Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise

[Nica]

Apple should just charge Epic for using its tools and hosting their apps. Do the same with Netflix Amazon etc
Then they can use whatever the hell they want with the end user and call it a day
Use the App Store and it’s payment? “Free” tools and hosting
Isn’t this how the world used to work? Am I missing something?

 

[James Godfrey]

I just feel like this situation is similar to sellers using PayPal on eBay…

Someone has a lamp available on eBay for £50, but it advertises if you pay by bank transfer you can have it for £40… they have now incentivised that customer to pay them by a method which is not secure for them and for the savings of £10 they are now at risk of being scammed.

At the end of the day, we could argue what gives PayPal the right to monopolise on the sales of peoples items items by charging them a percentage of what they sell their item for… they have that right because they offer any potential buyers a more secure method of payment where they are guaranteed their item or their money back and in return the seller is more likely to sell their item for a higher price.

-

As much as Apple needs apps for their App Store, those app developers also need the App Store in order for it to be worth creating the App in the first place… it’s a two way street… one can’t exist without the other.

I think what would be a great middle ground to this is, primarily apps must charge consumers through the app, but they can advertise an alternative method of payment through their website etc… however, those prices on the developers website should not be lower than the App… as really this will again result in an unfair competition situation and technically having lower prices on their website etc is encouraging customers to make a payment through a potentially more vulnerable platform.

As consumers we should not have to pay more to pay via the app but we should have the choice of how we would like to pay…

Through the App - More secure, however, the developer will get less money.

Through the developers website - Potentially less secure, but it will support the developer as they will get more money.

 

[Pmaddocks86]

Let me correct that for you...

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

Let me rephrase that for you...

Imagine being target and being told you have to let vendors advertise other stores in YOUR store...

 

[CthuluLemon]

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

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.

 

[Sarkany]

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

Because it’s a crap platform that brings little profit to developers. Everybody with a working brain wants a PC.

 

[Jony Ive and Co.]

A compromise is not good enough. I want to see Epic bashed and that bitchy faced Tim Sweeney lose like a stupid loser. Apple must win.

 

[VCCmain]

Epic winning is bad for small and medium sized developers. Only Epic and fellow multi billion dollar companies would benefit from Epic winning.

This is simply not true. Can you offer any empirical evidence on how this will damage or be bad for small business? Epic can "win" in a lot of different ways, maybe the result the judge hands down won't effect small businesses directly. But it shouldn't be a detriment to them if epic is able to curb apples cut of profit. Only set a precedent so that other smaller companies would require less money to fight their day in court with apple. They stand to make the case more clear cut on how the app store exploits developers for their work.

Taking android as an example of how options can exist outside the preinstalled Google play store, can you provide any empirical evidence on how by offering this option android has damaged or hurt small business? I might be missing something here so I welcome the debate.

 

[VCCmain]

A compromise is not good enough. I want to see Epic bashed and that bitchy faced Tim Sweeney lose like a stupid loser. Apple must win.

Why are you so vicious in your rhetoric? Why can you not stand debate on this issue?

 

[AussieSimon]

Why can you not stand debate on this issue?

I agree that this user's rhetoric is infantile, but when did they claim that they wanted to shut down debate? Plenty of people have said they want Epic to win; are they unable to stand debate on the issue either?

 

[urmaster]

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.

Again this doesn’t make sense; the developer of the app controls the links they put in their app - they will not include scam links. There are already thousands of apps on the store that accept third party payments successfully.

eBay and Amazon were just examples of big apps, there are plenty out there. Some own the payment mechanism others don’t but it changes nothing - the app will decide which payment system they integrate with and not include a scam and miss out on payments.

 

[PJWilkin]

If someone gets defrauded because of one of these alternate payment methods, they blame Apple, or even sue Apple

the risks to Apple are quite high if alternatives are allowed

 

[Sunshoopa]

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.

If someone gets defrauded because of one of these alternate payment methods, they blame Apple, or even sue Apple

the risks to Apple are quite high if alternatives are allowed

Does Google get sued for this stuff? No.

 

[Tavicu]

What?? How did you make that leap of logic? Why would an app direct you to a scam and miss out on the payment they want? Do you see eBay directing their customers away from PayPal or Amazon away from Amazon payments?

No, those apps will not do it! But scamming apps will. And now if you have a problem with an app like this Apple will help you and refund the money. Who will help you when you pay elsewere? Your bank? Maybe.

But with apple you get the money back in minutes. With your bank it's a long process and don't even know if it works!

 

[urmaster]

No, those apps will not do it! But scamming apps will. And now if you have a problem with an app like this Apple will help you and refund the money. Who will help you when you pay elsewere? Your bank? Maybe.

But with apple you get the money back in minutes. With your bank it's a long process and don't even know if it works!

Yes I agree, scamming apps will like they do today. But that wasn’t the scenario put by the OP.
The assertion was third party payments will lead to scams which is false; scammers will lead to scams. There is nothing inherently wrong with third party payments.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Epic only wins by getting their store on iOS.

By doing that they can leverage Sony and Microsoft to allow them to do the same to PlayStation and Xbox.

Given their 75% player share of Fortnite's user base this is Epic's real endgame.

 

[bobmans]

Epic only wins by getting their store on iOS.

By doing that they can leverage Sony and Microsoft to allow them to do the same to PlayStation and Xbox.

Given their 75% player share of Fortnite's user base this is Epic's real endgame.

This. Epic doesn't care about the 30% cut, their one and only end-goal is having their own store so they can be the ones charging others a %'age.

 

[Abazigal]

I am not sure how this can be seen as a compromise.

Epic has nothing to lose, so any concession by Apple is by definition a victory.

Apple has nothing to gain going into the lawsuit. Any concession by them is by definition a loss.

The only outcome I will accept is that Apple wins the lawsuit and epic remains barred from the App Store. Oh and make them pay for Apple’s legal fees while at it.

 

[SurferPup]

If a company does not want to abide by Apple's rules then  should brick their apps from the App Store and those companies can advertise whatever they like on their own website. If it was my App Store then I would not concede on my 30% cut for all of the development, maintenance, moderating and support that I provided. As a consumer I like the security and privacy that the  App Store provides to me.

 

[threesixty360]

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?

 

[BuffaloTF]

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

You do realize that macOS requires an Apple signing key to satisfy Gatekeeper, right?

Sure, you can ignore the Gatekeeper with superuser access, but who does that? Virtually nobody, because that's how malware gets installed, exclusively.

 

[BvizioN]

For the benefit of users and developers let us pray Epic wins.

Let me put your mind at ease. They won't.

 

[LWGShane]

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

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.

If Epic wins, all of the apps will soon be free, letting Apple to do all of the distribution / maintenance heavy-lifting without charge

Do you all even realize that Apple already charges $100/year for its Developer Program?

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.

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

 

[BuffaloTF]

That's not even remotely accurate. Fortnite players connect to Epic servers from which they can purchase virtual goods produced by Epic, which are hosted by Epic and distributed utilizing bandwidth paid for by Epic from said servers. Yet somehow Apple demands to be entitled to 30% of goods that are being created, hosted, maintained, and distributed by other parties from other properties? Um, no. That's ridiculous - it's like buying a cell phone at Target and then Target demanding a 30% cut of your phone bill from the carrier.

If Apple believes they are entitled to payment, then it should be for services that they are actually providing, namely hosting and distributing the App. And before you bemoan about how Apple created a platform and XYZ - Apple is not some benevolent entity sending blessings down to developer and making them millions. A software platform needs apps or it's a non-starter, as Microsoft knows all too well. Apple knows it too, which is why they sold iPhone on the back of "there's an app for that" for years.

They provide more than a POS system......

 

[BuffaloTF]

I just feel like this situation is similar to sellers using PayPal on eBay…

Someone has a lamp available on eBay for £50, but it advertises if you pay by bank transfer you can have it for £40… they have now incentivised that customer to pay them by a method which is not secure for them and for the savings of £10 they are now at risk of being scammed.

I feel like that needs to be stressed more. By doing your own bank transfer, you've now exposed your account to the seller. A bad actor could initiate a direct debit against you. Having Apple, or really anyone, stand in the middle -- you've got 1 touch point and that Enterprise is going to have all kinds of Treasury services like zero balance sweeping, ACH Debit Blocks and Positive Pay to prevent them from suffering the same fate.

 

[1262385]

For the benefit of users and developers let us pray Epic wins.

Gosh, this is an astonishingly bad take.