Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods

[Mockletoy]

More competition/choice for the consumer is always welcome.

When I read threads like this I always take a moment to wonder how many of the people defending Apple’s monopolistic bullying used to sit around feeling all smug because they were Apple customers who didn’t do business with that awful monopolist Microsoft. How many of them rooted for every court case to break against Microsoft and force them to behave like decent corporate citizens?

More than a few, I’d wager.

Apple has become what it used to mock. It’s sad but not surprising how many of those who used to “Think Different” don’t seem to care or even notice.

 

[mrochester]

This ruling is literally the proof that it is an option.

Everybody is already allowed to not use Apple's system right now (see Spotify, Netflix, ...).

Everybody will be allowed to link to external payment sites in the future.

The direct conclusion: Everyone will be allowed to not use Apple's system and link to their own system instead.

What is so hard to understand about this? Just because they use Apple's system now doesn't mean they are somehow forced to keep it.

Which is why apple will need to implement a commission/audit system to replace the lost revenue from IAP.

Some people seem aghast that Apple would dare to try and make money from their App Store service…

 

[Nitrokev2]

How do they expect Apple to code this so quickly?

it can probably be done in less than a day, its just a link to a website

 

[boss.king]

This ruling is literally the proof that it is an option.

Everybody is already allowed to not use Apple's system right now (see Spotify, Netflix, ...).

Everybody will be allowed to link to external payment sites in the future.

The direct conclusion: Everyone will be allowed to not use Apple's system and link to their own system instead.

What is so hard to understand about this? Just because they use Apple's system now doesn't mean they are somehow forced to keep it.

The only apps you’ve listed are reader apps that already have their own special set of rules.

You’re drawing a conclusion from incomplete data. Everyone is allowed to link to an external payment solution. That doesn’t meant they’re exempt from also including Apple’s payment solution.

I’ve explained this to you half a dozen times now. If you still want to be outraged over nothing, go ahead.

 

[Mockletoy]

Which is why apple will need to implement a commission/audit system to replace the lost revenue from IAP.

Some people seem aghast that Apple would dare to try and make money from their App Store service…

There’s “trying to make money” and then there’s comically over-the-top greed.

They went too far in the latter direction and now they’ve been smacked down.

It’s a good first step.

 

[mrochester]

it can probably be done in less than a day, its just a link to a website

How does the App Store know to release the IAP to the customer if the payment has been made via an external mechanism?

 

[alex2792]

it can probably be done in less than a day, its just a link to a website

I know right, there are only like 2 software engineers on the planet who are familiar with the esoteric concept known as hyperlinks. It will obviously take decades to implement.

 

[mrochester]

There’s “trying to make money” and then there’s comically over-the-top greed.

They went too far in the latter direction and now they’ve been smacked down.

It’s a good first step.

Theres nothing wrong with being successful.

It feels a lot like some people are pissed because they believe Apple makes so-called ’too much money‘ rather than having an actual genuine competitive concern.

 

[MrDerby01]

AWESOME! More and more people are starting to see through apple's smoke and mirrors, there monopolistic behaviors. These types of monsters will never have the consumer's best interest.

 

[clarencek]

Laws, yes. Laws are meant to control bad behavior. Nothing Apple is doing here is bad, or anti-competitive, or stifling innovation. This is a case of the law punishing hard work and innovation.

Well that’s debatable and what this whole thing is about. You don’t think apple is doing anything wrong but there are devs that do not like their rules.
The same case could have been made with the Microsoft monopoly in the 90s.. and see what happened there.

 

[tann]

Silly question, but how does Apple know that the payment has been made so that the IAP can be unlocked/downloaded if the payment is via a third party?

They don't need to know. IAPs are often just code, e.g. in game "gold".

It's like if I open the pizza hut app and order a pizza, I might choose to pay via paypal, how does pizza hut know you have paid?

Devs will code it and hook in the payment to their service, Apple doesn't need to know.

 

[clarencek]

They don't need to code anything. They just need to allow hyperlinks

Of course they do. If a subscription or payment is purchased outside the store they have to adjust the platform to allow external subscription integration.

 

[genovelle]

Following a virtual hearing earlier today, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has denied Apple's request to delay the implementation of a permanent injunction that will require Apple to make significant App Store changes.

As part of the judgement in the Apple v. Epic lawsuit, Judge Gonzalez Rogers is requiring Apple to allow developers to add in-app links to outside websites, paving the way for alternate payment options that do not require developers to use the in-app purchase system.

In the original ruling, Apple was given 90 days to implement the changes. Apple in October filed a request asking for more time, and the Cupertino company ultimately wanted to wait to implement any new App Store features until all appeals in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit have concluded.

Apple's request was denied and judge is not providing Apple with any additional time to add the requested App Store functionality, so the changes will need to be made by December 9. Based on the wording of the initial ruling, Apple will be prohibited from restricting developers from including "in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms."

Judge Gonzalez Rogers' said that Apple wanted "an open-ended stay with no requirement that it make an effort to comply," and that there are "multiple avenues" for Apple to comply with the injunction while protecting users.Gonzalez Rogers also said that app developers should be able to choose to use the in-app purchase system or another system. "Consumer information, transparency, and consumer choice is in the interest of the public," she wrote.

Apple attempted to argue that making changes to the App Store rules could "upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the ‌App Store‌," resulting in irreparable harm to Apple and consumers, but that argument was not successful. Apple was also not successful in its argument that it needed more time to work through "the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues" that the required change would cause.

Apple told The Verge that it will appeal to the Ninth Circuit for a stay after being denied by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. "Apple believes no additional business changes should be required to take effect until all appeals in this case are resolved. We intend to ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay based on these circumstances," the spokesperson said.

Along with the request to stay the injunction, Apple in October filed an appeal against the ruling that is requiring it to change the App Store rules, but that appeal may not be able to play out before the December 9 deadline.

Article Link: Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods

So a judge can tell Walmart to allow customers to buy items from target through their website ?

 

[mrochester]

They don't need to know. IAPs are often just code, e.g. in game "gold".

It's like if I open the pizza hut app and order a pizza, I might choose to pay via paypal, how does pizza hut know you have paid?

Devs will code it and hook in the payment to their service, Apple doesn't need to know.

What happens if the IAP is to unlock a new bit of content? Is the content already there in the app and thus Apple doesn’t need to know about it being unlocked or is the content downloaded from Apple servers when the payment is made and I presume apple would then need to know the payment has been made?

 

[Jason111001]

On this site people seem happy when rulings go against Apple.

Personally I am happy to have Apple handle payments for apps. I don’t want to have to turn over my credit card information to 20 different apps and be worried about data breaches all the time. Also I trust Apple more to refund me for issues than random developers.

I agree 100%. Plus Apple makes managing subscriptions super easy keeping them all in one place and clearly showing when they expire and give you a heads up before renewing and charging you.

If an app doesn’t offer Apple as payment method and takes me out of the system; I won’t buy it.

 

[genovelle]

Many companies don't want to deal with the risk of storing credit card information too and use payment gateways like Mastercard's MPGS.

I think you can still choose to pay via Apple after such changes in app store.

Personally I think 30% for things like magazine subscription is way too much and I prefer a larger share going to the actual content creators.

These companies have the option to market to find their own customers instead of wanting Apple’s marketing of their platform to drive them. They don’t have to Pay apple a cent for customers they acquire on their own via their website or social media.

 

[Mockletoy]

Theres nothing wrong with being successful.

It feels a lot like some people are pissed because they believe Apple makes so-called ’too much money‘ rather than having an actual genuine competitive concern.

Of course there’s something wrong with being too successful. That’s why all these countries around the world have laws strictly regulating monopolistic behavior.

Laws, by the way, that Apple and its devotees found quite laudatory not too long ago when they were being used to bring Microsoft to heel.

Microsoft became “too successful” and their “success” was like an anchor around the tech world’s neck for many years, halting progress and stifling innovation in the name of protecting their monopoly.

Like I said, Apple and its fans used to be against the sort of bullying, monopolistic, control freak behavior Apple is now defended for engaging in.

 

[Mike_313]

Where did this come from? Because they demand a percentage of the revenue for using their services and the distribution network? How odd... surely you think that Apple has to offer all of it for free...

Do you think the AppStore is worth 30% of the prices you pay?
Would you be willing to pay a 30% premium for buying via the AppStore, if there were any alternatives?
App developers have to accept Apples unilateral decisions allowing Apps into the AppStore or allowing an App to stay.
If you are a small business one single decision by an Apple employee can destroy your App and your business. This power is unchecked neither by governing rules nor by competion in a market. Is that OK?

 

[Mockletoy]

So a judge can tell Walmart to allow customers to buy items from target through their website ?

If Walmart has a monopoly on online shopping where you live, and you have no other way to purchase goods but through Walmart, then, yes, absolutely, and rightly so.

That’s what antitrust laws were written for, after all.

 

[Cosmosent]

I see the situation as being NO different than Politics here in the States, & probably elsewhere.

In this case, the pendulum had swung too far in Apple's favor for too long.

As such, just like in Politics, Backlash should naturally be expected !

Apple's main problem right now isn't the App Store, it's iPhone Unit Sales, which have stalled-out since the 2015 iPhone 6s & 6s+ made their debut.

I mention that because it's the primary reason Apple is trying so hard to hang-onto the App Store !

What used to be their Cash Cow (iPhone sales) has been replaced by a new Cash Cow (the App Store).

But, the App Store is dominated by Game Apps; Apple makes 70% of its App Store Revenue from Game Apps, & that 70% comes form less than 10% of ALL App Store consumers.

If Apple loses that 10% to third-party websites, Tim Cook's Apple is sunk !

They don't have the right guys running the App Store to make up for such a loss !

There are 18 categories of apps in the App Store, but ONLY Game Apps do well !

I'm NOT a Game App Developer, but this appears to be crystal clear to me.

If Apple loses the Game App portion of the App Store, their market cap gets cut in half !

 

[Mike_313]

So a judge can tell Walmart to allow customers to buy items from target through their website ?

No. A judge allows those who bought their fridge at Walmart to put goods from target into it. Beacause it became your fridge after you paid for it.

 

[TiggrToo]

Of course there’s something wrong with being too successful. That’s why all these countries around the world have laws strictly regulating monopolistic behavior.

Laws, by the way, that Apple and its devotees found quite laudatory not too long ago when they were being used to bring Microsoft to heel.

Microsoft became “too successful” and their “success” was like an anchor around the tech world’s neck for many years, halting progress and stifling innovation in the name of protecting their monopoly.

Like I said, Apple and its fans used to be against the sort of bullying, monopolistic, control freak behavior Apple is now defended for engaging in.

Why does everyone bring up Microsoft as a comparrison to this?

The issues were totally different with the only similarity is both involved tech companies.

Microsoft were punished for forcing third party vendors to install Internet Explorer on the vendors own hardware and preventing them from installing Netscape Navigator - simply because Microsoft wanted to push IE.

And even though MS ‘lost’ the case, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the opposition. After multiple appeals the judgement was so watered down as to be meaningless and MS at most received a metaphorical slap on the hand.

Case law is not a sledgehammer - it’s a nuance - and anyone who see’s it as the former will always make brushstroke generalizations that are ultimatly meaningless.

 

[mrochester]

Of course there’s something wrong with being too successful. That’s why all these countries around the world have laws strictly regulating monopolistic behavior.

Laws, by the way, that Apple and its devotees found quite laudatory not too long ago when they were being used to bring Microsoft to heel.

Microsoft became “too successful” and their “success” was like an anchor around the tech world’s neck for many years, halting progress and stifling innovation in the name of protecting their monopoly.

Like I said, Apple and its fans used to be against the sort of bullying, monopolistic, control freak behavior Apple is now defended for engaging in.

Apple are not stifling innovation or halting progress though. Apple have no control over any market to be able to do that.

 

[Whathappened]

Are we a free country, or a communist chattel? Why is a judge dictating what a company can do with its own product?

Because capitalism doesn’t work on its own. In fact it does not work at all. Just look at the world. Maybe you will also see that you have no clue what communism is.

 

[leman]

Do you think the AppStore is worth 30% of the prices you pay?

This is such a weird question. I am not paying 30% for "Apple Store". The app developer pays it. I am simply paying for the app.

Would you be willing to pay a 30% premium for buying via the AppStore, if there were any alternatives?

Again, what a weird question. Of course I prefer to pay less. Wouldn't you prefer to pay less taxes? The question is not the price what what paying (or not paying) this price actually means. App Store uses a solidary financing model: successful devs help financing the infrastructure for everyone. Which again means that you can enter this market as a small dev or team without having to pay $$$ for listing and distribution like in the traditional platform. If big devs are not paying for App Store, there is no money for the infrastructure. This model cannot work if Apple does not get its cut. Which means that ether Apple has to absorb the infrastructure cost themselves (fat chance), or they have to find alternative means of financing it (e.g. via listing and distribution fees), which will kill the small-time developer.

Besides, you are very naive if you think that third-party payment processors are much cheaper. They are usually cheaper for larger sums, but higher for smaller price points. If you have $0.99 or $1.99 in-app purchases or substitutions, you usually end up paying much more than Apple's 30%... the only devs that would really benefit from third-party payment are behemoths like Google or Microsoft who can afford to have their own processing system.

App developers have to accept Apples unilateral decisions allowing Apps into the AppStore or allowing an App to stay.
If you are a small business one single decision by an Apple employee can destroy your App and your business. This power is unchecked neither by governing rules nor by competion in a market. Is that OK?

No, I do not think this is ok. I believe this should be regulated. Frankly, I also believe that App Store should be non-profit (all payment have to go though centralized Apple Account but the revenue share should be just large enough to cover the costs of running the store and the services). My problem with third-party payments is not Apple's financials (and I say it as Apple shareholder) but the fact that they unfairly favor rich developers while threatening the solidary economics that is beneficial to the small-time independent dev.