Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise

[Nuno Lopes]

It’s muddled because the objective is to take a working system, one that has evolved over the years, and disassemble it so that Apple earns little revenue and it’s a race to the bottom for apps and security.

Yes. That is why.

 

[Analog Kid]

Imagine being a small business in the same shopping center as Target,
...and you have to give 30% of your revenue to Target.
...and when a customers asks if you have a website, you can only direct them to Target.com.
...and if a customer asks if you have a location closer to their house, and you do, you can only stare at them blankly or speak in a Target approved riddle.
...and you have to accept REDCards as payment or you can't accept any payment.
...and you started selling parachutes once, and they sold very well, and then Target started selling parachutes, and said you had to stop because your parachutes no longer met Targets new parachute safety rules.
...and so you invest in your business and meet the new standards, and Target says you can sell parachutes again, but now your customers can no longer use the sidewalks or parking lots.
...and none of these rules apply to restaurants in the shopping center, who also don't pay rent.
...and one day you saw the car dealership owner slip the Target manager a stack of $100's, and then cars and dealerships were exempt from all the rules too.

We'll be here all day if we continue this nonsense.

So in this rather convoluted analogy, assuming you’re building upon the original weakly stated analogy rather than creating a whole new play with different characters using the same names:

Target represents the AppStore? The small business is Epic? I’m guessing the car dealership is Netflix or Amazon or whoever people think is a smoking gun of Apple hypocrisy at the moment, but then I need to figure out what “all the rules” represents and whether they actually include the rules that the “small business” is suffering under…

Then the shopping center of which Target is a part must represent the internet.

If I start substituting real businesses in for the analogous ones, none of this represents reality in any way.

 

[bushman4]

Allowing Epic to prevail would destroy the App Store model and hurt millions
Epic should play by the rules which they accepted

 

[ksj1]

Personally I think the solution is for Epic to design, build and sell their own phone with their own store. They can even allow other stores!

Just because they decided they want a different business model than the one on offer in IOS doesn't mean Apple is under an obligation to change in support of that.

Epic had a contract and decided to break it. They signed it knowing what was in it. They are trying to make this an anti-trust issue, but its simple contract law that applies imo.

 

[AppliedVisual]

This has always been what this is all about - they want to be able to advertise in Apple's store.

Yes, they want to advertise in Apple’s store and have paid placement for apps from themselves and their development partners and Unreal developers. They also want to run their own Epic Games Store and payment gateway on the iPhone. Why pay Apple 30% when they could instead be collecting 30% for themselves? That’s what they want and have been pretty open about it for a long time now. Only recently with their tactics surrounding Fortnite pricing shenanigans and other stuff to instigate Apple into action have they veiled their intent.

I also think it’s laughable that they keep referencing “similarities” between Apple’s platform and PlayStation... Epic has almost completely taken over PlayStation, especially in regards to PS5. It’s near impossible to even create a PS5 game without using Epic’s dev tools. But I think that kinda circles back on their whole argument saying Apple should have cut them a deal or made some sort of special agreement with them. Epic thinks they are that special... Whereas this is one of the best things about developing for Apple’s ecosystem, they treat all developers the same. The kid starting out paying their $99/year to publish on the App Store is the same price paid by Epic or any other developer. They get the same phone support, all the same developer tools and resources, legal coverages, access to global markets and game services and servers for hosting. All there.

 

[chaosUnseen]

Epic cries about that 30%, because they are a billion dollar company, as greedy as they come. What does Apple do with that 30%? Think of your small/medium developers, the kids learning Swift, WWDC, a mobile device not stuffed with third party bloatware (looking at you Sprint and your NASCAR stuff, or Amazon and their horrible Fire experience)… How about when a kid buys $300 worth of lollipops to feed a dog in a gacha app, you think 3rd party stores will work with you as quick and efficient to realize it was a mistake and give you your money back? Apples platform has inspired so many developers and built careers for those who might not of had a shot.
I can’t believe Epic seriously made this premeditated strike to look like a hero using mainly children as leverage, amd they want to painted as the good guy? I might be oblivious in a walled garden, but as someone whose wrote his fair share of code - I can tell you Apples platform is 1000000 times easier amd more efficient to write for, with a massive support system that you do not need to scour the internet for.
Boo Epic.

 

[0x0x0x0]

Judge: Hey I have a compromise. Apple. You get to keep the store, upkeep, and code and support. But now for free! Compromise!

Erm that's what Apple have chosen: if you want to have a single point of admittance to the platform (most likely with the intention of taking a 30% cut of every sale, because let's be frank, if Apple were genuinely "just covering the cost of upkeep" they'd be taking a flat fee regardless of an App costing 99c or $1000), then that's the cost Apple chose to bear!

 

[0x0x0x0]

... How about when a kid buys $300 worth of lollipops to feed a dog in a gacha app, you think 3rd party stores will work with you as quick and efficient to realize it was a mistake and give you your money back? ...

Erm, of course had the kid had been directed to a third party site, had to enter CC details afresh, and pass verification... well, chances are that'd not happen in the first place, but Apple's platform is a great enabler for that!

 

[0924487]

Fair enough, then apps like Ticketmaster, AMC, as well as any apps that sell services like housecleaning, photography etc should be forced to go through apples in-app payment

that's physical services. If you sell a movie ticket or a ticket to a bar or Disneyland, it's physical services.

Apple takes a cut only if the transaction is a value-added component of the App. (removing ads, getting more coins, a pro feature, etc.)

 

[swingerofbirch]

Maybe because now it's so much easier to see the apps in the Mac App Store centrally that gave you the insights into the proliferation of junk titles. You probably would not know about these apps previously, but they may already exists. So in a way, this is the value of having a centralised store.

Imagine if iOS is forced to allow multiple app stores.

Maybe, but giving them that prominence is probably not a good thing. Someone will download/pay for them because they happen to be there. I haven't been to the MAS in a while, but I was surprised how many anti-virus and maintenance products were being sold for Macs that aren't necessary. A new user would see those and assume they need them.

 

[CthuluLemon]

So in this rather convoluted analogy, assuming you’re building upon the original weakly stated analogy rather than creating a whole new play with different characters using the same names:

Target represents the AppStore? The small business is Epic? I’m guessing the car dealership is Netflix or Amazon or whoever people think is a smoking gun of Apple hypocrisy at the moment, but then I need to figure out what “all the rules” represents and whether they actually include the rules that the “small business” is suffering under…

Then the shopping center of which Target is a part must represent the internet.

If I start substituting real businesses in for the analogous ones, none of this represents reality in any way.

Like I commented, "We'll be here all day if we continue this nonsense." 🎣

 

[quarkysg]

Maybe, but giving them that prominence is probably not a good thing. Someone will download/pay for them because they happen to be there. I haven't been to the MAS in a while, but I was surprised how many anti-virus and maintenance products were being sold for Macs that aren't necessary. A new user would see those and assume they need them.

Well, the iOS/Mac App Store is a feature of both OSes to allow end users convenience in apps discovery, instead of searching for apps all over the Internet. It also made life easier for app developers to bypass a lot of logistical issues if they were to host their own apps, so I can see value in this model, especially for smaller development teams.

I would think Apple would probably get into trouble with the authorities if they were to reject apps purely based on their judgement that it is a 'junk' app. What Apple can do is that they can have specifics rules to enforce. A rule saying 'junk' is vague and likely not enforceable, as it is a relative metric. I believe Apple is always trying to improve the App Store experience, but the law of large numbers means that it'll be hard to ensure that 'quality' apps are given prominence. Any system (e.g. app ranking) can be gamed (e.g. bot reviews) by people who knows how the system works, so it's always a game of cat and mouse. And this battle cost a lot for Apple to sustain it going forward.

AV/Anti-malware products are mainly deployed by enterprises, as it's likely a corporate IT requirement. It's needed not only to protect Macs, but also other machines, which are manly Windows. I think the reason it is proliferating in the Mac app store is because of the ingrained notion since the 2000s that AV software is mandatory for protection, and normal folks just accept that as a fact. I personally don't use AV/anti-malware software in my personal Macs, since I roughly know safe sources for software and I'm religious with backups, but I think most Macs users will not know any better.

 

[Analog Kid]

Like I commented, "We'll be here all day if we continue this nonsense." 🎣

Ok, as long as we agree that's what it is. I have to say it sounded suspiciously like a lot of nonsense I read in these forums written by people who have no idea they're spouting nonsense.

 

[Eso]

Holy hell Apple got demolished today:

Epic fights Apple in court by playing Candy Crush

Instead of talking about Fortnite, lawyers debated many games you’ve probably never heard of

www.theverge.com

Apple’s expert witness tried to claim that browser-based games are an alternative to an app through the store, with a spreadsheet of examples. Epic’s attorney then proceedes to go through the provided example in real time in court, in which all of the brower games are just deep links to the app in the App Store. The witness then deflects by saying his “research team” made the list, not him. and that he trusts them. It must have been embarrassing. Epic basically had the judge cross-examining the witness for them.

 

[Wanted797]

How? From everything people say here, the Apple App Store is a well regulated place free of scams, poor quality apps, and privacy concerns

Websites for redirection can change after all approval without changing the link itself.

So what was a valid company showing a valid link during approval suddenly becomes the perfect scam.

 

[kieguru]

Yes - we want all consoles to be $1,500 and game prices to be higher.

OK

What? That's the exact opposite of what's going on. Currently devs are marking up by 30% to cover costs and that directly affect the consumer.

 

[bastoshaq]

Oh baloney. Imagine if Target could force you to subscribe through a Target payment system for services on a smart TV that you bought at Target. That is a more accurate comparison. Maybe Apple should just not let apps that advertise their own payment systems be downloaded for free, charge a dollar or something. Apple has more to gain by having all these apps available for iPhone than they would lose by allowing developers to at least provide a link to their web site.

These arguments are almost good to present but then it misses the point. Apple is not forcing anything.
What they are doing is not allowing advertisement in how to spend money outside of the store.
Using your argument, Target sells the TV and the customer asks to someone at the store "How can I watch movies in here?". Target then shows them their packages where it puts Netflix and so on with a price. It never says "But if you go right to their website is cheaper".
Apple is not stopping Epic from selling - they just don't want apps to tell the customer that they can spend their money anywhere else.

Point in case is Netflix.

 

[bastoshaq]

There's no such thing as a store that prohibits customers from visiting other stores.

Correct. An Apple is not prohibiting anything. Granted that if you have an iPhone you can only use their store.
But how is that different from having some bank card that only works with certain stores? Or a certain card that you can top up for rewards but you can only spend money/rewards on certain stores?
If you want to use other stores, go to another bank that has cards for more stores.
In this case, buy another phone and use it in other store.

Apple is not stopping Epic from selling - they just don't want apps to tell the customer that they can spend their money anywhere else.

Point in case is Netflix.

 

[bastoshaq]

So if Epic, Spotify, Netflix were to build their phones so that they could provide their services, would they have to allow each other to put each other store/free apps (you name it) including apple?

And therefore, are we saying that no company could make anything without anyone else using it?

Would we then say that when a company builds a product, all the other products see it as "our new product" instead of "their new product"?

But I guess that if a product is new that locks everyone in and is only making a buck then no one cares, but when is making a few dollars more, it is not ok. So Apple being too successful for their own good?

 

[bastoshaq]

How about this solution... games like Fortnite eliminate free downloads and begin charging for their games in the app store, allowing Apple to take their cut, just like consoles do. Just like every other retail outlet does, either physical or digital.

I must say that I don't really like this IAP thing. I would rather pay for the game instead of being limited in how I play.
And in some games, the IAP is almost a pay to win

 

[bastoshaq]

This is not the same. Image Target would let you only pay with a Target Credit Card which has 30% Credit Card Fees or if Target would force its suppliers to use only their bank for payments which has a 30% fee.

Now of course in that case no-one would go shopping at Target, but imagine they would be so huge and dominant they would be able to push that.

Sorry, this is not correct. Apple is not forcing EPIC to only have their money through Apple. You can go to EPIC's website and charge your account and carry on playing.

Like Netflix - you download the app via AppStore (apple), go to Netflix's website and setup your account (outside apple) and consume the product in your device (apple)

 

[bastoshaq]

Dumb argument. You can pay at Target with many options including cash. But you can get iOS apps only on the App Store.

2 ideas in your reply - how to pay and what products you get.
Payment - you either pay via Apple or you have to go the developers website to pay (Netflix)
Products - Target sells products from multiple vendors but I would say that Target has a say in what products it sells. They probably have rules like - you must provide 2 year support if a clients comes to us with a problem as an example (App Store rules)
I doubt that Target you sell products that are bad/broken because as a client you could think that Target only sells bad stuff (even though they are not the makers of the product). So you should have a say in what things your store sells.

 

[bastoshaq]

While I don’t really care who wins, why are people so worried if Apple has to allow 3rd party app stores? Android does it just fine by being able to side load 3rd party stores like Amazon apps store and others. On Android there’s no worry’s of “scam links” and all this other stuff people are talking about. I use Android and iOS everyday and they’re both the same for me App Store wise, except I can have other app stores as well on Android. *shrugs*.

I feel like people are too scared of the outside the wall and think they’ll instantly get hacked and their identity stolen or something.


Does Google get sued for this stuff? No.

To your first point, why not just say "Apple works like this - you don't like it? Go buy an Android phone".

 

[bastoshaq]

Out of interest… if apple were forced by the judge to do what epic wants could they:

say we don’t think this is good for our business and just shut down the store anyway?
companies used to make phones with no way of adding apps so it’s not like it’s not happened before.
could a judge force a business to do business?
apple could survive for years without allowing apps on their devices but all developers would be finished.

it’s a bit “nuclear”.. but what could anyone do about it?

That is a very good point and it has crossed my mind.
Apple can only loose:

• Decides to allow URLs to some website? All apps are free now and no more revenue to Apple via AppStore
• Decides to allow 3rd Party Stores? How many stores are you gonna get? Still not revenue to Apple via AppStore
• Side loading? Still not revenue to Apple via AppStore
• Decides to shut down the App Store and to revert back to the first versions of iOS where there was no AppStore? Still not revenue to Apple via AppStore and a potential loss of clients to other phones - not even to EPIC because EPIC does not build phones.

EPIC can only hope to win some sort of special treatment with how much it gets charges - which will not be special treatment since all the other companies would want the same treatment.

Any other win would only damage Apple.

The only way that I can see any change to the IAP logic is by making those IAP free but to start charging the developer some sort of tier system where when they reach a certain number of IAP, Apple is due a fee - regardless of the amount that gets charged in the IAP.

 

[Philip_S]

It's near impossible to determine where the "walls" and restrictions can safely be dismantled without detrimenting the total experience. It is also impossible to know which restrictions if dismantled would dissuade development on iOS.

The morality/content rating rules, for one. Allowing adult-rated apps to be seen by people with their account settings showing they're adults, have parental controls turned off, and tick an option saying they want to see them would not harm the user experience for anyone who didn't make that choice, and wouldn't dissuade development on iOS. Indeed, it would encourage more apps, rather than forcing people who are into that sort of thing to use inferior web versions, as has happened with Discord recently.

Now imagine someone in your contacts list downloads apps from shady App Store, now that shady app has all your info too.

A more appropriate way to police that is with file access permissions or per-app API access restrictions (which is how I assume apples actually does it). In any case, it ins't hard to come up with a pretext for reading contacts information if that's what you want to do, so it could be done in an app store app.

You know I bet there’s a reason macOS doesn’t have as many quality indie apps as iOS.

Smaller market share, probably.

Why does Epic need to have the game listed in the app store? If they don't want to pay the 30% fee, host the game a different way, let them build the system.

It needs to be in the app store because that's the only way to get it onto an iPhone

There's no such thing as a store that prohibits customers from visiting other stores.

A better analogy to real-world stores is to remote towns where there's only one store (or all owned by one company). Sure, you could drive 100 miles to the next town and shop elsewhere (or buy two phones), but that's so burdensome that people just aren't going to do that.

OTOH, there's always bluestacks and the like, though you can't use them on an iPhone because of app store rules.

I’m sure the judge, and developers, wouldn’t complain if the price of that was raised high enough to cover the Store’s upkeep. Especially if the new price was proportional to the number of app downloads, instead of charging a 14 year old kid playing with Xcode the same price as a hundred billion dollar corporation.

I'd suggest that proportional to revenue, over some level for small "not worth chasing" fees, would be better than number of app downloads, because number of downloads is a problem for really free apps

Except for games, where Apple should match whatever percentage Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo charge in their game stores.

That would really get the EU and Australian competition authorities annoyed with them (and the others) for not trying to compete in that one market segment.

Apple actually has the perfect mechanism: Gatekeeper (and Developer ID) from macOS.

I wouldn't quite call it perfect, since the flat $99/year discourages using Gatekeeper for apps you just want to give away unless you're also at least a semi-pro developer.