Judge Grills Tim Cook on App Store Policies as End of of Epic Games v. Apple Trial Approaches

[warp9]

This isn’t a stupid analogy. Apple chose to absorb the costs of software updates and versioning in order to create a closed market! You’re not making any sense. A developer cannot distribute binaries to the general public outside of the App Store, so they are always bound to Apple’s profiteering. You’d have an argument if developers could release comparable software and manage their own updates, but Apple blocks that in the name of security.

I never stated they can distribute binaries. I said that in-app-purchases and subscriptions can be purchased outside the app store. That applies to every developer who is willing to put in the work that normally would be done by apple. They would need a website, a server to host accounts, possible physical distribution to retail outlets for gift cards, etc.

As for analogies-- they are always stupid. they are a weak substitute used by those who don't have the ability to effectively say what they mean. They either haven't thought it through or don't truly understand it, otherwise they would just make their point in a way that people would naturally understand.

 

[abhibeckert]

Also EPIC is not, AFAIK, competing with Apple, wouldn’t you agree? EPIC is competing with all other games developers in the iOS App Store, with the same rules, wouldn’t you agree?

Epic has been selling game development tools (Unreal) since the early 90’s and they charge game developers 5% of sales to use Unreal. More recently they also run a games PC store.

They absolutely are in direct competition with Apple.

 

[m2m2k]

This judge sounds incredibly biased.

I thinks she asks tougher questions. I like the comparison with Wells Fargo.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

WF app is updated more than many gaming apps, and it’s also about 1/2 the size of many popular games. Nowhere near 1/20th.

Gaming apps don’t need updates anymore than a banking app. Apple just arbitrarily chooses to tax gaming apps instead of streaming or lifestyle apps.

Apple’s response admits as much. They have gaming apps subsidize “free” apps because the free apps draw users to their App Store.

Question: Are you a developer? Do you have a paid app in the App Store?

 

[quarkysg]

Epic has been selling game development tools (Unreal) since the early 90’s and they charge game developers 5% of sales to use Unreal. More recently they also run a games PC store.

They absolutely are in direct competition with Apple.

How is EPIC doing all those thing competing directly with Apple? I’m sorry but I don’t see the connection here, as far as the iOS platform is concerned. As far as I know, Apple doesn’t have any offerings in those spaces.

Apple is in business providing their products and services to customers. They compete against other smartphone, tablet, computers, headphones manufacturers. I’m sure I’ve missed out some categories. Apple then provide value added services on top of their product hoping to attract potential customers. Those services have potential to be monetized and that’s what Apple did. I still don’t see how Apple directly competed with EPIC.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Epic has been selling game development tools (Unreal) since the early 90’s and they charge game developers 5% of sales to use Unreal. More recently they also run a games PC store.

They absolutely are in direct competition with Apple.

So they license the Unreal Engine... And charge 5%... that's their choice. Probably don't have much of an overhead so they can afford it. They don't have to develop a maintain a whole operating system, they don't make and give for free development tools, etc. Do they maintain an App Store with tons of servers that consume a lot of bandwidth and maintenance labor? I don't think so... So no comparison.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Actually any bank app is basically a bad example. They are, for the most part, web views wrapped in an app launcher. Same goes for the Workday app. That one is worse. It is obviously a web view if you interactive with it and the web client, but the app must use a separate URI since 1/2 the functionality of the mobile web page is blocked.

None of these apps are the products sold or supported by the companies. They are all simple interfaces to allow the customers accesss to the actual services - the bank accounts, the company time entry or expense reports pages, etc.

And those apps are provided for free to the users. Imagine if they had to pay for it. So... who pays for it? Good question... Think of a bank app downloaded by millions of people each time a new version is released. Who maintains the servers where it's hosted? Who pays for the bandwidth and the internet service if the app is free both for the User and for the Developer.
I have a feeling that most people complaining in this thread are not even developers, so they don't appreciate the role of the AppStore.
Also, the close model prevents piracy. Imagine if it was open, apps would be pirated all over. A lot of fake AppStores will also appear, it would be madness and a loss to the Developer.

 

[Dresling]

I'm an Apple fanboy for sure but I don't find anything wrong in the judge asking tough questions. I'm sure Mr. Cook agrees. Tough direct questions allows clarifying answers in a public forum.

 

[Dresling]

You have to remember this judge has previous overseen multiple cases involving Apple. So consider her a very experience no nonsense judge. She will hammer either side to get to the facts for a proper decision.
from wiki

Also my take so far... Epic's receiving the exact same treatment.

 

[peanuts_of_pathos]

.

 

[peanuts_of_pathos]

.

 

[Ethosik]

Once again if you read my earlier posts I said we SHOULDN'T be relating the game console market to the epic vs apple case because of the thing you said above. I'm not taking a stance on the epic vs apple trial and nothing in my posts have appeared to be. I'm just trying to tell people that PC and console gaming should not be used as an example. In that space there are multiple options to purchase things through and multiple products to play them with without ever having a someone take 30/15% cut on every transaction. On iOS this isn't possible. Once again I say this not to compare consoles and PC games to iOS VS epic. I say it for why people should quit using as an example.

So we can just ignore certain segments of the industry to fit our arguments then? Fortnite is not exclusive to iOS. Epic is not prevented from making money in ANY WAY. There are many ways - Playstation, Xbox, Switch, PC Mac. These all have Fortnite. Apple is not preventing their business. There ARE alternatives. We cannot ignore PC and console because it makes Epic's argument ridiculous. And Epic can get back on iOS TODAY if they just follow the rules again. They were on the platform before they PLANNED to break the rules. And being on said platform is the SAME as consoles. So it is really not fair to say "don't compare to PC/Mac and Console". This is like saying "dont compare selling a product at Walmart by talking about the option to sell it at Target"

It sounds like you are one of those that are making the market WAY TOO narrow to fit the argument here. You can buy V-Bucks in the store, add it to your account on the web or another platform (as mentioned above with PC and console which apparently we can't talk about?) and can still use it on iOS. This is similar to how Netflix approached the limitation of iOS.

In that space there are multiple options to purchase things through and multiple products to play them with without ever having a someone take 30/15% cut on every transaction.

Again, this is still NOT true. If I buy V-Bucks THROUGH the Playstation Store, they get a 30% cut. This was even discussed in the trail in the first week. JUST like with iOS, you can buy V-Bucks in a store and load it up.

 

[Ethosik]

Whatever the outcome is, if Apple is not satisfied, they will appeal? That could mean years pass before this ends?

It's funny to me that instead of just taking their business elsewhere this company is suing Apple. That tells me that this company knows it would not be successful without Apple. It's fighting to stay with a so-called abuser. Instead of moving on, they are attempting to use the courts to force Apple to continue to help them make millions but on their own terms. Meanwhile, lots of other app store tenants and Apple's competitors such as Google are sitting back licking their chops, hoping this ends badly for Apple. When you can't win in the marketplace, take it to the courts?

And in the first couple of days, Epic released their financial breakdown of Fortnite. iOS made up the least amount of the money when the app was available.

 

[Ethosik]

iOS in itself is a market and Apple as a monopoly on it. That's what is being argued by Government bodies and companies across the world. Apple argue the opposite because they have a much lower than 50% share of the phone market. It's not a black or white question. There is no strict definition of what is a market.

Like others have stated, Epic is the one making this argument NOT the government. It is unprecedented to have your OWN platform you develop be considered its own market and you have a monopoly in it. That is just plain ridiculous, and if they judge agrees with this than I have major fears for the rest of ALL industries as this will set a precedent that could go after Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

This is like saying "Steam in itself is a market and Valve has a monopoly on it". There are certain games exclusive to Steam you know.

 

[gregmancuso]

The difference being many of those apps do NOT have to offer an in app purchase at all.

And the rules are arbitrary. Why does a budgeting software (YNAB) not have to offer an in-app subscription, but Microsoft and Adobe do? Why does Netflix not have to offer one but YouTube does?

The rules are arbitrary and it is about time someone called Apple out on it.

Games are not singled out. Any app offering additional, optional, or full-use unlocks are included. That would like all apps. The fact that games are the most prevent and obvious category does not change that. Games make the entire process look bad as they really defined the impulse-driven micro transaction in order to get past a level or buy in-game used stuff.

If the game makers had not figured out that charging kids $1 to $100 every few minutes for coins is both a viable, exploitable option and makes them a few $1,000s more per player than a one-time $5 game price we would not be having this conversation.

Also, Microsoft does not have to allow IAP. Or at least force it’s use. They provide a free functional version - read only - and only require paid service if you want to edit. Already have an O365 account via home, school, or work? Sign in and you are activated. Don’t? Use IAP or go to Office.com and sign up.

Can’t speak to Adobe. And Netflix, like all reader (purely subscription streaming consumption) apps are exempt and may offer sign-up solely through their site. Obviously, I have no insight into this, but if Kindle offered ebooks as a subscription (all books available for free) it would likely count too. They’ll never do that, but it would follow the rules for a reader app: all content available at no additional or per item charge, the content is streamed to the iPhone app, and users cannot author content back (such as shared Spotify’s shared playlists). Although you can download movies from Netflix, so the streamed only item may not apply after all.

 

[Ethosik]

A developer cannot distribute binaries to the general public outside of the App Store, so they are always bound to Apple’s profiteering.

Again, people are making the market WAY too narrow. I can just not develop on iOS and release my stuff elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief on this forum, iOS is not the ONE AND ONLY place that developers can release stuff. I am actually writing some software and game at the moment. It is exclusive to Windows. Apple is not forcing me to release it on iOS too and I don't want to. If I choose to make an iOS app, I must adhere to the rules set by that platform.

 

[SuperMatt]

And in the first couple of days, Epic released their financial breakdown of Fortnite. iOS made up the least amount of the money when the app was available.

This is exactly why they are suing Apple. They can take their app off the store without losing much money. But if they win, they could apply the ruling to Google Play and all the console stores. This is a cynical strategic move.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Epic made enough money to be able to sue Apple. Case closed, they’re doing okay.

 

[Ethosik]

This is exactly why they are suing Apple. They can take their app off the store without losing much money. But if they win, they could apply the ruling to Google Play and all the console stores. This is a cynical strategic move.

Yes, I know there are some people that say "DONT even bring up consoles", but I pretty much guarantee you, if Epic wins this consoles are next. Epic would LOVE to have the Epic Games Store on Playstation.

 

[gregmancuso]

Once again if you read my earlier posts I said we SHOULDN'T be relating the game console market to the epic vs apple case because of the thing you said above. I'm not taking a stance on the epic vs apple trial and nothing in my posts have appeared to be. I'm just trying to tell people that PC and console gaming should not be used as an example. In that space there are multiple options to purchase things through and multiple products to play them with without ever having a someone take 30/15% cut on every transaction. On iOS this isn't possible. Once again I say this not to compare consoles and PC games to iOS VS epic. I say it for why people should quit using as an example.

This is disingenuous on several fronts. iOS, Xbox, Sony, et al all have platforms-specific and closed ecosystems. All take the same percentage. All have the same business model. And before it comes up again, the price or profitability of the required hardware is irrelevant.

Also, what “multiple options?” Buying the game on disc from brick and mortar store? Buying the disc from Amazon? Any of these “multiple options” cost the developer a lot more. The store take a piece, the distribution process takes a piece, and the console makers still get their fees. You are right about one thing. The developer definitely do not pay 15 to 30% in all cases. Some avenues charge a lot more.

 

[Ethosik]

This is disingenuous on several fronts. iOS, Xbox, Sony, et al all have platforms-specific and closed ecosystems. All take the same percentage. All have the same business model. And before it comes up again, the price or profitability of the required hardware is irrelevant.

Also, what “multiple options?” Buying the game on disc from brick and mortar store? Buying the disc from Amazon? Any of these “multiple options” cost the developer a lot more. The store take a piece, the distribution process takes a piece, and the console makers still get their fees. You are right about one thing. The developer definitely do not pay 15 to 30% in all cases. Some avenues charge a lot more.

I agree. I also don't buy into the fact that in 2021, the consoles are still sold at a loss. If that is true, Microsoft and Sony are in trouble due to low supply, and a lot of scalping going on.

 

[gregmancuso]

Netflix, Disney+, YouNeedABudget, YouTube, Zoom, Amazon, Uber, Doordash, Microsoft Office, Photoshop, ESPN. The list is endless.

Apple arbitrarily has decided gaming apps are one of the only ones that have to solely offer transactions in-app.

This whole thing started because Epic turned on Vbucks purchases through Epic directly. And that’s exactly how this is going to end. Apple will be forced to allow purchases outside of their store. Case closed. No side loading. Just the same treatment as Netflix and everyone else.

All the apps listed are either exempt (reader) or offer multiple payment option with IAP being one. No one forced games to be IAP only. Epic sells the stupid vbucks in their own store, on gift cards, or who knows what other avenues. This vbucks could be used in iOS. No problem. Epic does not have a problem with the ability to sell vbucks that may be used on an iPhone. Avenues that pay Apple nothing, mind you. They have an issues with note being able to facilitate the impulse buy within the app and still pay nothing. and this thing started because they purposefully violated their agreement to not do something. They willfully and maliciously violated their contract. Having spent considerable time planning and prepping the lawsuit and the marketing campaign proves it.

Tim Cook was not wrong in answering that allowing steering or individual payment options would make it so Apple cannot monetize. Everything drops to free and developers would embed PayPal or Stripe or something. Even for a company the size of Epic the values of Apple’s store services are worth every penny. Apple does much more that service credit card transactions. They also pay the sales taxes to any and all global furisdictions, file necessary tax reporting, and provide the developer with the documenatation. Just because Epic can do all of that themselves does not mean that the liability assurances are not of significant value. If some tax authority comes after them they just point to Apple. That shield is worth a lot.

The problem is not games per se. It is that games are the most exploitative use of IAP. The perverted a mechanism that was built to allow for trial of apps before buy or enabling optional “pro” features into the exploitative mess it is in games. Before IAP iOS games were more expensive. Rarely console prices but $20 to $30 was not uncommon. Then they figured how to pervert IAP and really soak their users with a race to the bottom pricing (commonly free) to download and charge $1,000s in IAP impulse buys

 

[grandM]

This isn’t a stupid analogy. Apple chose to absorb the costs of software updates and versioning in order to create a closed market! You’re not making any sense. A developer cannot distribute binaries to the general public outside of the App Store, so they are always bound to Apple’s profiteering. You’d have an argument if developers could release comparable software and manage their own updates, but Apple blocks that in the name of security.

The only thing I do not like about getting rid of the App Store in-app purchase restrictions is suddenly everyone follows Adobe’s model: the app is “free” but then there’s an immediate external subscription paywall. It basically takes Apple from 30% to 0% overnight and guts the App Store, which I happen to like because it serves as a centralized place to download vetted apps. They just shouldn’t take it upon themselves to pretend like every app is THEIR technology just because a developer wrote it for that OS. Imagine if HTML and JS were owned by private companies and every web page had to pass through a licensing paywall. That’s just how absurd Apple’s control over iOS/iPadOS binaries are when 50% of smartphone users are on iOS!

Walmart would never have put your app on their shelves. Sorry to bust your bubble.

 

[grandM]

There are only 2 platforms, Android and iOS. Furthermore many companies to be competitive HAVE to be on both markets. Apple would be in a position to really hurt badly a large number of companies if they choose to, not that it has been proven that they have but this is monopolistic power. It's not really up for debate that much, it's what Apple does with it.

Ehm Mario Bros used to be only available on Nintendo. Sonic only on SEGA.

 

[bwillwall]

Great. You got a few reactions that agree with your sentiments. What is important if the Judge agrees, or not. There is much polarization when it comes to Apple about almost everything. (of course with hundreds of millions of customers, each will have their own point of view)

I'm not saying people don't have different points of view. I just found what was edited out of my post pretty surprising considering how mild it was.