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

[Hoyboy]

The answer is actually alot simpler than that.

One device is a computer. The other is a phone. There are different expectations of each device.

The phone needs the additional security and safety.

I’d love to know how many people use an iPhone as a “phone” only without any other use case. For a lot of people their iPhone is their main computing device which is used for a whole host of things which used to be done on a computer.

iPhone is technically a pocket sized computer in 2021.

 

[Smith288]

No

No, the judge needs to come down on Apple like a ton of feathers! 😆

Point of order, a ton of feathers is still as heavy as a ton of bricks.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Wells Fargo do not sell you a product from the App Store. Their app is simply a Companion to the product you already bought (a bank account).

Epic is still subsidizing Apple’s development and maintenance of API’s that allows Wells Fargo’s app to exist for free.

 

[deevey]

Epic is still subsidizing Apple’s development and maintenance of API’s that allows Wells Fargo’s app to exist for free.

Epic are using the App Store as an marketing and impulse sales platform. Wells Fargo does not. Sales and advertising are not cheap on any platform, and any company using Apples' platform it as such should pay the piper.

If Epic want to do their own off-app marketing to get customers to sign up for their products rather than the convenient IAP's they are welcome to do that and pay Apple nothing. However they KNOW (as does anyone into marketing) that each additional click in order to get a sale, is far more likely to lose a potential customer at each stage of the transaction.

The fact is Epic want both the ease of IAP's AND to pay zero commission.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Epic are using the App Store as an marketing and impulse sales platform. Wells Fargo does not. Sales and advertising are not cheap on any platform, and any company using Apples' platform it as such should pay the piper.

If Epic want to do their own off-app marketing to get customers to sign up for their products rather than the convenient IAP's they are welcome to do that and pay Apple nothing. However they KNOW (as does anyone into marketing) that each additional click in order to get a sale, is far more likely to lose a potential customer at each stage of the transaction.

The fact is Epic want both the ease of IAP's AND to pay zero commission.

The judge was simply responding to Apple's terrible answer.

Apple claims the 30% cut is to develop and maintain API's. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to then reach the conclusion that developers using in-app purchases are susbidizing the API's that free apps use.

If Apple didn't want to be questioned about it, they should have picked a better answer.

 

[I7guy]

Epic is still subsidizing Apple’s development and maintenance of API’s that allows Wells Fargo’s app to exist for free.

You are only assuming Epic is subsidizing something, because the p&L records are sealed. One really doesn't have an accounting of the financials of the app store. So yeah, it's an easy leap to be made, but the trial isn't over just yet.

 

[cardfan]

Epic are using the App Store as an marketing and impulse sales platform. Wells Fargo does not. Sales and advertising are not cheap on any platform, and any company using Apples' platform it as such should pay the piper.

If Epic want to do their own off-app marketing to get customers to sign up for their products rather than the convenient IAP's they are welcome to do that and pay Apple nothing. However they KNOW (as does anyone into marketing) that each additional click in order to get a sale, is far more likely to lose a potential customer at each stage of the transaction.

The fact is Epic want both the ease of IAP's AND to pay zero commission.

Lol. Ok. You’re right. Wells Fargo doesn’t. Amazon doesn’t. None of the “free” apps do. Somehow epic does though. Got ya.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Tbqh, i think cases like this are far too complex for just one judge to rule on. I feel that cases like these need to go to a panel of judges.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Epic is still subsidizing Apple’s development and maintenance of API’s that allows Wells Fargo’s app to exist for free.

If Epic wants to offer their in-app purchasing for free then they can. The truth is that there is not a natural separation of the epic games to be had here other than to avoid the agreement other than to violate the spirit of the rules around free vs paid apps.

 

[cmaier]

Right now Judge is haranguing Epic's lawyers - "Don't people just pick an ecosystem, and wouldn't your solution destroy consumer choice?"

Looking forward to Macrumors posting a thread on that.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Lol. Ok. You’re right. Wells Fargo doesn’t. Amazon doesn’t. None of the “free” apps do. Somehow epic does though. Got ya.

Amazon is offering a physical products. They arent building software around skirting the rules of the app store.

 

[jweinraub]

The Judge is 100000% correct and Timmy Apple is 100000% wrong about competition is to Android. That is a load of ****! And Tim knows it. I don't understand why he keeps referring to Android competition. It is all about control. If a customer doesn't want the gated community that the App Store provides, the answer isn't go to Android. Apple claims it is about protection (which with all the scams out there, looks like they're succeeding), about content they don't agree with (if an adult site wants a native app, why not)? If an alternative store existed, or buying an app from a website, should be allowed. If one can do so on their mac, without mac appsore, it is absurd to think you can't on the iphone.

If this continues, you better bet you sweet bippy that MacOS is next. The SVPs can lie all they want, but this lockdown is already happening. Root partition is locked down. Notarising. All in guise of security? They already said malware is a problem. Malware is only a problem if morons fall for phishing attempts and installing malware.

Is Dell doing this? Is Microsoft? No, nobody even uses the Windows store. UWP is dumb. With this and right to repair, Apple is 100% anti-consumer and it is all under the guise and lie of security. This judge isn't one sided. She sees the truth and isn't fooled by the crap being spewed by Tim Apple et al!

 

[deevey]

Lol. Ok. You’re right. Wells Fargo doesn’t. Amazon doesn’t. None of the “free” apps do. Somehow epic does though. Got ya.

Well they do. They rely on impulse micro-transactions to kids as their business model.

Fortnight is a free App as well .... until they Start bombarding you with adverts about premium products in App (advertising!) Which costs money (30% per sale).

Amazon, Netflix and others do not do this and as a result pay nothing. And in fact every developer could do the same, but it might cost them more in advertising than they make on IAP's.

Directing people via a clickable link in-app should also be chargeable - and rightly so. Do you have any idea how much Google or Facebook ad's can cost for potential customers, with zero guarantee of a sale ?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Did anyone ask why other big game developers haven't taken Apple to court already like Epic?

Surely the Candy Crush people can't be too thrilled about having to give 30% of their revenue to Apple...

Or maybe that'll be Apple's next lawsuit...

 

[djphat2000]

The judges point is that Ape doesnt take a cit of every sale across the board. Its true they dont. Some businesses like say Uber eats or task rabbit Apple does not take a cut.

The rules exempt sales of physical or tangible items. Ride sharing, Pizza, etc. vBucks are not tangible.. Or In game purchases like lollipops and dance moves.

Apple should counter with, "It really doesn't cost that much to make a video game. Why are they so expensive? $59.99 for colors, and input controls?!?!?. Should be half that at best, and 1/4 the file size. Cause we say so!".

 

[djphat2000]

Did anyone ask why other big game developers haven't taken Apple to court already like Epic?

Surely the Candy Crush people can't be too thrilled about having to give 30% of their revenue to Apple...

Or maybe that'll be Apple's next lawsuit...

Doubt it. The amount of money they make from basically tools that may not even win you the level, and gold bars is so stupid. It's not as serious a dance moves and character clothing. Not even close

 

[djphat2000]

Exactly. There definitely needs to be a different set of fees for things like V-Bucks, in particular.

It's literally a currency exchange. You're turning your real dollars into virtual currency. There's not a lot of overhead in that. It happens in the blink of an eye.

I don't see why my $10 purchase of V-Bucks entitles Apple to get $3 from that.

And that goes for ALL the platforms who charge 30% for VBucks.

Like I said... there should be a different way to handle those types of transactions.

I'd say the same thing about Kindle e-books too. Apple isn't even delivering the Kindle book from their servers... Amazon is. All Apple is doing is handling the payment. But Apple thinks they deserve $3 from every $10 Kindle book. Fortunately Amazon said NO and was granted a special exception found a way around it.

Sure... Apple made the rules... but I think those rules need to be re-examined.

Yes... Apple should get something from digital In-App-Purchases... but there's wiggle room between "nothing" and "30%"

So "who" gets to set that new price? What's fair? Who's it fair to? Because it's digital and the system is already in place. Does that mean it's now free forever? No more overhead costs? No more upgrade or maintenance costs? It's paid for, so lets not charge anyone to use it while they are on our store? Or charge 'just' what it costs to run it? Said what for profit business ever?

Lets please not forget, these prices had already existed. Apple choose 30% because that was the industry standard. Plus it was lower than the 50 to 60% physical stores charged. Most apps on the store pay NOTHING, which brings in customers that end up buying the pay for apps.

 

[Michael Scrip]

So "who" gets to set that new price? What's fair? Who's it fair to? Because it's digital and the system is already in place. Does that mean it's now free forever? No more overhead costs? No more upgrade or maintenance costs? It's paid for, so lets not charge anyone to use it while they are on our store? Or charge 'just' what it costs to run it? Said what for profit business ever?

Lets please not forget, these prices had already existed. Apple choose 30% because that was the industry standard. Plus it was lower than the 50 to 60% physical stores charged. Most apps on the store pay NOTHING, which brings in customers that end up buying the pay for apps.

Yeah... it'll be interesting to see what comes from all these various lawsuits.

Between Epic and Spotify with their complaints... could Apple be forced to change their own rules in their own store?

Story developing...

 

[djphat2000]

30% is a "tad high" for a swipe transaction? Do you have even the slightest idea of what payment processors charge? It's low single digit percentages up front and lower fees still at scale.

Hate to break it to you, but the rest of the stuff you are talking about isn't worth anywhere NEAR 30% either. You're obviously talking about something about which you have ZERO knowledge. It's a solved problem. If Apple's payment system is so damn good as to be worth 30%, then open up payments to everyone. Companies will run out the door faster than the Roadrunner does from Wile. E. Coyote.

Your getting digital information with that swipe transaction. Your credit card is charging Apple a fee for that transaction as well. There is a purchase happening here, data from Apple's store to your iOS device.

Again, why do we seem to assume that the store is free to run after it's built? How does anyone else get to justify what the costs should be as if we don't have current examples of it being the same in other areas? Why is Apple's 30% cut any different than Sony's or Microsoft's or Android?

 

[djphat2000]

Yeah... it'll be interesting to see what comes from all these various lawsuits.

Between Epic and Spotify with their complaints... could Apple be forced to change their own rules in their own store?

Story developing...

I don't expect it to end that way. If it did, it would up end ALL STORES, physical or digital. It would be changing what any store is allowed to charge for their "cut". It would also force app stores on ALL PLATFORMS. So you could have an Apple AppStore on Xbox or Sony on iOS, etc. And not for nothing, it would kill free games. Apple would simply stop using the AppStore to host them. They would stick with pay for games and apps ONLY so they can make money. In App Purchase would be still charged for and profits still made. Nothing would get passed to on to the customers. Not one cent.

 

[djphat2000]

I think it bears remembering that the judge is ultimately here to settle what is essentially a business dispute, not establish policy.

That and Apple as a private company is well within its rights to choose not to deal with another company (so long as this rule is applied evenly to everybody). Epic dug their own grave by breaking App Store rules, giving Apple the justification they need to boot them out of the App Store (and keep them out).

The judge is also limited in what sort of ruling she can impose on Apple. Like you said, it's not for her to decide whether 30% is too much (or even too little). I don't think she has the authority to tell Apple to open up the App Store and allow side loading either.

I feel that Apple still has the stronger arguments. We will just have to see.

I think your 100% correct on this. If she "is" able to go that far, it would affect all business in the digital realm. Even to physical stores. And that's a bridge too far, way too far. If she is only able to deal with the current dispute, then it's a clear cut win for Apple. EPIC broke the rules. Unless she can some how deem Apple a Monopoly. Which again, seems WAY far fetched, just based on the fact that EPIC has other avenues to sell their stuff through. Apple isn't even the highest on the list, let along the only one on the list.

Whether she likes it or not. If Apple isn't a monopoly, they can't lose this case. EPIC can disagree with the rules of the store, but they can also sell on other platforms just as easily. They are not forced to stay. And to the best of my knowledge, a judge can't force one store to accept another store in their store. Same as Apple isn't forced to even have a store to begin with. They could sell a phone without an App Store and no way to install apps, period.
Wouldn't be the best business move to make, but they "could" is the point, and nothing legal blocking them from doing so.

 

[triptolemus]

In principle, this lawsuit does not exist to benefit the consumer. It exists to only profit Epic.

That is the nature of a civil lawsuit. The grandiose intangible idea of "the consumer" is largely irrelevant. Epic is not doing this in an effort to change the wold. They are doing this for the benefit of their bottom line.

 

[rkuo]

I never claimed sarcasm. I just pointed out that my use of the phrase “30% is a tad high” was obviously meant as tongue in cheek both in the context of the post it was written in and the rest on the posts in this topic.

you felt the need to take my point literally for some reason. No one seriously believes that 30% is reasonable for a transaction processor.

if you want to debate the merits, fine. I will be sure to use small words, short sentences, and show my work on any point I raise.

Sounds good.

That and Apple as a private company is well within its rights to choose not to deal with another company (so long as this rule is applied evenly to everybody). Epic dug their own grave by breaking App Store rules, giving Apple the justification they need to boot them out of the App Store (and keep them out).

The judge is also limited in what sort of ruling she can impose on Apple. Like you said, it's not for her to decide whether 30% is too much (or even too little). I don't think she has the authority to tell Apple to open up the App Store and allow side loading either.

I feel that Apple still has the stronger arguments. We will just have to see.

They didn’t “dig” their own grave, they had to have standing to bring the case. It’s hard to bring a case based on a hypothetical that Apple “would have booted us had we brought our own payment systems online.” The court will just say “well call us when they actually do that.”

 

[RFNB]

Sounds good.

They didn’t “dig” their own grave, they had to have standing to bring the case. It’s hard to bring a case based on a hypothetical that Apple “would have booted us had we brought our own payment systems online.” The court will just say “well call us when they actually do that.”

I don't know if they dug their own grave or not but, is the only way to have standing to bring the case, breaking the terms of their agreement? Is there not a way to start the process of Epic making the argument, "I feel we, Epic, should not have to pay 30% for using your service because...?

Just an opinion I have but, to me, I feel like it's because, "I feel we, Epic, should not have to pay 30% for using your service because we want to make more money" would be laughed at. They're not exactly saying these words but their actions are speaking it loud and clear.

This has been obviously clear since the inception of the Epic Launcher on PC to compete with the Steam Store which might I add, at least for me, not on a bleeding edge PC, has been quite an abysmal experience. I only have the Epic store installed to add the free games they offer onto it.

I've never purchased anything from Epic, outside of that $60 "donation" for Fortnite that I instantly regretted and had to "prove" my case to get a refund for. Perhaps I'm also biased with this but I think it's within good reason. Epic has been quacking like a duck and waddling like a duck, I'm certain it's not a peacock!

 

[Realityck]

Since there is no new thread yet on MacRumors, this is what occurred Monday May 24th.

From Apple vs. Epic court officially adjourns — here’s what comes next - 9to5Mac 5/24 article

In lieu of traditional closing arguments, today’s final day of the trial consisted of three hours of back-and-forth between Judge Rogers and lawyers for Apple and Epic. Judge Rogers asked both sides a variety of questions about the past three weeks of testimony.

One of the points Judge Rogers repeatedly mentioned during today’s trial was that customers have the ability to choose which ecosystem they use, referring to Android vs. iOS. “There’s a lot of evidence in this trial that in the fore-market of devices, it’s Apple’s business strategy to create a particular kind of ecosystem that is attractive to purchasers,” Judge Rogers said.

Another focus of today’s closing session was anti-steering. This refers to Apple’s guidelines that state developers are not allowed to “steer” customers to make digital purchases outside of the App Store. Here, Judge Rogers specifically referenced an anti-steering credit card case that previously made it to the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Rogers also pressed Epic specifically on potential remedies. “I still don’t understand where you expect this to go,” she said at one point. Epic’s lawyer explained that Apple does not have to give away access to the iPhone ecosystem but rather get rid of restrictions that are specifically anti-competitive.

Judge Rogers noted that Epic, however, likely does have “ulterior motives” in this case. ”Epic is here because if relief is granted, they go from a multibillion-dollar company to a maybe-trillion-dollar company, who knows. But they won’t do it out of the kindness of their heart,” she said.

Look at what the judge just stated in those last two paragraphs, do you honestly think that Epic successfully argued their case?