Epic Games vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods

[PlayUltimate]

Some people on here really need to read the whole decision: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf

185pps!?!?! what's the TLDR?

 

[SMH4KIDIOT]

no this is a major loss for Epic. Yes epics primarily concerned and the first episode of the war happened in relation to in app payments in which they only won that count

but you fail to realize they wanted much more than that. they planned much more than that. They were eager to win the other counts, again yes this is a very important victory but how can Epic gain from this if they are not in the App Store ( and will most likely not)

Apple literally just lost a major case that allows alternate payment methods the reason this case was brought up in the first place. That is a win for Epic. Either way you look at it the outcome is in favor of what Epic wanted. As to if they will be allowed back into the store, I don't see why not, either willingly or forcefully by the courts.

 

[dk001]

Bingo.

Even if they offer a discount, how many people will go that long ass route to say $1 or $2? The App Store is generally really cheap as-is

I wonder what Amazon’s “Buy now with 1-click” vs Cart process percentage of each is?

 

[BuddyTronic]

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.

Totally. One of the reasons I blow a lot of money on apps is because it’s just easy to do and I have no fear of getting scammed with Apple. I see something cool and then I say yeah I’ll buy that why not and then I sometimes hardly even ever use the app more than once or twice.

Put me on an external website and I’m getting Suspicious immediately

 

[PlayUltimate]

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.

In how many places do I want my CC# stored?

 

[B-Mc-C]

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.

You must have missed the part where Apple is allowed to permanently ban Epic from the App Store, and now even terminate their subsidiary developer account used to develop Unreal Engine. Epic is basically out of business now. Page 180 of the ruling. I’ve attached it here for your convenience. Sorry for ruining your day.

 

[B-Mc-C]

Apple literally just lost a major case that allows alternate payment methods the reason this case was brought up in the first place. That is a win for Epic. Either way you look at it the outcome is in favor of what Epic wanted. As to if they will be allowed back into the store, I don't see why not, either willingly or forcefully by the courts.

Epic did not think the judge would also uphold Apple’s termination of their developer account. How is that a win for Epic? They are practically out of business now. LOL.

 

[WiseAJ]

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..

Its called a choice.

Option 1: Use our payment method exclusively and pay only $99 a year plus applicable commission (70/30 or 85/15 depending on eligibility)

or

Option 2: Use your own payment method but pay more in developer fees for the privilege

You are not forced to do anything because of

Option 3: Don't develop for Apple/iOS

It's not a requirement or right to have an iOS/Apple app.

 

[Metrosey]

I’ll certainly go to a another website to make a payment (if reputable) rather than paying Apple even if it is only saving £1 each time

 

[_Spinn_]

This will be appealed. While I don't like it, letting apps like Netflix link people out to a website to make payments is better than forcing Apple to allow side-loading apps or third party stores (especially if the website takes ApplePay).

 

[Metrosey]

Epic did not think the judge would also uphold Apple’s termination of their developer account. How is that a win for Epic? They are practically out of business now. LOL.

Out of business? You must be joking

 

[Jimmdean]

Apple literally just lost a major case that allows alternate payment methods the reason this case was brought up in the first place. That is a win for Epic. Either way you look at it the outcome is in favor of what Epic wanted. As to if they will be allowed back into the store, I don't see why not, either willingly or forcefully by the courts.

you missed some of the details then - the judge ruled Apple was within their rights to terminate the relationship. They can even terminate their other accounts now if they wish.

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Apple is likely to appeal the decision

And I can tell you right now this is going all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[coolfactor]

I see two key outcomes:

1. Developers that embed a link will be charged a separate fee to help cover the cost of running the store, which includes data centre costs and customer support.
2. Customers will be scammed more than they are today.

 

[WiseAJ]

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.

Knee jerk reaction to news, this is just a good buying opportunity. Stock will be back up soon. Apple is still not doomed.

 

[Shadow Demon]

You must have missed the part where Apple is allowed to permanently ban Epic from the App Store, and now even terminate their subsidiary developer account used to develop Unreal Engine. Epic is basically out of business now. Page 180 of the ruling. I’ve attached it here for your convenience. Sorry for ruining your day.

Apple may have to provide third-party app payments for others but EPIC is done on the App Store.

 

[dk001]

4. Obfuscate and hide the fact that you just made the customer check a box putting their Visa card in a state of a 1 year subscription promise.

Ever tried to get a refund from a gym? Same scam. It’s profitable too. The Apple way made it better for end users - cancel fairly easily - but if that’s gone it going to be “buyer beware” attitudes coming back

Just recently I subscribed monthly for “QuarkXpress”. I did forget to cancel. But at least I caught it after a while and quickly cancelled through the App Store easily. I won’t be so cavalier about subscribing to stuff outside Apple.

I could see your point if I actually ran into this issue.
On the Android side I use four stores and don’t have these issues.
I subscribe to a few things and don’t have this issue.
The App Store makes it easy but the other side is easy too.

 

[bradman83]

When Epic got into a similar spat with Google they decided to pull Fortnight out of the Play Store and offer it as a side loaded app with their own payment interface. Usage absolutely tanked, because consumers were used to getting their software from the same trusted sources. Epic eventually gave up and put Fortnight back into the Play Store, subject to Google’s own 30% surcharges.

The lesson of this is that just because an developer can do something doesn’t mean it will work out for them in the long run. Developers are smart, they look closely at in-app purchase revenue, and price their offerings based on what they think people will actually buy to maximize their revenue. If they go through a third party payment processor that requires setting up an account then they might quickly find that sales drop dramatically, likely more than Apple’s 30% cut. Many will likely choose to either keep IAPs as an option to ensure they’re capturing as many customers as possible, and consumers who wish to continue using IAPs for convenience will still be able to use them.

 

[BuddyTronic]

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 agree with your statement.

nothing wrong with freedom of choice.

Now maybe we can pay with bitcoin

Maybe the developers will have to cut the price to draw me in to paying on their external website - I don’t see why I would want to choose an external payment method.

 

[iBluetooth]

Huge L for Apple. If this stands after appeal, you can take tens of billions of future revenue off the table.

I see this as a disaster for Epic and a loss for them, paying back to Apple 30% of their earnings. Apple will have to allow 3rd party payment systems, but will reduce their take/share to 1-2% and thus, users will prefer Apple payments instead of some other random payments providers, they have to sign up for.

 

[Jimmdean]

Why should Apple appeal this? It is something they have already agreed to do in another case. How would they explain how it is ok in one case, but not another? There is not much of an argument there.

If anyone is going to appeal it would be Epic.

 

[Rogifan]

Just curious, as I don't buy anything from the app store. Is it a pretty seamless transaction ( quick and easy )when you purchase one of these games or whatever when using apples way for paying for these things?

Seems like by having developers adding a link to an external payment method, it would be more of a pain in the ass and that the majority of apple users would just stick with the apple in app payment system, no?

Except IAP doesn’t apply to non-digital goods. I don’t see people complaining when they get an Uber or buy food from Panera.

 

[jon9091]

You're not getting it. Epic got EXACTLY what it wanted. It will now be able to completely bypass Apple's pay mechanism for everything. They have to pay the 30% while they were required to, now, they don't have to pay anything. They just link to their store.

Barring appeals, this going to cripple Apple's revenue from their app store.

Download a game for free. Here's a link to purchase the unlock code. 100% profits for developer. 0% profit for Apple.

And what makes you think Apple is gonna let them park their apps in the App Store for FREE?

 

[Realityck]

I'm on the fence on this one.

One the one hand, I think Apple shouldn't be forced to let developers include links to outside payment/account setup options. Seems like Netflix has been just fine bypassing the App Store entirely. Developers have options, even if they might require customers to go through some hoops to use them.

On the other hand, I think it's probably a good/smart business decision for Apple to allow linking. If Apps/developers are already able to offer Apps for free (again, like Netflix) where users can sign up and pay completely outside the Apple ecosystem, I don't think a link built into the app changes a whole lot.

IMO.

If the developer is allowed to use the store as a vetted source for getting the app, the purchase through the store or via a external web site shouldn't be a point of argument. Whats happening here is the thought that people would be able to get the software outside of the store. I don't think that is happening, just the store doesn't need to be overly complex with every micro transition occurring via the store. A developer just needs to make sure it works that way, so that the user has a good/smart source of his software.

 

[GizmoDVD]

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.

Bro - Epic wanted the ENTIRE Epic store on iOS and to get 100% of sales.

They lost really hard here and Apple doesn't even have to let them back on.