Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise

[roxics]

What about this compromise.
Apple agrees to take only a 10% cut from apps without in-app purchases, but continues the 30% cut from those that do have in-app purchases.

Whatever gives us more apps without in-app purchases, I'm all for that.

 

[arlomedia]

Imagine being Target and letting all your products letting the customer know its cheaper elsewhere.

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.

 

[jinnj]

"The Netflix app, for example, does not use in-app purchases but is not able to direct users to sign up for a subscription through the iPhone or iPad apps, instead using vague language to inform users that it's just not possible to sign up in the app."
Almost like the App Developer (Netflix) has to do its own marketing to get subscriptions.

 

[jinnj]

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.

Let me correct that for you...

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your vendors from displaying advertisements to another store.

 

[aidler]

Trial rests with who better at arguing about the others relevant market.



vs



Source

And the definition brought forward by Apple is theoretical while the definition brought forward by Epic is practical.

Why? Because while what Apple says is theoretically true, it requires a market in which every consumer has every possible device category at the same time. This requirement is not practical. In reality, people often only have a smartphone (iOS or Android), a PC or a console. This is especially true in markets outside of the US or EU. If a consumer only owns a iPhone and wants to play Fortnite, he can only purchase the game in the App Store, and in this situation for him, Apple absolutely has a monopoly.

 

[Eso]

For the benefit of users and developers let’s pray Apple wins.

I don’t know which article you read, but the expert testimony highlighted here is pretty damning for Apple.

The statement from Epic’s expert implies a large degree of market power held by Apple. The judge‘s question probing for a potential solution was met with testimony that it would have no effect.

Apple’s expert, on the other hand, when asked by the judge how choice is bad for customers, responded with “because Apple gets let money”. Lol what? In other words, absolutely no response regarding customers. If you and I were making a bet, I ask how benefits me, and youre best repsense is just that the bet benefits you, then you have just proven that the bet is not in my best interest. Apple just played themselves.

Doesn’t even matter how this particular trial plays out - the writing is on the wall. There‘s way too many people looking at this now. Within five years, exclusive App Store distribution will not exist, it will be better for consumers overall, and all the doubters will move on.

 

[Lihp8270]

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.

Imagine being able to pay Walmart and take stock from Target.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t know which articles you read, but the expert testimony highlighted here is pretty damning for Apple.

The statement from Epic’s expert implies a large degree of market power held by Apple. The judge‘s question probing for a potential solution was met with testimony that it would have no effect.

Apple’s expert, on the other hand, when asked by the judge how choice is bad for customers, responded with “because Apple gets let money”. Lol what? In other words, absolutely no response regarding customers. If you and I were making a bet, I ask how benefits me, and youre best repsense is just that the bet benefits you, then you have just proven that the bet is not in my best interest. Apple just played themselves.

Doesn’t even matter how this particular trial plays out - the writing is on the wall. There‘s way too many people looking at this now. Within five years, exclusive App Store distribution will not exist, it will be better for consumers overall, and all the doubters will move in.

It doesn’t really matter what I’ve read. What matters is what the judge rules and then the appeals process and the outcome from that. And sure in 5 years things could look different, or not. And if so, maybe not to the betterment of consumers,

 

[Wags]

Let me correct that for you...

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your vendors from displaying advertisements to another store.

Imagine being Target and being sued by vendors that Target must carry their product and they will set the terms.

 

[bousozoku]

I always thought that it was strange that I couldn't just get my subscriptions through the third party company's web site when that was much easier.

I don't care if Apple gets a commission for hosting and promoting the app, but they don't provide the third party company's service, so they shouldn't get a cut of that.

 

[Anthony Sullivan]

If Epic wins and forces the iPhone to run any and every app store, iPhones will be instantly flooded with thousands of different viruses and developers will lose so much money to piracy that many are forced to shut down.

Suuuuure. Just like on macOS, right? Terrible, ridiculous argument.

 

[dynamojoe]

How is "give Epic what it wants" a compromise?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Interesting bit of telegraphing from the Judge, though. Building on the information already available from last week, all this week has been is folks from both sides just reiterating the same points from last week. No new info.

 

[TheDailyApple]

Suuuuure. Just like on macOS, right? Terrible, ridiculous argument.

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

 

[minimo3]

Apple is not applying their rules equitably. The rule needs to apply across all apps: so for example the Best Buy and amazon apps shouldn’t be allowed to let you pay for your purchases using a credit card separately. It has to be charged through your Apple account so that Apple can take its 30% cut of the oatmeal and ink cartridges that you purchased.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

How is "give Epic what it wants" a compromise?

That’s not what Epic wants. Epic wants more than that because they see a future were all major platforms sell games through their own stores and they want NONE of that. However, the Judge knows Epic’s not going to get that and is floating an idea that they MIGHT be able to get. They won’t, of course, but that provides an idea of how strong the Judge thinks Epic’s case is.

 

[tubular]

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.

... in the Target building.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

... in the Target building.

It’s almost like the game is “What examples are completely unlike Epic vs Apple?” 🙂

 

[dynamojoe]

More like they want to be able to advertise within their own app. Which seems like a reasonable request.

Not if you're a user. Eventually you'll have eighteen different stores on your phone with 18 different terms of service, 18 different organizations with your personal details, your payment info, all with different maintenance policies, different ad campaigns, etc. That's not a fair trade for saving 10% here and there on various purchases. Just think of all the bandwidth those stores will be sucking down in the background, updating a store you don't need only so you can have that one app that you can't get anywhere else.

Now double it for your ipad, your spouse's iDevice, maybe your kids....

 

[TheSynchronizer]

Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.

But this has to be in a universe where to access the Target store and experience, you need to buy a key for the building in which Target is in. This key is specifically made only by Target, and is the only one able to open the door.

Target owns this building and only wants it's own Target store to be in there, rather than a competing store which could sell potentially dangerous products.

The user knows about the restrictions of the building when they're deciding to buy the key, and they appreciate the quality standards provided by Target and they don't have to worry about potentially buying dangerous products.

 

[Mrjetsondc]

So the solutions is to allow Apps/Games to be free on the iOS store and tell them they can buy IAP and such outside of Apple?

Imagine being Target and letting all your products letting the customer know its cheaper elsewhere.

As a person who shops Target, it’s always cheaper anywhere other than Target

 

[frenchcamp49er]

I will only pay for anything app related via Apple's payment system. I'm sure I'm in the majority here. I will not trust that my financial information will as safe going through a third party vendor.

 

[Analog Kid]

Gonzalez Rogers hinted that she might aim for a compromise

I haven’t read the full transcript, but this was just a question as far as I can tell, not a proposed compromise.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

This will kill off the free app economy. Apple will and should charge the developer to host the app. Like in a mall, they should charge rent and collect a portion of the profits.

 

[Rogifan]

So the solutions is to allow Apps/Games to be free on the iOS store and tell them they can buy IAP and such outside of Apple?

Imagine being Target and letting all your products letting the customer know its cheaper elsewhere.

What products at Target are free?