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

[2true]

That one reply you picked out was my general response to that question about judges legislating from the bench, not specific to this case. I actually thought the judges overall response back in September was pretty reasonable, all 185 pages of it which I have at least skimmed through. If you read though this very long thread you will see I have been pretty complimentary of her ruling in regard to Epics responsibility to Apple.

Obviously Apple has to comply with the court order while they decide how they want to respond. I have commented a couple of times that this puts Apple in a precarious situation; keeping the payment in their control makes other situations much simpler such as apps that only generate income from in-app purchases aka they are free to download. Apple can certainly contract with all app store developers that commissions are due on all in-app purchases regardless of how they are paid. However, that may then add fuel to the public opinion that Apple is being too aggressive vs developers. I am sure this and many more less obvious issues are why Apple asked for the stay.

It will be interesting to see how Apple moves forward.

Definitely. And I didn't wish to suggest that you were saying Apple should not comply (although not everyone here would seem to take that view).

Much has been said about links but it's also about UX. App developers like Netflix and Spotify have been concerned that not only can they not link to their account registration webpages, but that they can't do much to explain to new users (however obvious one might think it is) why they're only seeing a login screen when they open the app, and can't tell them to head to spotify.com or netflix.com or wherever.

If it follows that Spotify could now have a clear message that says 'Head to Spotify.com to create an account' (although a link would may be considerably more likely), I'd imagine Apple would have a hard time trying to force Spotify to track whether such a voluntary visit was prompted by direction from the iOS app, and a harder time yet trying to seek a commission from Spotify. Links will make for better UX of course, and so easier for purchase tracking, but it's worth remembering that Apple has prohibited direction to third party payments in ways that basically can't be tracked.

 

[bigsnake49]

Definitely. And I didn't wish to suggest that you were saying Apple should not comply (although not everyone here would seem to take that view).

Much has been said about links but it's also about UX. App developers like Netflix and Spotify have been concerned that not only can they not link to their account registration webpages, but that they can't do much to explain to new users (however obvious one might think it is) why they're only seeing a login screen when they open the app, and can't tell them to head to spotify.com or netflix.com or wherever.

If it follows that Spotify could now have a clear message that says 'Head to Spotify.com to create an account' (although a link would may be considerably more likely), I'd imagine Apple would have a hard time trying to force Spotify to track whether such a voluntary visit was prompted by direction from the iOS app, and a harder time yet trying to seek a commission from Spotify. Links will make for better UX of course, and so easier for purchase tracking, but it's worth remembering that Apple has prohibited direction to third party payments in ways that basically can't be tracked.

Easy to track whether the user was directed to Netflix from the Netflix app or through the web. Also easy to track whether the stream was from an Apple device.

 

[bigsnake49]

I am wondering who is next one to be sued besides Apple. Miscosoft, Sony, Steam?

 

[vipergts2207]

I am wondering who is next one to be sued besides Apple. Miscosoft, Sony, Steam?

Those folks would seem to be in a different boat where there's more competition. Sony's PlayStation, Microsoft's Xbox and Windows, Nintendo's Switch, and Apple's Mac would all seem to be competing with one another to some degree. Even consolidating Xbox and Windows into one entity, that's still twice as much competition as exists in the mobile OS market. It's also not uncommon for folks to have and use more than one gaming system. I myself have a Mac with Bootcamp, a PS4, and a Switch, covering 4 of the 5 platforms. Conversely, the vast majority of people use just a single smartphone. Steam is just a store that devs aren't required to use to reach a single customer, so I'm not sure why they'd be sued.

 

[2true]

Easy to track whether the user was directed to Netflix from the Netflix app or through the web. Also easy to track whether the stream was from an Apple device.

I'm talking about advertising rather than links. Example:

A new user installs Netflix and there's a login screen. The user is confused because they don't have a Netflix account and don't know exactly what to do next.

But now the app could say 'Head to Netflix.com to sign up for an account' (which it hasn't previously been allowed to). The user now understands they have to sign up and where to do so. They figure they'll need their credit card info etc, so they switch to their MacBook, launch Chrome, and head to netflix.com to sign up. This wasn't previously allowed. How exactly is Netflix going to track this as an iPhone signup to pay Apple a commission, and why on earth would they be motivated to do so?

Unlikely, of course. More likely would be a simple signup link, which is much easier for the user and also allows the iOS signup to be tracked. But a message explaining to a new user how to sign up is a different matter.

 

[gregmancuso]

only until that pesky appstore is busted up. then devs can just sell their app from any store they want.

Not so. The App Store is not the trigger for whether Apple can charge a royalty for its IP. Apple can still charge for use of its IP - Xcode suite, APIs, iCloud, CloudKit storage, etc. Without the App Store all developers could be subject to audit and external invoicing from Apple. Not saying that this would happen in all cases, but it is definitely allowed.

 

[gregmancuso]

I'm an app developer and I have been for over 13 years now. I run a small business and have made my living off of apps the entire time.

What I like about this from my perspective is that it gives user's a choice and benefits both them and me. I'm going to offer my in-app purchases at a slight discount if you don't use Apple's system (for example, credit card or PayPal), and in return it's a win-win for both me and the consumer, because I also get to avoid Apple's draconian 15%.

You see, it's simple. If Apple's cut was even SOMEWHAT competitive (say, 5% vs the 2-3% some credit processing companies take), then I'd just use Apple's system 100% of the time. But because it's 15%, I'd rather give my user's a choice that benefits us both in the process.

Business is business.

Your move Apple. Time to adjust your cut if you want developers to avoid all this nonsense.

The fee is not a credit card processing charge. It is a royalty for IP and pays for all the other stuff. Yes, credit card processing is part of it.

And you may not have 15% withheld off the top but don't be surprised if Apple audits and invoices your for 10% (assuming your stated "comeptetive" CC fee of 5%).

 

[Nuno Lopes]

On hard work and success …

So if someone happen to work very hard and build an innovative $fence$ around your house controlling the in and out is great? What about Facebook? I guess they did work hard enough to get to be where they are, you just don’t like them right?

Working hard is not even a legal requirement.



These kinds of silly arguments is why Apple will loose all over in this context … giving time.

 

[Abazigal]

Those folks would seem to be in a different boat where there's more competition. Sony's PlayStation, Microsoft's Xbox and Windows, Nintendo's Switch, and Apple's Mac would all seem to be competing with one another to some degree. Even consolidating Xbox and Windows into one entity, that's still twice as much competition as exists in the mobile OS market. It's also not uncommon for folks to have and use more than one gaming system. I myself have a Mac with Bootcamp, a PS4, and a Switch, covering 4 of the 5 platforms. Conversely, the vast majority of people use just a single smartphone. Steam is just a store that devs aren't required to use to reach a single customer, so I'm not sure why they'd be sued.

Well, if people are going to sue Apple for not allowing third party app stores, I will say the same standard ought to apply to those gaming platforms as well. Let people publish their own games on the epic or PlayStation App Store without having to pay them anything.

Or if they feel that Apple should charge less, then the same ought to apply to the rest as well. Let’s see how Nintendo would feel if everyone were allowed to sell games directly from their online switch store without having to pay them a single cent.

 

[Apleeseed84]

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.

9to5mac is the complete opposite almost feels like they’re all shills for Apple, it was a massive echo chamber to be honest

 

[rezwits]

You know what? So if I download an App, and right when I launch, there is a link saying PAY $4.99 buy clicking this link OR click this link to get a $4.99/mo subscription.

BOTH are getting the MIDDLE FINGER! DELETED and they better start saying PURCHASE LINKS are INSIDE the APP!

THIS is what's gonna SUCK... THIS is the problem and why I want "GOOD" APPs

I don't want a DAMN SNO!

 

[vipergts2207]

Well, if people are going to sue Apple for not allowing third party app stores, I will say the same standard ought to apply to those gaming platforms as well. Let people publish their own games on the epic or PlayStation App Store without having to pay them anything.

Or if they feel that Apple should charge less, then the same ought to apply to the rest as well. Let’s see how Nintendo would feel if everyone were allowed to sell games directly from their online switch store without having to pay them a single cent.

It’s not solely about whether or not third-party stores are allowed. It’s also about market impacts of such decisions. If I build a platform that doesn’t allow third-party app stores, but only 15 people use my platform, would a lawsuit attempting to force me to open it up to third-parties be successful? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing no. My decision has absolutely zero impact on the broader market. Meanwhile, Apple’s decisions can impact roughly half of U.S. consumers as well as large and small businesses as disparate as online dating, meteorology, gaming, office productivity, and photography.

 

[robertts]

Why does Apple choose not to take a cut for services and goods? They host the apps in the store and the apps are key to the service provided. Seems an arbitrary distinction on Apple's part. Those apps have no problems with external payment systems and most even accept Apple Pay. Apple has no problems supporting payment systems in those apps where they don't get a cut.

Basically it is a business decision. Apps that compete with what Apple does, such as games and digital media delivery get the 30% tax. Apps that don't compete, don't get taxed at all. The argument that Apple needs to charge the 30% tax to support their business is sort of negated by the large number of apps they support that pay them no money at all and still collect money from their users. On the surface this looks like deliberately targeting for extra costs their direct competitors, something that may get the governments annoyed.

Well, to start, the goods and services are not happen in-app. Uber, specifically, even though the app connects riders and drivers, the service of transporting one from point a to point b occurs in-person. I don't think it is arbitrary, and I also think this would be regulated by banks and payment processors, where Apple doesn't play any role in the fulfilment of these goods or services. That isn't to say Apple doesn't make anything off of these platforms, they all still pay some sort of hosting fee to be on the app store.

 

[SFjohn]

I hope Apple gets it’s stay order from the Ninth Circuit Court.

 

[4743913]

Not so. The App Store is not the trigger for whether Apple can charge a royalty for its IP. Apple can still charge for use of its IP - Xcode suite, APIs, iCloud, CloudKit storage, etc. Without the App Store all developers could be subject to audit and external invoicing from Apple. Not saying that this would happen in all cases, but it is definitely allowed.

Thats alright. Devs would still have freedom to choose. They can pass the cost on to the users if apple tries to punish them or just stay in the AppStore or both. I don't know why you guys hate freedom so much.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's not what the judge said, all the judge said was that Apple cannot prohibit the developers from providing an outside link for an alternative IAP. In the same decision she did not prohibit Apple from monetizing their IP in a different way. If for example you are one of those devs that have an alternative IAP there is nothing prohibiting Apple from requiring them to pay 30% of the revenue from the App Store on a monthly basis or quarterly basis with the right to audit, etc. Or to charge you every time you use one of their APIs. Or charge your app in order to download it. So now the app is free and you get charged for IAP purchases. Now they might charge you $9.99 per app download before you even made a dime.

Which is messy but people wanted it there way. Developers who use Apples payment system pay no fee and developers who use another payment provider will do so but it’ll cost them….They could go to a web model where they get so many downloads per X cost… when they run out they run out.so if the users download over and over again the developer has to pay for each one of those transactions.

Paying through Apples system as they are iOS apps allows me more control over cancelling my subscription and my personal information.

 

[2true]

Scenario A
Apple fan: "Epic should follow the law. Their contract says they're not allowed to do this."
Epic fan: "Epic's taking a stand. Once they get to court they'll be shown to be right."
Apple fan: "Apple just won on almost every point. Epic can appeal if they want, but for now the law says they breached their contract with Apple. Epic should show some integrity, accept court's verdict and move on."

Scenario B
Epic fan: "Wait, Apple still want to stop apps directing consumers to third party payments after the court ruled that's the one thing the law prevents them from doing?"
Apple fan: "Apple's taking a stand. Once they get to an appeal court they'll be shown to be right."
Epic fan: "Apple can appeal if they want, but for now the law says they're not allowed to prevent app developers from directing users to third party payment providers. Apple should show some integrity, accept the court's verdict and move on."

The above irony is amusing but may also be worth some more serious reflection for those arguing so heavily for one side or the other. The above is also somewhat hyperbolic; appeals exist for important reasons and decisions can be reversed. Apple is entirely within its rights to appeal... but then so too is Epic. The rule of law matters, and appeals can drag on for years. In the meantime there must be some degree of finality, and it should not be easy for a party to delay enforcement simply because it is seeking an appeal; justice delayed is justice denied.

Remember that today's news concerned Apple's motion to stay (being denied), nothing more. The US legal position (and that's to say nothing of pending litigation in other international markets such as the EU, with considerably more robust competition regulations) - as it stands - is that Apple's blanket prohibition on developers directing consumers to third party payment processors is unlawful.

Today wasn't the time or place for Apple to argue that the law (as it stands) is wrong. The question was whether following the court's order when it comes into force next month would do so much harm to Apple as to be irreparable. Apple occupied its arguments with claims of technical challenges and security risks. As the court concluded:

That the injunction may require additional engineering or guidelines is not evidence of irreparable injury. Rather, at best, it only suggests that more time is needed to comply. Apple, though, did not request additional time to comply. It wants an open-ended stay with no requirement that it make any effort to comply. Time is not irreparable injury.

I can't help but shake the view that Apple is playing for time, trying to delay an outcome they believe is almost inevitable. It's worth remembering that the US is not the only market where Apple is fighting antitrust action over the App Store. If Apple loses in the EU also, the chances of them overcoming in both jurisdictions will be incredibly slim... and they must know it. They won't even have to lose in both cases; if they lose all final appeals in either case, rather than further fragmenting (a la South Korea) App Store guidelines and the user experience, it will likely be simpler to just apply the same policy globally.

 

[soaddk]

You are right, but also the user has the right to choose the opposite and Apple is preventing and imposing at the same time its commissions, that turn out to be excessive.

They did NOT turn out to be excessive. Also Apple is still allowed to charge the developer 30% even though 3rd party handles the payment.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There is a far amount of opionated fud on the internet in general … around polemic issues and other.

Objectively ….

1. In Payment are still required to be provided by devs for payed apps and services.
2. Apple can allow devs to unlock App use when charging their customers for the underlying digital services outside the App, say through a web browser. As it does now.


3. Given 1 and 2 the only policy change required by the Judge is that Apple can no longer block In App and Mail communications from devs to heir customers regarding commercial and other kinds of information. Including providing links directing the user to external apps such as Safari for further information.

That is all.

I believe Apple has two options to comply. Either disallow 2 rendering 3 moot. That would be mean that to use any App or digital Service on iOS, users would need to subscribe In App, otherwise the App would not be able to be used. Or comply with 3.

 

[rezwits]

There is a far amount of opionated fud on the internet in general … around polemic issues and other.

Objectively ….

1. In Payment are still required to be provided by devs for payed apps and services.
2. Apple can allow devs to unlock App use when charging their customers for the underlying digital services outside the App, say through a web browser. As it does now.


3. Given 1 and 2 the only policy change required by the Judge is that Apple can no longer block In App and Mail communications from devs to heir customers regarding commercial and other kinds of information. Including providing links directing the user to external apps such as Safari for further information.

That is all.

I believe Apple has two options to comply. Either disallow 2 rendering 3 moot. That would be mean that to use any App or digital Service on iOS, users would need to subscribe In App, otherwise the App would not be able to be used. Or comply with 3.

It's true whattda ya want?

It's just a ****ry shouldn't tell a company their product has to do this or that.

That would be like telling DVD player vendors HEY you have to play VHS tapes too.
Or telling EPIC, (if they didn't have a Mac version, of which a TON of companies don't have versions for Mac)
hey make FortNite (or whatever game) for macOS Intel!!

It's like no, IDC how much it costs your company or devs, if you don't have a Linux Version and a Mac Version, you can't just sell you Windows Version only, you have to WORK and that's the point telling them they have to WORK the way THEY want.

Screw them it's a private company it's there damn business!

This all comes down to JEALOUSY and HATE for companies and people etc.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!

Failure companies and countries...

n.b. Look at the E.U? The want to manipulate the internet and US tech companies with mandates and FINES galore? Why? FREE MONEY in the BILLIONS!

It's like who the...

 

[rhemy123]

I don’t believe apple should have to change their system to appease developers. Developers can always go some where else to sell their wares. The judge seems very anti-apple. It’s not apple’s job to ensure developers can do what they want on apple’s platform. Developers want to benefit by being in the App Store but then they don’t want to play by the rules Apple set forth. Being in the App Store clearly has some benefit and apple should be paid for that. Developers should have to contribute to making the App Store what it is. It’s like buying a condo and then not wanting to pay an hoa fee to keep the complex looking nice because you can find cheaper services.

 

[rhemy123]

I feel like people like to be closed minded when it comes to Apple and what Apple thinks is right. Remember this is nothing different then what you do on your Mac on the web. Paying for Amazon purchases, Netflix, Spotify, buying/ downloading apps on the web, paying bills online etc. This is literally the same thing. It’s like asking Apple to only allow the installation and payments of Apps on Macs exclusively through the App Store. I would switch off Mac in heart beat off Apple ever did that.

The problem is that it’s Apples product. It shouldn’t be forced to run the iPhone ecosystem like the Mac system. However if Apple decided to restrict max apps to the Mac App Store. It should be able to do that. And you as a consumer should be able to leave the apple ecosystem if you don’t like that. You don’t have to buy an iPhone. There are multiple android phones that will let you do just that.

 

[rhemy123]

You are right, but also the user has the right to choose the opposite and Apple is preventing and imposing at the same time its commissions, that turn out to be excessive.

The user doesn’t have the right to demand apple change its software design. The user can leave apple that is all. No one is forcing the user to use an iPhone.

 

[0x3333]

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.

Exactly! I like the idea to have alternative options, but I prefer to use Apple’s instead.

 

[2true]

The judge seems very anti-apple… Developers want to benefit by being in the App Store but then they don’t want to play by the rules Apple set forth.

1) It’s about the law, not the judge.
2) Yesterday’s judgment was about Apple‘s motion to stay enforcement, and whether following the law (as it stands today) would cause harm that is so incredibly damaging as to be irreparable. Nothing else.
3) Let‘s invert your argument for a second: Apple wants to benefit from the market it created, but then doesn’t want to play by the rules the court set forth. You might want to see my post a little further up about the irony of some posts here.