Yes, absolutely. In the packaging a company should have the freedom to let people know they sell that product elsewhere. For example, something like “free shipping on ourwebsite.com”
Something **similar** to this
Last edited:
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 Grills Tim Cook on App Store Policies as End of of Epic Games v. Apple Trial Approaches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Something **similar** to this
I’m pretty sure that’s why they call them a judge. They are there to make a final decision for one side or the other. Sometimes a good compromise for both parties. Only my opinion.
Just open the App store right now and you can see Photoshop has in-app purchases.
Try checking the validity of statements before making them.
That’s the problem. Epic is forced to host the app files in the AppStore (only the files, the real servers where the heavy lifting happens during a game are managed and payed by epic). Epic has no other choice. Hosting these day is super cheap. Given the option, epic would absolutely do it for a fraction of that 30% cut.
That‘s nonsense. A brand new iPhone will get free software updates and that free storage for 5+ years, along with free Apps from Apple. This all costs a lot of money to keep up. I would not be surprised if the App Store fees subsidize that cost.
That was not about sideloading apps, but in app purchases. Right now you can buy outside the app and then use the purchase on iOS, Amazon does it with Kindle, also Spotify, also Netflix. Apple just disallows advertising that you can leave the App to make the purchase elsewhere.
If they really want a third party app store Epic should also create an app store inside Fortnite, so that developers can create and sell skins and other stuff. 70/30 split would be okay for me.
For all the good intentions and very valid findings that may be behind this discussion I would always be wary about the implications of big changes: any system that’s working quite well, let’s say hypothetically at 85% capacity or efficiency, any fool can make it worse. Enhancing it to 90% though, now that takes quite the craft.
I can read Judge’s words as suggesting to level the playing field and making Wells Fargo and Co also be charged 30% (or the new rate) of things somehow... amongst all the possible consequences of that, one of them could be banking apps not accepting it and just quitting having native apps. Granted, several of them in banking are a web-like front end wrapper, but still not a great potential outcome for us users.
Besides, subsidizing happens everywhere and involved parties can decide to play the game or not. For example, celebrities going to a restaurant might get the food for free or when someone is getting free drinks at a joint because of status/physical qualities, yet the lay people are perfectly ok with that and even cheer it.
And the judge herself being government related must totally acquainted by how taxes work, that one is not optional.
No it’s not . A judge weighs evidence . Does NOT cross examine. Thats for the advocate and defence to provide.
I think the judge asked the questions that Epic lawyers should have asked (because this is such an obvious flaw in Apple’s argument).
I don’t know the rules of the U.S. court rooms but as a judge, if I have points that need to be answered and clearly would affect the outcome of a decision, I would make sure they are raised.
And her point is very valid: by the same rules that Apple applies to game developers, if my bank would have to pass 30% off every transaction to Apple (even if we just limit that to business between me and the bank, i.e interest for loans), then damn Apple would make even finer business. But they don’t.
Now, the argument would be most likely that the bank business exists whether Apple is there or not, but:
- The business is made significantly easier and probably more safer being handled through Apple’s eco system. So, with everything Apple said so far, they should have a share in that as well.
- If Epic would create all their games to also be played through a web browser, they would not build their business solely on iOS either. And this should give the right to create transactions that do not go through the Apple system.
- And to those pointing at “where would you be without …”, they existed before iOS was a thing. And where would iOS be without the time, creativity and support by those who created for it? Apple took the right decision to allow native development, thus paving the way for awesome content that they would not be able to create alone. Microsoft being late to the stage clearly failed because too few would throw themselves at their eco system.
But the reason companies and citizens pay the amount of taxes in the EU is so that (almost) free medical and other care, education, infrastructure etc can be maintained.
And that costs money, just like Apple’s API, OS and hardware development and maintenance, and if Apple cares so much about the health of people then they should pay their fair share in the same way they demand 15% or 30% from developers who distribute through their ecosystem, and they should apply the rules evenly (including banks).
And just like Apple, if somebody spots a loophole in the rules, then they would be damn stupid not to shoot with the same ammunition that Apple uses against the EU.
IMHO, a judge has to discharge his/her duties impartially, without prejudice, according to local laws. I don't think a trial with juries allows the juries to ask questions? They are supposed to weigh the arguments put forth by both sides and decide. I have to admit I do not have much experience in court proceedings, but to me, if a judge starts asking questions, it would largely means a preconceived opinion has been made.
For profit organisations exists to make profits. It's stupid for corporations to leave money on the table. As long as they do not break laws in the locale they operate in, authorities should be get involved. Getting the authorities involved to gain an advantage in business is underhanded and a waste of tax payer funds, funds which could be used more productively elsewhere.
Authorities should just let the private organisations settle their own issues privately.
no a Judge is there to judge on base of the laws and not based on wat side thay are on
I’ve been saying it from the start, and seems that the judge agrees. Apple does indeed have a monopoly when it comes to in app purchases, as well as being the sole operator of an iPhone App Store. Also, Apple doesn’t treat all app developers the same, there is the new 15% fee that doesn’t apply to all developers; some still pay 30%, and developers of apps that transact physical goods pay no IAP fee. Apple also restricts developers from including a link in their app to an alternative payment option (even though Apple doesn’t force developers to use IAP).
So the question now is, are Apple restrictions, including those on competition, illegal ?? Can go either way.
So the question now is, are Apple restrictions, including those on competition, illegal ?? Can go either way.
The Judge must have an Android phone or jealous that 30% of the her childrens' in app game purchases are going to Apple and not Giggle. As this Judge is so passionate about multiple game platforms on an iPhone and low application store fees why doesn't she lead by example? She could build a smart phone, invite an open software ecosystem with multiple app stores including her own with her store undercutting the competition. If I wanted an open platform then I would be typing this on a HP laptop, my primary phone: my Nokia 8.3, I would own a Giggle Watch and I would have spent more in the Giggle Play Store than the App Store. Judge you are interfering with freedom of choice for users. I like the App Store as it stands: safe. There are many choices for game consumers: Sony PlayStation Store, Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo, Google Play Store, App Store, EB Games, Target, K-Mart... They all take a percentage. Apple's a little different, they are not a monopoly as there are many entities selling games. They offer a popular conduit between game developers and players. Judge you need to demonstrate that your business model would be effective and desirable to private enterprises by working for minimum wage and tips.
Nope. App opens to a log in screen with no ability to purchase. The in app purchase listed in the App Store is old and no longer offered.
I do not understand why everyone continues to use gaming consoles as another example
The big difference is if you want a game you can 1)buy it in the console store digitally 2) go to a site like amazon, gamestop etc and buy it digitally from them 3) you can order a physical copy of said game through pretty much any website like amazon, walmart, target, bestbuy, gamestop or even a used copy on ebay. 4) You can legit go to a brick and mortar shop and buy it from 100's of places.
You arent forced to buy games only on the console's game store.
And as for Microsoft and Sony keeping a higher amount for themselves, i'm fine with it and heres why and NOBODY has brought this up.
Game trading and reselling...
You cant trade an iOS game in for money and buy a new game. As much as I love gamestop you have to realize the amount of revenue Microsoft and sony AND the developers of games loose when someone trades a game or buys a used game. That's completely different then what Apple has. Everyone has to pay Apple for every game they purchase where as MS and PS and Developers only get paid for the first purchase and nothing comes to them when gamestop resells it and takes pure profit so they subsidize it with a certain cut of the profit on the digital store.
As far as I'm concerned I think Apple should get a 30% cut but only on the initial purchase of an app or game, after that they shouldn't have anything. Apple says it has to maintain the store... That's true, but it is because of the developers app that they are getting anything in the first place.
If there is a game you want to play and it's not on your console? Buy the other console because no one is stopping you.