Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Epic Games Wins Major Victory as Apple is Ordered to Comply With App Store Anti-Steering Injunction [Updated]

stabsteer said:
What’s to stop every company from making their app free, just to then charge for it on their own store separate from apple’s store? Apple gets nothing for their work and setting up the ecosystem. Just curious.
Click to expand...
We pay fees every year to Apple and our apps being on Apple's platform is a bonus for apple.

SanderEvers said:
Apple is now just going to require a listing fee for any app on the App Store. Apps can then freely steer outside of the Apple ecosystem, and Apple still makes the money. But to consumers this is going to be the end of free apps as we know them now, and also the end of protection against scam payment processors.

It's a win for Epic Games which is owned for 40% by Tencent, a Chinese company. It's going to cost Apple billions.

And thus it's going to cost US, the consumer, even more. With increased pricing and lower to none privacy.
Click to expand...
Scam apps are not only illegal but against Apple's rules. Thousands get through on the app store every month. This will be a big help for developers and for customers. As a developer the app that we have is incompatible with in app purchases (because apple does not support metered licensing) and so for years we have been forced by Apple to steer our customers to our website, then back to the app and every time they want to manage their license we have to steer them back to the website since Apple wont even ALLOW us to offer them the ability to manage or cancel their license through the app.

Anyone who is against this ruling has no idea how insane apple is towards developers when it comes to the anti steering rules. Up until last year we couldn't even allow users to sign up within our app (since apple marked it as a "reader app") NOR were we allowed to provide a link to sign up on our website.

This is despite the fact that Apple DOES NOT SUPPORT our licensing type via in app purchases (meaning no matter what we cant even USE their IAP). In addition IAP's cap out at $999 when our licenses run in the $2k-5k a month, so under no circumstances could we use IAP (not to mention imagine a 30% cut out of 5k oof)
germanbeer007 said:
Sure. Being forced to enter your credit card details manually to an unknown third party if you want to continue using the app? Huge win!!!!!!
Click to expand...
You as a customer have a choice. Apple could have avoided 100% of this problem by charging a normal fee like 5% and not had the most insane anti-steering rules on the market.
germanbeer007 said:
I AS A CONSUMER do not want third party services to handle payments.
Click to expand...
Then don't use them. Simple as that.
Pitogyro said:
Developer relations are so fraught -entirely because of Apple’s stranglehold on them- that if WWDC were to return to a proper live presentation, Cook would be booed off stage.

Apple’s actions are despicable and this judgment is not about consumers: it’s about every developer, big or small, who’s forced to give up so much of their margin because of Apple’s anticompetitive rules.

No CEO is above the law and I hope someone gets thrown in jail for this.
Click to expand...
100% correct. If I posted the conversations back and forth with Apple on this issue the most hardened apple fanboy would see how insane Apple was on this issue. They are (were) unhinged with their enforcement and control on this.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: gusmula, FriendlyMackle, 01cowherd and 6 others
Coldsmoke55 said:
Based on the judge’s decision she is basically turning the App Store into the Google App Store where there are limited controls against spam and illicit data collection. It just seems like Epic games is crying over sour grapes because they are gaining from the app store’s broad access to potential customers for them but they want that (or feel they are entitled to that) at no cost to them. If there is no revenue potential for revenue from the App Store, then what is Apple’s motivation to host and manage it? If the judge’s ruling stands, then if I were Apple I’d end the App Store and let the developers absorb the marketing costs and try to make it on their own.
Click to expand...

The end of the stupid app store? THAT WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL!!!!

I would LOVE for the app store to die. Apple should NEVER have been allowed to control what software I install on MY iPhone.

It's the single most toxic part of Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula, 01cowherd and turbineseaplane
I have said for many years, why is it legal to restrict otherwise legal trade? If the developer wants to assume the responsibility to operate a legal external App Store or payments processing engine, who is Apple to restrict that activity? Who is Apple to charge an arbitrary 27% tax on those external transactions ?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: gusmula and HighwaySnowman
smulji said:
Gruber's take on this subject is spot on. Well worth the entire read

"Are the results of this disastrous for Apple’s App Store business? I don’t think so at all. Gonzales Rogers is demanding that Apple ... do what Phil Schiller recommended they do all along, which is to compete fair and square with purchases available on the web. She’s not demanding they do what, say, Tim Sweeney wanted them to do. She’s basically saying Phil Schiller was right. Read her entire ruling and it’s hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with that."

"But are the results of this disastrous for Apple’s reputation and credibility? It sure seems like it. But it would be worse — much worse — for Apple’s reputation if Phil Schiller weren’t still there. Without him, this ruling makes it sound like they’d be lost, both ethically and legally."

Scathing. Makes me think it's time for new leadership, starting with the CEO.

daringfireball.net

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Rules, in Excoriating Decision, That Apple Violated Her 2021 Court Order Regarding App Store Anti-Steering Provisions

Are the results of this disastrous for Apple’s App Store business? I don’t think so at all. Gonzales Rogers is demanding that Apple ... do what Phil Schiller recommended they do all along. But are the results of this disastrous for Apple’s reputation and credibility? It sure seems like it.
daringfireball.net daringfireball.net


https://twitter.com/x/status/1917774271473963260
Click to expand...
I’m curious about Schiller. Was he really against this in principle or just that he didn’t think it would fly with the judge? Anyway the buck stops with Tim Cook. This doesn’t happen if doesn’t approve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HighwaySnowman and smulji
Falco McGregor said:
Yep. No money is actually going back into consumers' hands with this ruling. It just changes which corporation's coffers the cash is dropped into.
Click to expand...
I think there are even broader ramifications in that. For example, Apple may now have to start charging a fee to be on the App Store to make up for the lost revenue from purchases. So company like Epic may end up having to pay upfront just to be on there or download Rather than a commission.
In addition, this ruling is likely to result in other App Store is not being allowed to charge a commission on sales outside of their store and have to allow developers to link to other payment options, potentially reducing their revenue as well and making them uncompetitive with Apple or other big players who can afford to run App Store at a loss if they still choose to do so.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts are app stores and companies like Epic that we’re running their own or planning to.
Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: FriendlyMackle, HighwaySnowman and JapanApple
Big_D said:
The thing is, you aren't able to chose, under Apple's current rules.

Alex Lyndsay on MacBreak Weekly always argues users don't want the external stores (EU) or payment methods and Apple shouldn't give in. I say, if he is right, what does Apple have to fear? A majority will prefer the perceived safety of using the App Store to process the payments and those that want a bargain will go outside and use an alternative payment method.

My argument was always with things like Audible or Kindle, I have an existing payment relationship with Amazon, so why do I need to pay Apple 27% for a new book from Amazon that doesn't even touch their infrastructure? (Amazon doesn't let you purchase in the app for this reason.) But for Mickey-Mouse Apps Inc. in-app purchases, I'll stick to Apple, whom I trust with the payment, or just for the speed and convenience of not having to stop, dig out my credit card, enter all my details and set up yet another payment method with an app I'm not even sure I want to keep subscribing to or not sure I can trust.

For example, we use Waipu.tv to get the cable and satellite TV channels streamed to our Apple TV. I just wanted to test it for a month and didn't want to set up a regular payment with them, so I used the App Store in-app payment. The amount of spam they push at me, I'm not inclined to move the payment over to their website (even if I get Netflix 4.99€ subscription included for 6 months in the price).
Click to expand...
Oh I can choose. I avoid both of them. Problem solved.

So can everybody else. They just choose not to. So the companies have no reason to make any changes in favor of the customers, unless forced by a law or fine.
 
jonblatho said:
Certiorari was denied. It’s not going to the Supreme Court. Barring the potential criminal contempt proceedings against Apple mentioned in the article, it is over.
Click to expand...

Hajj.david said:
As a developer we already pay $99 a year. Apple could have literally just NOT charged 30%. At 5% or even 10% developers would have groaned but ultimately the convenience and it all being built in is a huge advantage. Plus for a lot of developers it would be cheaper than building out a solution.

SCOTUS permanently said "we will not look at this case" meaning effectively this fight is over.
Click to expand...
Well, there is potential criminal contempt proceeding so this opens to SCOTUS for appeal, and likely put they maybe forced to take it now.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
turbineseaplane said:
Make it like Mac Apps

Lean in on vetting and notarization of Apps, still run your own App Store (like macOS), but allow and enable folks to get Apps right from Devs if they'd like to.

Again, the entire template already exists and works great, right on Apple's very own macOS.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with it existing like it does on the Mac. If an app is available inside and outside the stupid app store, I will get it from outside every time, but that's because the app store is so annoying - I'd rather handle updates myself, and sometimes I REALLY, REALLY want to roll back a version. But if somebody wants to get an app from that mess, they can.

But at this point I think Apple should have to pay a penalty for their behavior on iDevices. I'd like to either see them forced to give customers back 30% of any in-app purchases they made, or the app store shut down for a few years to give developers a headstart on out of app store distribution without Apple's undue influence and to get customers comfortable with normal software installation again. And Apple needs to be penalized for their scare tactics, you can see it's worked on some people here, they actually believe they're safer only having the stupid app store option because of Apple's propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple$ and turbineseaplane
I don't think they should keep appealing something that's better for consumers, but hey, Apple's legal team knows about law much better than me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back