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

[vipergts2207]

If Apple had allowed sideloading still acknowledges that it is Apple’s device that they are developing and selling their goods on.

Right, but now you're making a different argument. We can have that discussion if you'd like, but as it stands devs didn't require that Apple create a walled-off garden in order for them to be successful, which was what you had claimed.

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 ?

Because poor people tend to use cheap Androids rather than expensive iPhones. Poor people also tend to spend less money on apps. It's really not hard to figure out.

 

[Hunter5117]

Apple's choices is drop the inane fee for being a CC processor or allow to install with out going threw the App store.

How are those Apples choices? Neither of them have anything to do with the court ruling.

 

[gregmancuso]

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.

Exactly what in my statement implied I "hate freedom?" I responded to point that without the App Store the devs would be free from Apples onerous charges [paraphrased]. All I did was point out that the App Store makes the identification and calculation of fees immediate and obvious. Apple still has the right to charge for it's IP. With the App Store the fee is calculated and withheld at purchase. Without the App Store Apply would have to audit and invoice for the fees. Given the added effort involved I would not be surprised if the net fees to the developer end up higher than today.

 

[robertts]

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.

https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/insights/publishing/apples_app_store_and_other_digital_marketplaces_a_comparison_of_commission_rates.pdf

If you are to believe this whitepaper (and I skimmed it but didn't read it in full), then the fees are on par w/ other digital marketplaces and the price is determined by the market.

The problem with spotify and apple music is innovation and differentiation. I agree that it's disappointing that Apple simply launched a spotify clone, but it also just shows that there is not enough innovation or differentiation. I think it's a little bit different w/ Netflix, but in that space, even HBO max still does in-app subscriptions.

I have no stake in this one way or another as it has no impact on me and I couldn't care less as a consumer, but I think it is pretty obvious that Apple brings value to these app developers and in not only its app store marketplace but also it's platform.

 

[Abazigal]

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?

It's the same logic as a union only being effective if they are able to get everyone to strike. If only 10% do, and 90% of your workforce is still around to keep the motor running, the boss could easily just fire this 10%, because he holds all the power in this relationship.

In my opinion, the problem now is that there are now too many developers releasing apps for the iOS App Store, to the point where the individual bargaining power held by the developer has been eroded to practically zero.

Let's say a particular developer is unhappy with the current App Store rules and decides to pull out of the. App Store. Chance are there are a hundred other developers with similar apps to his, and his absence will be hardly felt.

We also don't know just how many developers really are unhappy with the App Store rules. We do have developers saying on record that they do appreciate what the App Store has done in helping to successfully grow their business, to the point where they would still earn more after that 30% cut. Because the reality is that for most developers, the App Store has helped boost app sales by making it extremely convenient and secure to purchase and download apps. They are simply not going to get the same amount of traction hosting their app on an external website and requiring users to somehow find a way to visit them, much less key in their credit card details.

This is precisely how apps are installed on a PC, and frankly, I think it sucks compared to having everything available in a centralised App Store.

As it stands, what I see right now is that a lot of the noise is being made by the bigger developers like Epic, Spotify and Tile. These are companies who feel they have outgrown the App Store; who believe that the App Store has no more benefits to offer them and they are big enough to go at it alone. They want to break the hold Apple has on the App Store for their own benefits. They are in it for themselves only, and are not interested in benefiting or empowering smaller developers.

The issue then is that (I believe) the App Store continues to hold a lot of benefit for smaller developers who would actually be harmed by the App Store being opened up in such a manner.

 

[dadouney]

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

don't like communists camarad ?

 

[MacJedi2005]

My main question about this is this:

When I go to Best Buy, Macy’s, Mens Warehouse, or any other physical retail establishment, I pay the establishment a price for a product. Baring sales - the price for that product is usually 40-60% higher then the store paid the producer.

If I buy Quicken at Bestbuy I pay my 149 dollars to get the software, and Bestbuy keeps 75.89, minus the transaction fees that the credit card company charges.

• Does this ruling mean that now I can go on line to quicken and pay them, and still go to bestbuy and grab my software off the shelf?
• Can I go to Levis and pay for a pair of Jeans, then grab them off the rack at Macy’s or Mens Warehouse

Retail stores usually get half of the cost of what they sell, and the creamer gets the rest. Why? Because the creator does not have to maintain infrastructure (the store front, the physical space to store all the products) employees to staff the store, and so many other things.

Apple‘s Server Farms aren’t free, and they dont stop hosting the games, providing the connections to make the purchases, pushing software updates every time Fortnite wants to add a new skin or pay to play toy. I agree with Tim Cook that - If you want to side load apps - go get an android phone!, If you want to be allowed to pay through a possibly insecure gateway, and have yet another vector for credit card fraud - go get an android phone. And if you want to have phones that often run slowly and have lots of apps that do nothing but harvest your personal information, and get blocked or kicked off of Wi-Fi networks like my companies and my home network with a server scanning for mallware and blocking devices with infections from connecting… GO GET AN ANDROID PHONE!

If I were the owner of a company that produced products sold through brick and mortar stores I would use this as a reason to demand that the stores must support my payment systems, and allow my products to be sold with me keeping a higher share…

There is no material good that could be sold the way that epic demands digital goods be sold for. And yet they dont want to pay for the infrastructure that provides their development tools, that protects their customers rights, and is there to reload the software for epic anytime someone gets a new phone, or device and wants to reload the game.

Apparently this judge does not understand the concept of Cost of doing business. If apple does what I would do - I would stop allowing post purchase items in games as a blanked go to hell. Apple has not lost market share from cutting off Fortnite, because most of us would rather have phones that aren’t actively able to be used by people to hurt us.

 

[vipergts2207]

My main question about this is this:

When I go to Best Buy, Macy’s, Mens Warehouse, or any other physical retail establishment, I pay the establishment a price for a product. Baring sales - the price for that product is usually 40-60% higher then the store paid the producer.

If I buy Quicken at Bestbuy I pay my 149 dollars to get the software, and Bestbuy keeps 75.89, minus the transaction fees that the credit card company charges.

• Does this ruling mean that now I can go on line to quicken and pay them, and still go to bestbuy and grab my software off the shelf?
• Can I go to Levis and pay for a pair of Jeans, then grab them off the rack at Macy’s or Mens Warehouse

You'd think this is where you'd realize that you're analogy is abysmal, but I guess not. Let's look at the number of places you mentioned where one could make a purchase: Best Buy, Quicken, Macy's, Men's Warehouse, and Levi's, so five total. Of course you also acknowledge the existence of other retail establishments as well. So yes, I could buy Quicken from Best Buy, Quicken, Amazon, and probably several other places. Similarly I could a pair of Levi's from Macy's or Amazon or Men's Warehouse or countless other stores. Where can I buy apps for my phone? Well there's the iOS App Store oh and there's also the iOS App Store and we can't forget about the ever popular iOS App Store as well. I think you can see why your comparison isn't even close to apples to apples. Best Buy doesn't force you to get Quicken only from them and Macy's doesn't force you to buy your Levi's only through them.

Also something noteworthy, Quicken Deluxe costs $51.99 from Best Buy, but if I buy it direct from Quicken I can get it for $31.19. Much like going through Best Buy inflates the cost for consumers as compared to buying direct, going through Apple almost certainly inflates consumer costs as opposed to if folks could by direct from the dev.

 

[jonblatho]

• Does this ruling mean that now I can go on line to quicken and pay them, and still go to bestbuy and grab my software off the shelf?
• Can I go to Levis and pay for a pair of Jeans, then grab them off the rack at Macy’s or Mens Warehouse

Alongside the points made by @vipergts2207, it's also important to note that Apple is only tangentially involved at best for many App Store transactions, especially subscriptions, where Apple arguably facilitates getting customers but has basically nothing to do with keeping them, aside from whatever costs they incur for billing.

They aren’t paying one red cent to host Hulu videos or Pandora songs, for example, which differs from, say, Best Buy having to pay their bills to keep their store open to sell Quicken software.

 

[MrTangent]

don't like communists camarad ?

Some are okay. Marx. Lenin. Trotsky. I’m more of a nordic socialist type myself. Endless revolutions and counterrevolutions sounds tiresome. ?

 

[mrochester]

You'd think this is where you'd realize that you're analogy is abysmal, but I guess not. Let's look at the number of places you mentioned where one could make a purchase: Best Buy, Quicken, Macy's, Men's Warehouse, and Levi's, so five total. Of course you also acknowledge the existence of other retail establishments as well. So yes, I could buy Quicken from Best Buy, Quicken, Amazon, and probably several other places. Similarly I could a pair of Levi's from Macy's or Amazon or Men's Warehouse or countless other stores. Where can I buy apps for my phone? Well there's the iOS App Store oh and there's also the iOS App Store and we can't forget about the ever popular iOS App Store as well. I think you can see why your comparison isn't even close to apples to apples. Best Buy doesn't force you to get Quicken only from them and Macy's doesn't force you to buy your Levi's only through them.

Also something noteworthy, Quicken Deluxe costs $51.99 from Best Buy, but if I buy it direct from Quicken I can get it for $31.19. Much like going through Best Buy inflates the cost for consumers as compared to buying direct, going through Apple almost certainly inflates consumer costs as opposed to if folks could by direct from the dev.

Apple doesn’t force you to buy an iPhone. If you don’t want to exclusively shop for apps in the App Store, don’t buy an iPhone.

Consumers should know that and should make their smartphone purchasing decisions accordingly.

 

[MacBH928]

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.

so why should apple care in the first place? they will get their cut either way

 

[vipergts2207]

Apple doesn’t force you to buy an iPhone. If you don’t want to exclusively shop for apps in the App Store, don’t buy an iPhone.

Consumers should know that and should make their smartphone purchasing decisions accordingly.

That’s beside the point and doesn’t magically make the terrible analogy I quoted into a good one..

 

[mrochester]

That’s beside the point and doesn’t magically make the terrible analogy I quoted into a good one..

It’s entirely the point.

 

[vipergts2207]

It’s entirely the point.

Ok then please explain how it makes the analogy a good one then. You have the floor.

 

[mrochester]

Ok then please explain how it makes the analogy a good one then. You have the floor.

Apple doesn’t force people to buy an iPhone therefore people aren’t forced to shop in the apple App Store.

Anyone buying an iPhone should be aware prior to purchase that they can only install software from the apple App Store, meaning they have made an informed decision to by an iPhone knowing they can only install software from the apple App Store.

There is no problem here.

 

[vipergts2207]

Apple doesn’t force people to buy an iPhone therefore people aren’t forced to shop in the apple App Store.

Anyone buying an iPhone should be aware prior to purchase that they can only install software from the apple App Store, meaning they have made an informed decision to by an iPhone knowing they can only install software from the apple App Store.

There is no problem here.

Best Buy doesn’t force anyone to buy a PC there either. But if they do, they still don’t force them to buy their software there. Surely you can now see how buying something at Best Buy and buying an iPhone are two different things with different implications? If not I’m sorry, but I can’t make it any more basic for you.

 

[mrochester]

Best Buy doesn’t force anyone to buy a PC there either. But if they do, they still don’t force them to buy their software there. Surely you can now see how buying something at Best Buy and buying an iPhone are two different things with different implications? If not I’m sorry, but I can’t make it any more basic for you.

Best Buy don’t make the PC. They are selling someone else’s product. The iPhone and App Store are all Apple products tied together.

And if Best Buy wanted to have a rule that said people must buy their software from Best Buy, they’d be perfectly entitled to have such a rule. Customers could then choose if they want to buy the PC from Best Buy or not.

I don’t know how to make it any more basic for you either.

 

[vipergts2207]

Best Buy don’t make the PC. They are selling someone else’s product. The iPhone and App Store are all Apple products tied together.

And if Best Buy wanted to have a rule that said people must buy their software from Best Buy, they’d be perfectly entitled to have such a rule. Customers could then choose if they want to buy the PC from Best Buy or not.

I don’t know how to make it any more basic for you either.

Nice! Thank you for adding yet another point on why it was such a poor analogy. I do believe you're getting it now.

 

[Hunter5117]

Try buying a new car from anyone but the manufacturer. Does Tesla sell their cars at GM dealers?

Even repairing your car these days may often require paying a license fee to the manufacturer.

There are lots of examples where the manufacturer controls the distribution of their goods and services. The only reason Apple is being seen as different is big devs like Epic don't think they need to play by the same rules.

 

[iOS Geek]

As far as I’m concerned, this might actually come out as a benefit to me personally...in the form of saved money. Any developer that decides to work their payments outside the App Store…won’t see another cent from me. ?‍♂️ Hate to break it to the judge, but if the majority of Apple users were clamoring for this…the change would probably have happened without a lawsuit. Since it took a lawsuit to make it happen, something tells me the majority does NOT want this…

 

[bigsnake49]

so why should apple care in the first place? they will get their cut either way

Much easier to get your money right away through micro transactions than at the end of the month. Plus if the developers refuse to pay you at the end of the month then you have to sue or cut them off or ...lots more friction.

 

[bigsnake49]

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.

Netflix wanted to bypass the 30% and you wanted Apple to make it easy for them. I am about to unsubscribe from Netflix for at least 6 months because basically I have watched everything there is to watch there. I'm wondering how hard it is to unsubscribe. It's dead easy through Apple. I do believe even Netflix and other "reader" Apps need to pay something to Apple even if it is 10%.

 

[bigsnake49]

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.

Or they could have just populated the platform with just Apple apps and Apple services. The rest could have been accessed through web apps.

 

[rhemy123]

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.

The judge sets arbitrary rules based on his or her interpretation of the law formed from his or her biases. There is no law that states a private company can’t invite something as it sees fit. The judge is clearly biased because it would be harmful for apples customers to one day be able to pay via various options and then the next not be able to do that if they win the appeal.

If a brick and motor store can demand the dress of their patrons. Apple can surely demand people who sale things in its store pay fees and dictate the language that can be used in its store.