I'm also wondering more and more if this case is largely irrelevant (outside of the case it builds) as it seems more and more this battle is going to be decided on initial appeal or beyond. Perhaps even in Congress, other national entities, or supernational unions. Everyone seems to want to weigh-in on this and related concerns.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. Maybe they should charge large developers that want to use these tools and not pay significant annual fee based directly on those investments plus 15% that number will also include the cost and support of free apps on the store. That way any court case filed after would be moot. The thing is, I believe these costs will be higher that what they pay now which would be awesome!
Just allow side loading apps. Don’t support the side loaded apps at all. Let people get viruses, lose data, experience instability, etc. Most people appreciate the walled garden for what it is, and if you want to reach those people you need to play by the rules.
A small minority want their iPhone open to whatever software they want. Let them go.
A small minority want their iPhone open to whatever software they want. Let them go.
The courts will decide these questions. Not me not you and also not Apple.
But all things considered it stands to reason that more competition will lead to better solutions and products and will even benefit Apple in the long run.
I like the security of paying through the App Store. I also appreciate it from an accounting standpoint: all of my subscriptions and purchases in one spot, where I can easily cancel any time I want. Allowing purchases off the store and not also forcing thr developer to also make purchases available from the store is anti-consumer.
As far as kids, it’s easy for parents to monitor what the kids buy. With off store purchasing, it becomes more to manage.
I hope Epic gets the big smack down on this one.
As far as kids, it’s easy for parents to monitor what the kids buy. With off store purchasing, it becomes more to manage.
I hope Epic gets the big smack down on this one.
The courts will decide on existing laws, not on opinions.
I’m all for competition, but it must also be based on your own work. EPIC is not competing with Apple. EPIC wants a free ride because they can make more profit.
Apple is competing with other players in the market for customers. Others can develop solution that compete with Apple. Forcing open to open up iOS so that others can get a free ride IMHO is wrong.
I don’t think you have explained why you think iOS should be opened to allow others to build their own platform.
But is it really another "store" if Netflix simply lets you purchase a new subscription inside the app like they used to?
When I hear "store" I think of the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Or an alternative store like Cydia or whatever. It's a singular place where you can purchase multiple items.
I don't think of a "Netflix Store" or "Spotify Store" in this context. What are they gonna have... one item each?
Ok... maybe a few items. Spotify Premium or Spotify Family Plan. Or the various Netflix plans.
All these big developers want is to let people buy digital subscriptions inside the app without having to pay 30%. Or let them advertise their website or whatever. I think that is where the compromise needs to be made.
I hope we don't get to the place you describe... where you can only buy certain apps on "Jim's App Store" because some developer got a cheaper "deal" to sell his app there.
Yes... that will be a nightmare.
Last edited:
“why it would be bad for customers to have choice” answer: “Cause it would harm Apple tax …” So funny.
Apple is just drop dead stupid - but every monopolist is before regulation kicks in.
So there is an easy solution to the - problem. Apple can add more options
- free account, everything stays as it is
- paid service including up to 3 Apps and a certain amount of push notifications. It would be much like AWS, just pay for the services you use. There also could an InApp payment service, if you want to use it, pay for it.
Apple will loose, the only thing in question is the price Apple has to pay. It would be smart if Apple would change its rules before it gets regulated - but monopolists never do.
Epic case, the EU antitrust commission cares about Spotify/Apple right at the moment, the U.S. antitrust commission has a look. And Tim Cook still thinks Apple can win this game?
Apple is just drop dead stupid - but every monopolist is before regulation kicks in.
So there is an easy solution to the - problem. Apple can add more options
- free account, everything stays as it is
- paid service including up to 3 Apps and a certain amount of push notifications. It would be much like AWS, just pay for the services you use. There also could an InApp payment service, if you want to use it, pay for it.
Apple will loose, the only thing in question is the price Apple has to pay. It would be smart if Apple would change its rules before it gets regulated - but monopolists never do.
Epic case, the EU antitrust commission cares about Spotify/Apple right at the moment, the U.S. antitrust commission has a look. And Tim Cook still thinks Apple can win this game?
Because Apple won’t let them host the app themselves. Epic has made abundantly clear that if Apple doesn’t want to host Epic’s app with Epic’s payment system, it would be happy to host it itself, whether that be through direct distribution or (preferably for Epic) its own game store.
This entire case stems from Epic adding its own in-app payment system to Fortnite where the price of Vbucks was set at $7.99 for Epic payments and $9.99 for Apple IAP. It’s 20% lower, not 30%, which makes some degree of sense because Epic’s transaction costs don’t go to zero with its own payment system, when considering things like credit card transaction fees, currency exchange rates/fees, support/refunds, etc.
Epic do this, their unreal engine is free till you make $1 million. Then they charge 5% of your global gross.
What if there was a grace period of, say, 2 years for an app to make its transactions through the App Store, following which they would be allowed to advertise for purchases made elsewhere? At least that would allow the company to build up trust with Apple.
It’s not free though, developers pay for annual membership.
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.
Also if purchases were possible outside of Apple’s system, it would force Apple to compete on price, which would likely lower the price substantially. It’s really not that difficult for developers or users to make payments via paypal or square. In fact it might actually be easier. Competition would be good.
Last edited:
I agree. Apple should allow side-loading apps. Apple should also charge a per-copy license fee for every app built using Apple's iOS APIs and development tools. Let's say $5 per copy. And the fee is waived if you distribute through Apple's App Store.
In all seriousness, I think Apple should consider moving to a 10% cut for all developers. Except for games, where Apple should match whatever percentage Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo charge in their game stores.
If Fortnite is a free to play game and V-Bucks is a virtual currency only usable in the game, what exactly is Epic's issue?
I'm not entirely sure how users benefit at all if Epic wins. The user will likely pay the exact same fees they do now. More of that money just goes into Epic's pocket. How does that benefit the user?
I see very little way Epic can win this case. They went about it in the completely wrong way. Apple had every right to kick them out for violating the agreement that Epic signed and agreed to.
Plus as a developer and user myself I don't want Epic to win. Apple has created one of the most lucrative platforms to develop apps for and you may not like the rules but they do in fact work for a lot of developers. Sometimes in order to get sales you have to pay up.
For example one could try to sell an app on their own and lets just say sell 100 copies of their app but they get 100% of those sales. Lets say the app is $10 just to make this easy. Thats $1,000, woohoo.
Now lets say because of the popularity, trust from users and market share that the same app sells 1000 copies on the App Store but you pay Apple 30%. You now made $7,000 vs selling the app on your own or 7x. Yes theoretically if you could have sold 1000 copies of the app on your own you would have made $10,000 but that likely isn't going to happen. Statistically things like that just didn't happen all that well.
So yes apple takes a cut but many developers see opportunities they just never had before we had the App Store. They also see potentially better revenue for popular apps. Take Angry Birds for example. Good game that sold a lot of copies. How many would have been sold if the company just sold it off their website? Likely nowhere near as many copies that sold in app stores.
Retail has always been about spending money to get products in front of customers. Thats how it all works. Sometimes that advertising costs and sometimes its product placement and distribution through stores. Even something like a Farmers Market has rules and not just anybody can show up and pitch a stand without contributing to the market itself.
By passing IAP basically means any app intended to earn money can say screw Apple and use their on IAP system. This means apple now makes nothing and can no longer afford to provide the same quality control experience for users. There will be 1001 tutorials online by the end of the week on how developers can no longer pay anything to Apple. The quality of the App Store will suffer as will the peace of mind and trust users have of iOS and the App Store. This could lead to reduced revenue for all developers as users just stop buying apps.
Be very careful what you wish for. A walled garden also means a well kept and enjoyable garden to many. The concept of a closed walled system is not as disliked as some think it is. Many users actually prefer the simplicity of a single store and the utmost attention to detail and security. Thats part of the appeal of iOS over Android to many users.
Surely the following could be a compromise where both companies could benefit in some way however small depending on the user’s choice.
1. Developers must keep the in-app payment option so that users who feel safer within the garden can pay apple/google the 30%.
2. As the in-app payment system is in place, Apple/Google will allow the developer to have a link/button to their (let’s say fortnite) web-app/website where they can discount goods to incentivise customers to give more money to the developers. *
* The caveat to number 2 is that they must have Apple Pay/Google Pay as an option of payment.
This means the following:-
- Users get the choice of paying for items in-app or on a web-app which still has a safe payment system (Apple Pay)
- Developers get the chance of having a bigger cut than the current system.
- Apple/Google still get’s a cut of the transactions. (Essentially treating the game items the same as items from retail stores)
1. Developers must keep the in-app payment option so that users who feel safer within the garden can pay apple/google the 30%.
2. As the in-app payment system is in place, Apple/Google will allow the developer to have a link/button to their (let’s say fortnite) web-app/website where they can discount goods to incentivise customers to give more money to the developers. *
* The caveat to number 2 is that they must have Apple Pay/Google Pay as an option of payment.
This means the following:-
- Users get the choice of paying for items in-app or on a web-app which still has a safe payment system (Apple Pay)
- Developers get the chance of having a bigger cut than the current system.
- Apple/Google still get’s a cut of the transactions. (Essentially treating the game items the same as items from retail stores)
But is it really another "store" if Netflix simply lets you purchase a new subscription inside the app like they used to?
When I hear "store" I think of the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Or an alternative store like Cydia or whatever. It's a singular place where you can purchase multiple items.
I don't think of a "Netflix Store" or "Spotify Store" in this context. What are they gonna have... one item each?
Ok... maybe a few items. Spotify Premium or Spotify Family Plan. Or the various Netflix plans.
All these big developers want is to let people buy digital subscriptions inside the app without having to pay 30%. Or let them advertise their website or whatever. I think that is where the compromise needs to be made.
I hope we don't get to the place you describe... where you can only buy certain apps on "Jim's App Store" because some developer got a cheaper "deal" to sell his app there.
Yes... that will be a nightmare.
If you sell an app on the AppStore, you pay a 30% fee. If you provide an app for free, you pay 30% of $0.
If you offer an in-app subscription, you pay a 30% fee. If your subscriber comes through other channels, you pay 30% of $0.
What is going to happen if Apple allows apps to advertise alternate payment options? Devs are all going to think they can make an extra 30% by offering their apps for free on the AppStore and directing users to purchase their subscription through another channel. The AppStore collapses due to lack of revenue.
Although I agree with the sentiment, apple already allows this to happen already, I really don’t like the options, like location ‘allow only once’ there should be an ‘access contacts on device only’ (no uploaded to servers allowed), it’s too all or nothing at the moment.
If this gets passed then Apple could just say “Ok. Any app that has less than 10,000 downloads gets in for free. Any app that has up to 1,000,000 downloads must pay £10,000,000 to be on our AppStore. Any app that has more than £1,000,001 downloads must pay £1,000,000,000 to be on our App Store. You’ll soon see developers like epic crying about this. How can it be that a company creates an App Store and somebody who uses it and has made hundreds of billions out of it, now wants the rules changing and to dictate what the company created. It’s complete rubbish. Apple made it. Apple owns it. Their store. Their rules. End of story.
Even with the current setup, with Apple controlling what's in the App Store, it's still filled with so much anti-user apps. Games that display ads every 30 seconds! It's absolutely disgusting how much junk is allowed in the App Store. Imagine if the walls are torn down. It will be a nightmare to sift through all the money-grubbing apps. User experience and satisfaction be damned!
And how much money will Apple have to pay responding to customer complaints about payments executed outside of their store? There's a cost to this, too.
And how much money will Apple have to pay responding to customer complaints about payments executed outside of their store? There's a cost to this, too.
Your logic is flawed. eBay and Amazon control the payment links, not the vendor. What Epic, etc. want is to direct the user to some arbitrary payment processor that Apple has no control over. With that capability in place, guaranteed that nefarious developers will abuse it to send users to dangerous destinations.
Any link to the outside world is vulnerable to exploitation.