Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise

"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.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: IG88, PlainBelliedSneetch, 0924487 and 1 other person
Realityck said:
Trial rests with who better at arguing about the others relevant market.



vs



Source
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VCCmain, JKAussieSkater and InfoTime
I7guy said:
For the benefit of users and developers let’s pray Apple wins.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: RedTheReader, PC_tech, IG88 and 8 others
Eso said:
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.
Click to expand...
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,
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JagRunner
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dguisinger
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: VCCmain, JagRunner, Stewie and 2 others
dynamojoe said:
How is "give Epic what it wants" a compromise?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jynto
rjohnstone said:
More like they want to be able to advertise within their own app. Which seems like a reasonable request.
Click to expand...

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....
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: nzsilverfox, JagRunner, Altivec88 and 1 other person
arlomedia said:
Imagine being Target and prohibiting your customers from visiting any other store.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GizmoDVD said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a person who shops Target, it’s always cheaper anywhere other than Target
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: BeABetterApple, TheDailyApple, daleroe and 1 other person
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nzsilverfox and brentsg
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nzsilverfox
GizmoDVD said:
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.
Click to expand...
What products at Target are free?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hot-gril
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back