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
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
There are issues with letting app developers direct payments outside.
1) Abuse of the app store: Developers would make every app "free" and direct all transactions outside of the app store to cut Apple out, thus apple shoulders all the expense of maintaining the store but doesn't collect any revenue to cover this expense.
2) Abuse of users: A Free app, that is verified "clean" and non-abusive by apple, but has a call-out to a external website for in-app purchases, this website then can be malicious, stealing credit card info, etc... but can "piggy back" on the verified (by apple) reputation of the free app.
this isn't about what EPIC would do, they are a "reputable" company, but they want the rules relaxed which would allow malicious actors an attack vector.
1) Abuse of the app store: Developers would make every app "free" and direct all transactions outside of the app store to cut Apple out, thus apple shoulders all the expense of maintaining the store but doesn't collect any revenue to cover this expense.
2) Abuse of users: A Free app, that is verified "clean" and non-abusive by apple, but has a call-out to a external website for in-app purchases, this website then can be malicious, stealing credit card info, etc... but can "piggy back" on the verified (by apple) reputation of the free app.
this isn't about what EPIC would do, they are a "reputable" company, but they want the rules relaxed which would allow malicious actors an attack vector.
Most businesses share bank account details so I assume it’s pretty safe for the seller but in no way for the buyer.
I think the "best " solution that also preserves the integrity of the app store would be to allow side-loading of apps, but via a setting in the settings app that comes with a very stern warning about the possible dangers.
any of the other solutions that diminish the control of the app store are dangerous to consumers.
- like forcing Target to allow other vendors' "booths" in their store with out any cut, and without the ability to verify the vendors aren't scams! This would confuse consumers, as they will "trust" these vendors because they trust Target, and these vendors are IN Target, but are un-related, and possibly scams.
Really non factors. both your points exist even today with Apple's current system
1) There are no shortage of App's on the App store today that are "FREE" but feature all transactions as in-App purchases. And you're wrong about who incurrs the expense. Post initial App download, Apple is no longer involved. When you purchase something in app, you may use Apple's payment processing, but the servers that back the digital content being distributed are now provided by the app developers. Apple is only handling the transaction. And Apple already made money up front as developing and submitting to Apple's iOS app store is not free. Apple collects this up front already.
2) This is also already the case with Apple apps. There have been a few that I've installed directly from the App store that were 100% legitimate. But when you used them a full screen add which is a image or picture from an external source is loaded
there are GOOD arguments for iOS app store lock down. These two aren't them.
One could argue that: tickets to a concert - which is a physical location, Housecleaning which is a physical act, photography which usually are physical prints ARE physical goods.
"are you sure you want to do this"
"THIS WILL VOID YOUR WARRANTY"
"LAST CHANCE! SEE http://apple.com/knowyourrisk for your risks!"
then if the user presses a 4th time they can..
this is an easy solution. But Apple won't do it because the App store policies are more around governing revenue and gatekeeping and not actually protecting us.
Anyone whose dived through the App Store in recent years will see the plethora of crap that already exists.
How is this relevant to the EPIC case?
And if you think it is relevant, may I know how you think this problem will be resolved with more app stores?
I like the way things are with Apple and prefer them to stay the way they are. The way things are is one of the reasons I choose iOS over the joke that is Android.
I'm not sure about this: (but I may be confused)
for #2) having an app direct you to an external payment system even via an ad is against the app-store rules, and is the basis for the specific argument in this article. Now, possibly some apps may "get-away-with-it" by slipping through the cracks, but that's not the same as it being allowed.
for #1) Yes, "AFTER" the initial download, any further resources that may be loaded come from the developer "i.e in game V-Bucks" but that's not exactly what I'm talking about.
What I am saying is that: if the rules change to allow for external links for payment, what a developer could do is
A) Publish the FULL and COMPLETE app on the app store for "FREE" with just a lock-out feature - think "license key"
- This causes apple to have to host this app and handle the data transfer of the app to the devices, the store, the searches, the ratings, etc....
B) Direct users to an external payment system that "unlocks" the app.
- this cuts apple out of the payments.
The reason for #2 - seems obvious to me, that all payments on an apple device need to go through Apple as a verified and trusted payment handler, not allowing "other" payment methods protects users (I know users can still reach other payment vendors on the web, but users MUST go and find those directly through their action as opposed to "Click this link")
For #1, to me, this is a logical outgrowth of allowing "free" apps, by apple allowing "free" apps (and ad-supported apps) Apple is hosting these apps for "free" (I know there is a $100 sign up charge but that is such a tiny number). If apple will host apps for free, they need a way to prevent every app from just being "free" with some sort of outside payment system.
Last edited:
Why don't you do your own due diligence and read the response I was replying to.
I’m sure the Epic lawyers would love to be able to employ this argument “your honor, Fortnite is a entertainment product employed in a physical location (couch in living room, subway) hence it should not be subject to Apple’s in-app purchase rules”
But that would KILL free apps and Ad-Supported apps. Which is where small developers make their living.
But you consume the entertainment 1) on your device as opposed to in-person, 2) Your Livingroom is not under the general control of the selling party (as opposed to a concert venue, which is - Specifically: Ticket master is the contracted selling vender for the concert promoter, who has rented the exclusive access to the venue for the date/time in question) I think everyone can tell the difference between watching a movie in your own home vs watching a movie in a theater.
I think that would work.
I do understand the desire for developers and consumers to get apps outside of the store, I and also understand the need to have a safe-and-secure store that is vetted, curated, and most importantly, has a single controlled payment system.
This seems like the "best-of-both-worlds" solution.
Technical people who know their risks (or think they do) can get the apps they want
Less-technical people will still be protected.
(I actually don't even think it needs to "void your warranty" 😁)
Sounds like a good compromise if this comes into ruling.
It will of course force Apple to come out with app hosting plans, you know, like website hosting. They should always be payed for hosting and distributing the apps.
It will of course force Apple to come out with app hosting plans, you know, like website hosting. They should always be payed for hosting and distributing the apps.
This isn't a compromise. All apps would be free in the App store with IAPs to unlock full functionality. Apple loses all benefits while providing a platform and services to it's users. This is essentially you walking into Best Buy, picking up your product, walking out and afterwards paying the product's company directly. Best Buy would go out of business. This would mean the end of the App Store. That's bad for Apple's customers. The judge should consider the customers, not the greedy businesses.
As long as it's reasonable.
Hosting images and bandwidth for app downloads is nearly negligible.
Apple would never charge a negligible yet reasonable price.
Epic is also suing Google for doing this very thing. They tried distributing Fortnite as a downloadable APK from their website. Once customers saw the security warnings, many decided against installing the app. Epic was unhappy about this and sued. Google does enforce it's commission rates in the Play Store for games specifically. Epic could launch EGS for Android, but there would be security warnings around that as well, and Epic doesn't want that either.
Epic wants the low friction the App Store and Play Store provide, while contributing nothing back to the platforms. Perhaps they feel that they are being gracious by developing UE for mobile, and therefore deserve an exemption.
I totally understand security reasons. I however will respectfully disagree. There are ways to handle side loading safely, like they have done on macOS.
Simply by allowing apps to register with Apple by signing the app with a certificate will allow killing the apps from users running them on their devices. This is a tactic Apple does employ on macOS to keep apps not installed through the Mac App Store accountable.
They can easily take it a step further by making it where they want to access sensitive, ie Health data, they must register with Apple as well and using the same principle of certificate signing. Again, revoke apps privileges when they break the terms that Apple has set forth for their users.
So, in terms of security, this is not an argument. These devices are such powerful tools. I can totally develop on the new iPad with the M1 chip. There are ways to ensure I’m not getting malicious code. Let me create amazing things Apple on the devices I pay them for.
I’m not saying Epic should be allowed to advertise outside sales if they distributed their app through the App Store. That’s just like saying a milk company can stand in Walmart and ask Walmart’s customer to sign up directly with the milk company for home delivery.
If Epic stores my credit card information correctly, I’ll leave the Payment Card Information (PCI) folks deal with handling Epic and the right people to hold Epic accountable. I can’t control the fact that it happens.
Data points to Apple users use Apple features. Apple Pay is becoming the more dominate way to pay for things on the web, in app (not In-App Purchases) and in person. If Epic wants a higher close rate for selling their season passes with an App outside of the App Store, they should be able to consider the loss of Apple Pay success metrics but they should have the opportunity to capture metrics and measure themselves.
Now let’s say Epic is selling their app / season pass by side loading and they discover that they get a 10% close rate instead of 80% (making up numbers here as a sample), then Epic should be able to tap the Apple Pay API but Apple should be able to charge them to process the payment much like Stripe, Square and more. If Epic gets compromise, Apple pulls their certificate and payments for their users stop processing until Epic addresses it and takes care of the users.
Apple needs to move services model much like AWS because that’ll increase competitiveness and probably actually grow their services portfolio. Let developers pick between 30% flat fee and get access to all APIs like we do now but also allow me to pay per transaction but give me a free quota like AWS, Azure and Google Cloud Platform does to play around with their APIs.
Web services are big business, just ask AWS. Apple can make a ton. We need more players in that space to make stuff competitive because AWS has a hold on this market.