Yep. Consumer choice is a solid emotional argument that plenty of people on here side with when they really don’t understand the mechanics of this lawsuit.
You mean 27% more revenue for Epic…
You can bet Epic will do this. And they will be very vocal about it. Some might call it gloating.
Unless they're trying to gain market share against competitors or create customer goodwill as a marketing tool, there's little reason for any developers that are going outside the App Store for payments to reduce prices. Most companies are just going to use the savings to boost margins.
Outside of maybe a one-time "return to iOS" discount, Epic isn't going to charge less than what they're currently charging for VBucks on every other platform.
Note that the incident that spurred all of this saw Epic offering their in-app purchases at about a 20% discount to users if paid directly.
Are you Shadow or doom-and-gloom? You're saying it's Apple's job to parent kids spending? Puh-leez...and EVERYONE will experience this? 😂 How about parents take responsibility for their kids and not leave it up to Apple?
Aw soon as Target has to Carry Wallmart prices and brands - this will make sense. And X-Box can't control its own store. And Ford must not build cars that depend on Ford parts. And ABC must show previews of what's playing on HBO. This is just silliness. It's a decision based on almost 18th century ideas of commerce.
Which itself was a public relations tactic to draw attention to Epic's ultimate end game/legal strategy. Also, if I'm not mistaken, App Store-bought VBucks were more expensive than VBucks bought through Epic's site to account for the Apple commission. All Epic did was bring the price in line with what they were charging everywhere else.
wait is this a troll or are you serious?
I can't speak to that, but I can speak to the discount on iOS because of screenshots of the "How do you want to pay?" screen. To your original point, when compared to Apple's IAP-only solution, money will be going back into customers' hands. Well, rather, it'll never leave their hands.
I struggle to understand how this is the self-own you seem to be making it out as. It's precisely no different from the present, and especially for a developer at Epic's scale, they...don't really need an App Store feature.
Maybe we should get rid of justice system? Did you say the same thing when Microsoft lost the antitrust case?
This has nothing to do with App Store vs non-app store, but the prevention of in-app purchases outside of Apple’s ecosystem system. An example, right now you cannot subscribe to Netflix within the app, because if Netflix were to offer that ability they would be charged a 30% App Store fee. Furthermore, up until recently, they couldn’t even provide a link to the Netflix website to subscribe. Users literally had to figure things out on their own. All this ruling does is force Apple to allow a link to, for example, Netflix’s website where people can subscribe directly to Netflix. You still have to go through the App Store (in the US at least) to download the Netflix app.
Ha, Epic totally did this for magnanimous reasons and would never rip their customers off! Of course they won’t pocket the difference.
As it should be. Apple is operating under this assumption that it doesn't need developers as much as they need Apple. Those chickens came home to roost in the form of the AVP store which is a ghost town. It's depressing as someone who wants that platform to succeed but I can hardly blame devs for their response to Apple's latent hostility lo these many years
