go my stock options 
On a more serious note, we'll see how this will play out.
On a more serious note, we'll see how this will play out.
crypto payments are the big winner on this whole thing. Everything else seems to amount to another opportunity to scam the consumer on a “subscription model” that often relies on human beings who forget that they just subscribed to some dumb app for $12 a month and all it does is one cool trick that you need it once in a blue moon. (My personal opinion)
That would be a BIG legal blunder.
Apple: If you don’t use our payment method we won’t allow you in unless you pay a fee..
Speaking of comprehension abilities...
"Apple won on 9 out of 10 counts " - the 9 out of 10 items were ridiculous side dishes from the show pony of a counter claim. the heart of the case, the only relevant and important issue, is the one issue that epic won on: forcing apple to allow 3rd party payment. and epic didn't just win for themselves, they literally just bludgeoned apple into allowing this for ALL developers all over the world.
saying this is a 1 out of 10 win is now YOU trying to mislead people. that 1 win was the ONLY thing that truly mattered. and they got it in a big way.
"and was ruled to not be a monopoly in this sub-category. " this very statement of yours, which is WHOLLY AND PROVABLY incorrect, is the heart of the problem with your response.
Evan Selleck of iDownloadblog.com has a great explanation of what ACTUALLY took place in that part of the ruling where he says: "Judge Gonzalez-Rogers says in the full ruling that the court cannot determine whether or not Apple is a monopoly in its own right, not under state or federal antitrust laws. However, the judge ruled that based on California’s competition laws, the company is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Which led to this decision today."
your claim is that she determined they are not a monopoly. that is NOT what happened. she ruled that, at this time, she's NOT GOING to rule whether they are or not. but she did LEAN HEAVY in that direction by absolutely relying that they are clearly engaging in anti-competitive behavior (which is the heart of a monopoly's strategy). So in essence she's saying "i'm not going to call you a monopoly YET, but you CLEARLY have all the makings of one..."
"Apple is forced to do something in 90 days that they were already going to do for other "reader" categories. Apple will still likely appeal to push this off past 90 days." you're comparing apples and oranges (for lack of a better pun). and you're misleading anyone who reads your post. apple cherry picking certain people to receive more benefits than other companies is EXACTLY the problem. as apple stares us in the face and says "the store rules are evenly applied for everyone", they then turn around and apply them differently for different business models. Your point actually disproves your own argument.
OK, anyone that fails to see that this was really a loss for Tencent that wanted a means to bypass the App Store and access Apple devices is being at least slightly disingenuous.
exactly. Heck they could have been like Spotify does and pay for a premium membership via web as opposed to the app but oh nope they waged a costly war
I mean even if this apply’s and apple is forced to do so… apple won’t bring back epic to the App Store so in which other companies get a slice of the action but poor Epic won’t😂😂😂😂
Pay less to Apple, maybe, but then pay more in administrative and legal fees to third parties ensuring you are collecting and paying the proper sales taxes, etc.
Almost $70bn wiped from Apple’s market value, so the market certainly thinks they’ll be losing future earnings.
Part of the challenge is the 80-20 rule. A smaller portion of people spend most of the money, and the savings if there’s a 30% price differential will mean most would be willing to deal with the extra friction. Apple may be compelled to lower their cut.
Ah, that sweet smell of victory. Looks like Apple will have to settle for the industry standard 3% or less payment processing fee now that they’ll have to actually *gasp* compete. Poor Timmy, he’ll have to downsize to a 600ft mega yacht.
Seems like a major win for Apple. They won all points, gets $12M plus interest but has to allow linking to other payment options. And they were not ruled a monopoly.
It seems that the only thing that this grants devs is the opportunity to provide a link. There are many apps that already require validation from an outside source and do not include in-apps (Apple payment system) as an option. I suspect for most devs this is a non-issue until they start making serious revenue. But then again, many devs would probably just prefer letting Apple deal with the refunds, payment complaints, NSFs etc.
Finally, a bit of free market capitalism. This is a breath of the fresh air of small time app developers being able to reach solvency 25% more quickly, which means more choice, more innovation, and more people benefiting rather than just Apple shareholders.
I didn’t really see the allure of fortnight so much. But I would play it maybe. And if there was an external link to pay directly to fortnight they would have to give me like a 400% bonus for me to use their website to pay. Who wants the headaches? I would just click the Apple thing as per usual.
Apple will do just fine.