Attorney fee is always high. 27 million is 27% of the settlement amount! Too high!!
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.
Judge Approves Apple's $100M Settlement in Developer Lawsuit, But Questions $27M Attorney Fee
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple doesn't charge developers 30% unless they hit the $1M sales mark. Also, the judge is asking how they got there cause the work done doesn't justify 27% commission.
These lawyers got a $100M settlement, so both the lawyers and Apple are charging similar commissions for $1M+.
I find it amusing that the lawyers are charging a 27% commission for the lawsuit against Apple's 30% commission 🤣
Europe was aghast at GMO foods... oh, until it had its own big businesses operating in that space.
So a lawyer working on contingency and potentially getting $0 if he loses is less work than Apple putting someone else's developed app in the cloud and charging the developer 30% for every download of it?
Lawyers work that way as you stated. That's one of the several standard practices. Another is to charge a fee based on work done and not based on settlement. Your point?
As per Apple's commission, so you think hosting and usage of transaction servers should be free? Geez, why not go after all the other stores then? Also, again with the 30%, it was dropped to 15% for all developers under $1M in sales.
Fair enough, and that works for litigants who can afford to sue Apple individually. But most can't, and they may have legitimate grievances (although many do not) that are well-suited to collective litigation.
In one common scenario, a so-called "negative value" class action, a company could hypothetically overcharge 100k users by, say, $10 each. No individual within that group has incentive to sue for $10. In most countries, that situation is addressed through extensive regulation, so the offending company in that example would face regulatory penalties for its wrongful action. In the U.S., however, politicians over many years have weakened regulations on companies on the premise that those who are wronged will seek redress through the legal system (or not at all). In that situation, the plaintiff class have to act as a class (because none would have any redress otherwise) and have to have legal counsel not paid by any of them (because none has the ability to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees for a $10 recovery). Thus, the current system.
As to the fees charged by law firms, courts can always scrutinize the legal bills when they approve a class action settlement. Defendants (who typically pay these fees in addition to theirs in the case of a settled action) can attack plaintiffs' fee demand -- and often do. They are in an extremely good position to know how much work was done by the other side, because they know how much briefing and discovery there was, and they know how much *they* spent. Courts have also come up with ranges that are likely to be reasonable based on when in the litigation the case settles, how much was alleged, the ultimate settlement value, and other metrics.
There are plenty of weaknesses with this approach, but it fills a regulatory vacuum.
Free? No. But 30%? Even 15%? And not allow the developers to seek their own cheaper alternatives? And then to call the lawyers greedy? Smh...
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Apple did all the work upfront and allowed developers to use the platform to generate additional revenue. To repay Apple the developer must always be adding value to the Apple ecosystem. Things like not updating the apps, adding unwanted content, or not sharing revenue are all justifiable reasons to remove them. Because Apple allows the developer the option to provide the app for free, Developers who sell their app need to cover the cost of other developers.
Apple is as much a beneficiary of the app ecosystem as the developers are. It's one of the main attractions of the platform, the same as for desktop operating systems. Why did it suddenly become reasonable for Apple to collect 30% on apps for mobile phones when they don't collect anything on desktop or mobile laptop apps that are distributed by developers?
Apple won't need to. You'll be so busy cleaning the pile of 💩 💩💩💩 out of your pants after reading their cease and desist letter you'll be quiet.
By remaining in the settlement class, developers sold their mouth to Apple.
Yes, its' mutually beneficial. More apps sold helps Apple. More places Apple sells their devices, more apps get the chance to be sold. Win Win.
Not always. macOS is not as popular as iOS or iPadOS. And neither are as much as Android.
There are way more iPhones and iPads out there than desktop Mac computers. And there are way more Android devices out there then both all of Apples products combined.
It wasn't sudden. It was from the start of the AppStore. The 30% commission was the rule since it started. No one complained. I mean, how many WWDC's have there been since? Lots of developers showed up to those events and happily bought what Apple was selling.
Because they are not the same thing.
Desktop computers existed as they have since inception. They way they were designed too.
Mobile was VERY VERY different. You did not have full desktop OS's to cram into a mobile device. You didn't have the compute power to drive a mobile device like a desktop. Battery life, Screen size, file space (storage), and or use of functionality that a normal desktop has. People needed it to be more simple so you get broader adaptation. And it needs to be secure, even more so because it's a phone at the end of the day. You need a phone more than you need a computer that fits in your pocket. They and all others sold Phones. Some sold phones that "can" do some computing. Some sold phones that did both fairly well, few did it very well.
As for the 30% and the store goes. How do you go about providing security to the end user AND enable developers to sell their stuff? How do you keep copy-cats, fakes, viruses, hacks, and piracy (among other things) out of your device/OS AND allow developers a way to make money? How do you fund this endeavor when you don't have an eco-system established? At least not well enough to support it. Are you going to assume your going to be successful and pay for the infrastructure all upfront and wait for you to make the money back? Or are you going to build it as you go? Start with a price point you need to make this worth wild (30%), and not make the entry to get in unreasonable ($99 yearly fee) so as many developers can try as possible. Verses just the big developers.
Will people believe the product WILL live up to expectations? Many did not at the time. Even Microsoft thought it would fail. Do you let someone else manage the app store, or roll your own? Do you let it just be like a desktop, and side load everything? Is that "easy" for most people? Is it worth the risk as stated above?
The model we have, developers don't have to worry about piracy. Apps have to be paid for, the 30% cut of sales is cheaper than the physical store, AND they get marketing. World wide distribution platform from Apple. That is equally invested in the developers success. The more the developer makes, the more Apple makes. If Apple fails, they all fail. If Apple succeeds, developers apps get more eyes on it.
Not to mention there are free apps on the store. Apple doesn't charge them anything.
I'm a developer of a popular but niche navigation app on the App Store. The App Store Small Business Program has been a big help for me, and I hope it continues for a long time. I don't make much compared to other apps and devs who make massive profits, so the 15% cut makes a big-time difference for me compared to having to take a 30% cut. It's truly been amazing and has helped me continue to grow and develop my app for the last year.
