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 Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, Apple will not instantaneous be able to get their 30% but will force the developer to pay Apple 30% of their revenue let's say at the end of the month.
Last edited:
No one is entitled to sell smartphone apps. You miss this point entirely. You're allowed to be successful by creating something from nothing, and growing to become the largest player. No one becomes entitled to what you peddle just because you're a success.
Maybe. Just talking about facts as they exist today.
Courts may very much not see it that way. Though this doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have to follow rules to do so. What if MS arbitrarily decided that a piece of software wasn't allowed to be installed on Windows? Do you think a judge would allow that to stand in a lawsuit? It's not exactly a leap to apply that same logic to Apple and iOS.
Correct. And since Appeals is in the future, just speculating on those as was done for the 1 year the trial took.
I guess if it was like that way from the beginning or not.
I am sure this has already been discussed somewhere in the prior pages but it seems in context to review. Much of the discussions have little to do with the current situation.
I just read the last half of the September finding from the court and all I can see from Apple's point of view is the need to allow the end user the ability to 1) be allowed to pay outside the app store, and 2) be permitted to be directed to outside sources for information about this or other apps. Almost all the rest of the finding was really pretty positive for Apple. For instance, unless I read it wrong, developers are still bound by the provision to pay commissions, and importantly, only unlock new features by way of the app store.
So, you can't be sent to another website to buy updates, weapons or whatever else gets sold in the app. Only to make your payment.
As far as I can tell, regardless of Apple wanting to stay off doing this immediately, a lot of courts findings were more damaging to Epic and provided valuable precedence to Apple for future cases.
I just read the last half of the September finding from the court and all I can see from Apple's point of view is the need to allow the end user the ability to 1) be allowed to pay outside the app store, and 2) be permitted to be directed to outside sources for information about this or other apps. Almost all the rest of the finding was really pretty positive for Apple. For instance, unless I read it wrong, developers are still bound by the provision to pay commissions, and importantly, only unlock new features by way of the app store.
So, you can't be sent to another website to buy updates, weapons or whatever else gets sold in the app. Only to make your payment.
As far as I can tell, regardless of Apple wanting to stay off doing this immediately, a lot of courts findings were more damaging to Epic and provided valuable precedence to Apple for future cases.
"Apple asserts a counterclaim against Epic Games for breach of contract arising out Project Liberty. In particular, Epic Games’ actions violated the DPLA provisions (1) requiring developers not to “hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality” in their apps and not to “provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store,”; and (2) requiring Epic Games to pay Apple “a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user” through the App Store.
As noted, plaintiff has admitted that it breached the DPLA as Apple alleges and has conceded that, if the Court finds that the breached provisions of the DPLA are enforceable against Epic Games, then Apple would be entitled to relief as a result of the breach.
Because Apple’s breach of contract claim is also premised on violations of DPLA provisions independent of the anti-steering provisions, the Court finds and concludes, in light of plaintiff’s admissions and concessions, that Epic Games has breached these provisions of the DPLA and that Apple is entitled to relief for these violation."
You don’t stay the richest by giving everything away for free.
They did the work to build the massively successful iOS platform, they deserve the riches that come with it.
Without Apple the developers wouldn’t have anything anyway.
It's a two way street, which the judge herself acknowledges. The apps devs create also create enormous value for Apple as well, even outside of the 30% cut. The iPhone would've disappeared years ago if they hadn't allowed third-party devs and apps while the competition did. No banking apps, no smart home apps, no games, no video streaming apps, no healthcare apps and on and on. That's a platform that essentially nobody wants to be a part of.
That's one opinion anyway.
Good is my response to this. Apple is charging 30% to basically be nothing more than a CC processor. That is an insane few to pay for a CC processor. Most of those charge 2-3% and max out at around 5%.
Apple entire store eco system is already fund by the $99 a year fee they collect so that argument to be on iPhone and app store you have to the Apple Tax. I could agree if Apple allowed 3rd party app store or a way to install with out going threw the App store
Apple's choices is drop the inane fee for being a CC processor or allow to install with out going threw the App store. This goes double when Apple has Apple Music and they do not have to pay the fee for that cost while Spotify has to give apple their 15-30% cut.
Apple entire store eco system is already fund by the $99 a year fee they collect so that argument to be on iPhone and app store you have to the Apple Tax. I could agree if Apple allowed 3rd party app store or a way to install with out going threw the App store
Apple's choices is drop the inane fee for being a CC processor or allow to install with out going threw the App store. This goes double when Apple has Apple Music and they do not have to pay the fee for that cost while Spotify has to give apple their 15-30% cut.
Try the other way around. With out Developers Apple would be nothing. Most of those Developers would be still software developers just not on iOS. Apple gets more value out of app devs than Devs get from Apple.
Take away all the non apple apps on your iPhone and iPad and tell me would you still use it? My guess is NOPE and any answer other than NOPE I would question if you were telling the truth as at the very least you would be lying to yourself.
Yet many people keep saying that Apple must be forced to change their rules because developers can’t ignore iOS. If developers have the power and influence, why are they kicking up such a stink?
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what Apple provides developers if all you think they do is process CC payments.
You can see this with Google’s response to the South Korea law, they still have an 11% cut from sales even if the developer uses third party payment processing. So at best the developer is making the same amount with Google as without and worst case they lose money not using Google if the CC processing fee is higher than 4%.
You can bet Apple’s move will be similar if they get forced into it.
—
The $99 a year does not fund the App Store. It doesn’t even cover app review costs.
Take away the 15-30% cut and you’ll see that $99 a year fee significantly increase.
This is not the case based on the current guidelines. The 30% commission is based on sale/purchases made THROUGH the App Store.
With the judge adding an additional avenue for payments outside of Apple, the CURRENT guidelines only cover App Store purchase.
Apple would have to rewrite the developer agreement if they wanted to collect a 30% commission for purchases made OUTSIDE the App Store.
It may be a two way street but the point still stands. Apple created the App gold rush and gave developers the bigger cut (70%) for the privilege. Remember they were making much much less under the old software model with brick and mortar stores.
Without Apple standardizing the 70/30 split developers would probably be getting taken advantage of still to this day. The other effect of this would be that the only people developing would be big companies that could afford to, so wave goodbye to the small developer and indie apps in a world without it.
Developers should be thanking Apple instead of whining like the ungrateful people they seem to be.
Spoken like someone who is not a developer........
Apple review process is a mess sorry developers should not be the one funding that. You pray to the Apple gods that your reviewer has a brain instead of going threw the motion or knows what they are doing. Or having to deal with some stupid reviewer with the same rejection for the 4th time that has been addressed but the reviewer does not get it it. Anything complex you are really praying as they dont get it.
On your Google example remember on Android you do not have to use the Google play store to install an app on an Android Phone. Apple on the other hand there is only one way and there is no way to bypass it.
No one in court is telling the company what todo or what product todo. The company is able to todo everything it wants with its products within the scope of the law like any other company.
There are competition rules and laws … that is why people go to court. On court there are judges and lawyers that are there for the law to be applied effectively.
From that court results an order that the entities involved need to comply. That can be say an order to pay a fine, go to jail for X years, be away from some establishment or person, change a behaviour or practice, pay a pension, compensate victims, … so on and so forth. … a combination. That is fundamentally the Republican way, but also democrats and liberals… it has always been.
Now laws aren’t black and white. If it was no court would be needed in most cases.
The incredible growth of the company should be irrelevant, as relevant if a person is black or white, rich or poor for inclusion or exclusion from applying the law. But even that is taken into account in the final ruling.
What you are advocating is that companies like Apple should be above the law give its success in the market. Meaning, the results justify the means even if considered in court non lawful. Actions and policies beyond lawful approach sustained only by its $success$ to a group of people at the expense of many others. You might even be inclined to think that given Apple $success$ it should be granted the ability to determine what the law should be … and believe its policies in and around its products should be the law …
This is stance is of course an absurdity, an abortion of thought in a democratic republican state such as the USA.
Concluding, your opinion is nothing but a gaslight over what it actually happened in court and what a court ruling actual means in this context or any other context.
Cheers.
Last edited:
That bigger cut and gold rush as you call it was less a function of Apple specifically and more a function of the widespread adoption of broadband internet that started shortly before the iPhone was released. Why would a developer need to rely on a physical retailer when, thanks to the broadband boom that began in the mid-2000's, you could now go directly to consumer? When the App store launched in 2008, broadband internet adoption was almost 60% in the U.S., rising from just 16% 5 years earlier. What you attribute to Apple is actually thanks to telecommunications advances that had occurred. Downloading large pieces of software was now a viable alternative to physical media since people were no longer relying of a 56 kbps modem. Dev's didn't need Apple to create a specific store for them to put their wares in, in order to be successful. If Apple had allowed side-loading, also known as simply installing software, they would have been able to reach those same consumers, minus the 30% cut.
I mean, yes and no. Apple is charging you, as a developer, for charging customers for your content that is being served up and consumed on the Apple platform, in the Apple/iOS ecosystem. Spotify can easily be a web service only that users consume through their browser, but they have an app on the platform that paid users are consuming the content on.
Not arguing the 30% fee, but there is a whitepaper out there that shows that this is pretty normal practice when it comes to digital marketplaces.
Yeah I missed that initially. Another MR member linked me to it (thanks @mrochester ).
It makes sense I suppose, to allow Apple to do that....but i feel like Apple's move would just be "we're gonna charge the dev the same % whether they use our payment system or not."
Or perhaps some silly small percentage downward. 30% cut if paired inside the App Store, 25% if linked out.
The problem with being web only on the iPhone is there is a lot of Apple limitation put in place for playing nice that. Netflix work around was you can not sign up for an account or even tell you how to sign up for an Account on the App because Apple wants the tax to be a CC processor.
Spotify could of done that and was free to until Apple put in Apple music. All of a sudden that is a massive abuse of the eco system to be a CC processor. I can accept the 30% fee for selling threw threw the App store if there was another choice to deliver. Android allows the alternative means threw side loading.
It the in app purchases that is a huge issue. Apple requires you to use theirs with their massive over charge. Plus ban you from showing any alternatives. They can not show prices for using another system. That is banned. Apple has some pretty big abuse.
The 30% fee saying it pays for the App store I will flat out say that is complete BS. The fees apple collects from Devs honestly pays for most of it. The fees apple is collect is massive profit.
If Apple had allowed sideloading still acknowledges that it is Apple’s device that they are developing and selling their goods on.
No other mobile platform comes near the revue success of the App Store and that’s thanks to Apples work on the iPhone and iOS.
Android/Google Play has a higher market share but much less revenue/profit. I wonder why that is if they are supposedly so much better ?