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

[turbotech]

What in the name of intelligence is strategic about limited people's access to your digital goods and require them key in their credit card every time and rick it being locked?! So the Epic shopping cart feature is more than six months away... then I look at the date that was posted. July 29, 2019 If claim that Epic had a shopping cart in the EU is correct than things get even more bizarre. What the same hill is strategic about semi crippling your digital store to where people who try to buy multiple items get their credit card frozen for "suspicious activity" (assuming Epic doesn't freeze the account first)?!

Jim Sterling had a field day with that piece of stupid "strategy". Of course there is the usual corporate bashing but you know that going in. Which is why he later said all three (Epic, Apple, and Google) could take a flying leap. Then there is Epic's treatment of its workers but to be fair to Epic software development in the AAA space with regards to worker treatment is crap (read about the horror that was LA Noir development sometime)

Stripe has been around since 2009. If they were offering rates like this c2018 then again why would anyone savvy use those companies?

More over the link google has for one of these sites is said to be one of "the Best Providers of 2021" even though the article dates from 2018. If it is old why would any savvy business owner use that company? Another dates from 2018. As mentioned in the citation the Google information is dated 2019. That isn't all that long ago.

Once again we start having a discussion about lawnmowers and you start telling us about articles or links to stuff about growing tomatoes in your backyard. Stop rambling on about unrelated topics (like about Epic).

And, yes, there IS a strategic reason for not having a Shopping Cart. It's the same reason why Valve (Steam) didn't have one for awhile and still doesn't for many things they sell as one-off game items. They can store CC info and so the user isn't entering it over and over. It's similar to iTunes. Average shopping cart abandonment rates are about 70% (across the Web) so carts have downsides. People also don't realize how much in total they're spending when they're just clicking to get a game here and then buy another game here and so on. THAT is why they do it. It was designed that way. Of course they could have had a Shopping Cart from day one, they bring in over $5 BILLION A YEAR and have a massive tech team of some of the best engineers in the world. Again, it's for a strategic reason. They're not stupid.

The only companies that use those high risk merchant providers are typically companies that have been REJECTED by other providers and they have no choice - and if you lose a merchant account due to high chargebacks or other complaints about your business, you end up a on a blacklist and it becomes very hard to get another one with traditional rates; so many of those blacklisted business owners have to use the high rate ones. It's like people with bad credit that can only get a credit card that's 29% interest instead of 9% interest. By listing different types of "high risk" businesses they make broad statements to try and justify their pricing as well as make it seem like so many different types of businesses turn to them. The other companies using those high rate processors ARE selling high risk stuff like PORN or GAMBLING related products & services. Look at CCBill: https://www.ccbill.com

They have all that "High Risk" content stuff on their site along with all kinds of other info. You'd never know by simply looking at their web site that they're one of the top processors in the world for PORN SITES.

I love how you didn't answer my YES/NO question in BOLD about Apple that you clearly saw. That's very disingenuous of you. You should be ashamed of yourself writing so much to try and support your argument but when someone asks a simple question that exposes your entire position you refuse to answer it. You've just admitted DEFEAT.

 

[robertts]

The only companies that use those high risk merchant providers are typically companies that have been REJECTED by other providers and they have no choice - and if you lose a merchant account due to high chargebacks or other complaints about your business, you end up a on a blacklist and it becomes very hard to get another one with traditional rates; so many of those blacklisted business owners have to use the high rate ones. It's like people with bad credit that can only get a credit card that's 29% interest instead of 9% interest. By listing different types of "high risk" businesses they make broad statements to try and justify their pricing as well as make it seem like so many different types of businesses turn to them. The other companies using those high rate processors ARE selling high risk stuff like PORN or GAMBLING related products & services. Look at CCBill: https://www.ccbill.com

They have all that "High Risk" content stuff on their site along with all kinds of other info. You'd never know by simply looking at their web site that they're one of the top processors in the world for PORN SITES.

I love how you didn't answer my YES/NO question in BOLD about Apple that you clearly saw. That's very disingenuous of you. You should be ashamed of yourself writing so much to try and support your argument but when someone asks a simple question that exposes your entire position you refuse to answer it. You've just admitted DEFEAT.

This is actually not true. A lot of software is classified as high-risk due to the industry just having a higher than average chargeback rate. Of course, other factors can help you to get a standard risk merchant account. The thing that might give iOS developers an advantage is that Apple reviews their apps before they are allowed on the app store, and that can go a long way in classifying their merchant account. But for Stripe, they will likely just shut you down or decline you when you sign up.

When I worked at a payment processor, we generally sent all software to our high risk subsidiary, but there were certain exceptions we used to place some software businesses into standard risk accounts: 1) processing history; 2) size and age of the business; 3) their industry (i.e. we had a customer that built a software program for schools k-12 and universities, and they were already being used at 100s of schools in the midwest and over 40 universities).

But I do agree with you that there is is no way that Apple is using a high risk processor to process their billions in in-app payments. For starters, they have billions to cover their risk loss. They also have very strong relationships with banks, processors, and the credit card companies. And, like I mentioned above, they review all of the apps that go on their app store.

 

[Maximara]

Once again we start having a discussion about lawnmowers and you start telling us about articles or links to stuff about growing tomatoes in your backyard. Stop rambling on about unrelated topics (like about Epic).

Epic caused this this whole thing with their lawsuit which except for this one point they lost and yet they are unrelated topic. Got to love the logic there.

And, yes, there IS a strategic reason for not having a Shopping Cart.

Funny Epic does have a Shopping Cart - for the their Unreal Engine.

It's the same reason why Valve (Steam) didn't have one for awhile and still doesn't for many things they sell as one-off game items. They can store CC info and so the user isn't entering it over and over. It's similar to iTunes. Average shopping cart abandonment rates are about 70% (across the Web) so carts have downsides.

Went looking for that and it is from the Baymard Institute, correct? The key thing with that study is they say "design and flow of the checkout to frequently be the sole cause for users abandoning their purchase during the checkout flow. Either because users become so infuriated that they leave in anger, or because they don’t know how to complete one or more fields, and thus have no other option but to leave." not as you are implying the very existence of a shopping cart.

It would be more accurate to say it is a strategic reason for not having a poorly designed Shopping Cart. That is not the same as having no shopping cart at all.

 

[Fabercon]

But it gets better: Tim Sweeney wants one app store for every platform, probably in the metaverse.
Hmm. There is a word for that...oh yeh MONOPOLY.

There is also another word for that: AMAZON (well not apps, but everything else).

 

[Fabercon]

Went looking for that and it is from the Baymard Institute, correct? The key thing with that study is they say "design and flow of the checkout to frequently be the sole cause for users abandoning their purchase during the checkout flow. Either because users become so infuriated that they leave in anger, or because they don’t know how to complete one or more fields, and thus have no other option but to leave." not as you are implying the very existence of a shopping cart.

It would be more accurate to say it is a strategic reason for not having a poorly designed Shopping Cart. That is not the same as having no shopping cart at all.

While that might be true, it is not always the case. Well there are a lot of poorly designed digital shopping carts, but @turbotech is right that the concept of even requiring a shopping cart for digital purchases is flawed.

Lots of people put items in their cart because they are thinking about buying them and not committing. They might be deciding between two different brands or sizes... or whether they need it at all. Imagine going to a department store and you getting charged for every item that you pick up instead of going to the checkout line. How many items are "abandoned" in retail stores?

The key here is the iTunes and IAP method encourages impulse buys... minimizing the amount of time for the brain to think about if they really need it by going immediately from "ooh, that looks nice" to ka-ching!!

For me I have my iTunes and IAP settings setup to require a password for each purchase. Yes it is annoying and it is not a short password, but it is exactly for that reason that I allow time for my brain to work through the question if I really need it.

Ironically, the idea of setting up a 3rd party transaction from a developer is going to be a splash of cold water on that impulse buy as well. As I mentioned before, while that developer could get a better rate and percentage of the profit for each transaction, their conversion rate is going to drop much lower than if they stuck it out with Apple's 30%. Big developers might have an advantage with set-it-up-once and forget about it (emulating IAP from user perspective) but the user is only going to go through additional effort if they get rewarded in some additional way (like an extra 20% of gems).

 

[Maximara]

There is also another word for that: AMAZON (well not apps, but everything else).

The sad thing is the one company that could have competed canceled their catalog one year before Amazon went public. You have heard of SEARS, right? Sears already had the mailing infrastructure, they could have taken their catalog to the net and likely made a profit from day one.

 

[Maximara]

While that might be true, it is not always the case. Well there are a lot of poorly designed digital shopping carts, but @turbotech is right that the concept of even requiring a shopping cart for digital purchases is flawed.

Lots of people put items in their cart because they are thinking about buying them and not committing. They might be deciding between two different brands or sizes... or whether they need it at all. Imagine going to a department store and you getting charged for every item that you pick up instead of going to the checkout line. How many items are "abandoned" in retail stores?

There are a lot of flaws with that.

I was never one for impulse buys though being brought up by the Greatest Generation might have something to do with that.

Not all companies that use shopping carts store your credit card information (in fact many have had the option to elect not to have the information to be stored). You go up to the checkout line and get a total before you buy and that is how most items in a physical department store get left behind - people look at the total and realize they don't really need item x. Forcing them to do each and every item individually hides how much they are really spending because they don't have an up front total.

Then you have the knucklebuster if the department store doesn't/can't do swipes and thanks to that they have your credit card information even if you only buy one item.

Heck, the knucklebuster was our fall back if we had to manually key in the CC information (strip had gone bad) to prove we had actually physically had it. This was the case with many gas stations in the area as well.

The key here is the iTunes and IAP method encourages impulse buys... minimizing the amount of time for the brain to think about if they really need it by going immediately from "ooh, that looks nice" to ka-ching!!

I think we are using shopping cart in a different way. I and everybody else comparing about Epic's insane set up are thinking of a line item shopping cart ie

Item 1 $X
Item 2 $Y
Item 3 $Z
Total: X+Y+Z+tax

In fact Apple itself uses this very system when you build your own Mac in the EU.

They don't have tax as part of the running total in the US because the US is a cluster nightmare of different tax rates - even within a state. Take a look at New Mexico's range of sales tax rates and you will see the problem in dealing with some states. Worst in some localities city and county sales tax can be thrown in. If you count those New Mexico alone has over 100 different sales tax rates. Thankfully the other 49 aren't all like that but many come close.

Using your department store analogy you want to buy socks, some shoes, and a shirt. You get the socks but you must go to the checkout before you can get the shoes. You jump though that hoop and but you have to go back after buying the shoes oh wait you can't buy the shirt because of "suspicious activity".

Assuming that credit card information is not stored or the customer use a prefilled debit card, please explain how that total knuckle dragging insanity makes any logical or even strategic sense.

 

[Fabercon]

Not all companies that use shopping carts store your credit card information (in fact many have had the option to elect not to have the information to be stored). You go up to the checkout line and get a total before you buy and that is how most items in a physical department store get left behind - people look at the total and realize they don't really need item x. Forcing them to do each and every item individually hides how much they are really spending because they don't have an up front total.

Yes, this is exactly why it is done. Customer sees it as the cost of an item and not the total.

In a way, the IAP method is more like ordering food at a restaurant with a waiter/waitress... all of the prices are published but you have no clue what your total will be until the final bill arrives.

I think we are using shopping cart in a different way. I and everybody else comparing about Epic's insane set up are thinking of a line item shopping cart ie

Item 1 $X
Item 2 $Y
Item 3 $Z
Total: X+Y+Z+tax

In fact Apple itself uses this very system when you build your own Mac in the EU.

They don't have tax as part of the running total in the US because the US is a cluster nightmare of different tax rates - even within a state.

Most ecommerce shopping carts work this way. Tax is something that is based on information provided during checkout and not based on the current location like in the case of physical retail stores.

Take a look at New Mexico's range of sales tax rates and you will see the problem in dealing with some states. Worst in some localities city and county sales tax can be thrown in. If you count those New Mexico alone has over 100 different sales tax rates. Thankfully the other 49 aren't all like that but many come close.

The worst one I have seen is Colorado, especially for online sales. In California the sales tax amount for online sales is still based on the senders location... with the retailer only required to pay taxes to their local tax department. But in Colorado, each county and even city has their own tax jurisdiction and the online retailer is obligated to track and pay each jurisdiction directly.

It has gotten so complicated that most medium and large companies just use tax services like TaxJar or Avalara to handle the upfront estimate and payment to each jurisdiction.

Using your department store analogy you want to buy socks, some shoes, and a shirt. You get the socks but you must go to the checkout before you can get the shoes. You jump though that hoop and but you have to go back after buying the shoes oh wait you can't buy the shirt because of "suspicious activity".

Assuming that credit card information is not stored or the customer use a prefilled debit card, please explain how that total knuckle dragging insanity makes any logical or even strategic sense.

Actually it doesn't happen quite like this.

If you were to go onto the iTunes Store and purchase 3 separate songs for $0.99 each within a single session (period of time of approximately 30 minutes to an hour), then there is a delay in the receipt from Apple for a few hours. Apple already has your credit card information and knows that it is to their advantage because of processing fees to allow items to bulk up before billing you. In a sense, Apple is providing credit for the purchases that you just made until they feel it is time to process the order. Looking at the receipt you will have a bill for $2.97 with itemized charges.

Now bigger ticket items might be a different story. That credit from Apple might only be $50 or whatever until that amount exceeds and Apple wants to authorize/capture the credit card for payment.

 

[turbotech]

This is actually not true. A lot of software is classified as high-risk due to the industry just having a higher than average chargeback rate. Of course, other factors can help you to get a standard risk merchant account. The thing that might give iOS developers an advantage is that Apple reviews their apps before they are allowed on the app store, and that can go a long way in classifying their merchant account. But for Stripe, they will likely just shut you down or decline you when you sign up.

When I worked at a payment processor, we generally sent all software to our high risk subsidiary, but there were certain exceptions we used to place some software businesses into standard risk accounts: 1) processing history; 2) size and age of the business; 3) their industry (i.e. we had a customer that built a software program for schools k-12 and universities, and they were already being used at 100s of schools in the midwest and over 40 universities).

But I do agree with you that there is is no way that Apple is using a high risk processor to process their billions in in-app payments. For starters, they have billions to cover their risk loss. They also have very strong relationships with banks, processors, and the credit card companies. And, like I mentioned above, they review all of the apps that go on their app store.

That was in the past. For the past 5+ years the industry has changed and SAAS and software has taken over. That's why any software company can get instant approval from Stripe, Square or others today.

But even so, the argument was more about what is the reasonable assumption of what APPLE pays. They're definitely NOT paying some high risk, high rates for their processing, in fact it's the opposite and they most likely get better rates that the avg. low retail rates due to their massive volume.

 

[turbotech]

Funny Epic does have a Shopping Cart - for the their Unreal Engine.

Dude, I'm sorry but at this point you're just an argumentative idiot that's arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, they use shopping carts for other divisions, but they're not using one for the Epic Games Store for strategic reasons. I already told you that. The fact that they have them for other properties proves it's not a technical issue. It's a business decision, hence why they keep kicking the can down the road as to when it might be rolled out. They CHOSE to do it. What part of that don't you understand? Their primary competitor was doing it, and still does for some things, so they decided to start using that model. It's really not hard to understand.

 

[turbotech]

Yes, this is exactly why it is done. Customer sees it as the cost of an item and not the total.

In a way, the IAP method is more like ordering food at a restaurant with a waiter/waitress... all of the prices are published but you have no clue what your total will be until the final bill arrives.


Most ecommerce shopping carts work this way.

Fabercon, let me save you some time. Don't engage Maximara. You very eloquently explained exactly why there's a benefit to not having a shopping cart, especially a place where lots of impulse buys are encouraged and a marketplace that they hope a PC gamer will use as a HUB; which is exactly why Steam is making BILLIONS and exactly why Epic built their Epic Games Store to try and compete with Steam.

For many of Maximara's points he should have just said "Oh, I didn't realize that" or even (gasp) admit he was incorrect. Instead he will DIG IN HIS HEELS and regurgitate tons of other info, often a lot of it not necessarily directly correlated to the issue. He's the master of never admitting he's wrong and creating debatable diversions. It's pretty ridiculous actually.

He's been proven wrong so many times now in a BIG way yet refuses to admit it. Don't engage with him and waste your time.

 

[turbotech]

Went looking for that and it is from the Baymard Institute, correct? The key thing with that study is they say "design and flow of the checkout to frequently be the sole cause for users abandoning their purchase during the checkout flow. Either because users become so infuriated that they leave in anger, or because they don’t know how to complete one or more fields, and thus have no other option but to leave." not as you are implying the very existence of a shopping cart.

It would be more accurate to say it is a strategic reason for not having a poorly designed Shopping Cart. That is not the same as having no shopping cart at all.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... stop trying to dig through comments or quotes to try and find some way to "spin" the facts that were given. I don't know who this Baymard Institute is but if they're making sweeping claims about the cause of Cart Abandonment rates being primarily because of "design and flow of the checkout" they don't know what they're talking about, just like YOU don't.

It's very, very obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about because you're not actually in this business like myself and many others in this thread are.

There are tons and tons and tons of studies and data out (and there has been for years) about Shopping Cart Abandonment rates. NO, it's not just about design and flow of the checkout. If someone claimed to have the "design and flow of checkout" secret formula that worked great, they'd be the RICHEST PERSON IN THE WORLD. Because trillions of dollars in ecommerce done every year is lost due to Shopping Cart Abandonment rates. And it's getting worse. Mobile cart abandonment is as high as 85%.

15 Shopping Cart Abandonment Stats for 2023 | 99firms

Our list of 15 shopping cart abandonment stats provides you with a quick overview of what drives cart abandonment and how you can eliminate it.

99firms.com

Average Shopping Cart Abandonment Rate By Industry

Find the average shopping cart abandonment rate by industry, as well as tips for how your business can convert more shoppers.

www.bolt.com

21 Cart Abandonment Statistics To Help Build Your 2024 Strategy

What is the typical cart abandonment rate? Check out the latest cart abandonment statistics (plus tips on reducing it).

sleeknote.com

https://marketing.dynamicyield.com/benchmarks/cart-abandonment-rate/

Shopping cart abandonment rate by industry 2025| Statista

In 2025, a significant amount of online shopping orders were abandoned, i.e.

www.statista.com

Shopping Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics [Infographic] - Invesp

The average Shopping Cart Abandonment Rate of e-commerce websites is 65.23%, which means that shoppers didn’t complete the checkout process 65 times out of 100.

www.invespcro.com

Let us know if you need any other PROOF that you don't know what the hell you are talking about... yet again.

 

[Maximara]

Yes, this is exactly why it is done. Customer sees it as the cost of an item and not the total.

But that is why people are complaining about Epic not having a shopping cart: they have buy each program individually.

In a way, the IAP method is more like ordering food at a restaurant with a waiter/waitress... all of the prices are published but you have no clue what your total will be until the final bill arrives.

But the IAP (In-App Purchase) is not a shopping cart in the context of Epic store complaints. We are talking about a shopping cart for applications themselves not purchases made within the app

Actually it doesn't happen quite like this.

Actually for programs (not In-App Purchases) that is exactly how Epic does and that is what everyone and their brother is complaining about regarding the Epic store. The majority of complaints about Epic store are not about not being able make In-App Purchases but about buying the games themselves. This is why I used the example I did.

Someone on Reddit commented on this and how insidious it is: "The second is that there is some psychology behind not having a shopping cart. Our brains are more likely to make two separate purchases of $60 than a single purchase of $120. Even though we know it is the same thing, seeing the "$120.00" on the screen makes us double-think what we are doing and cancel the transaction."

Another had this to say "When you have a series of games or a game /w DLC people want to buy that in one go a lot of the time. Especially if they ever get certain publishers on their store NO ONE is going to want to do dozens of transactions to get a game and all the DLC (plus it's a good way to get fraud protection to kick in and lock your payment method)." Nothing about IAPs there.

"People are lazy. If there is multiple items someone wants they may not want to (mess) around with payment processing multiple times in a row. I can't speak for others, but tons of tiny transactions is too much work if I'm buying (stuff) I'm doing it in as few of transactions as humanly possible. Makes for cleaner billing statements too. And judging by my Steam activity feed during sales most my friends buy multiple things at once quite frequently."

Remember Epic makes money on IAPs and that was what their whole suit was about and they had to pony up millions on IAPs to Apple because those were part of their contract with Apple -Apple got the 30% in or out of their Store App store. Remember the court allowed Apple to keep Fornite off Apple's App-store (it was when Apple went after Epic's developer account the Judge came down on Apple) but Apple still got money from IAPs - so that money wasn't coming from Epic's store but from Fortnite IAPs.

Look at this 2018 article: Fortnite: How to get your money BACK if your child racks up a huge bill on in-app purchases not Epic's store but IAPs regardless of it being Apple or Google getting their 30%.

"Epic Games today paid Apple $6,000,000 in royalties, ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said on Twitter. As part of the ruling in the ongoing Epic v. Apple legal battle, Epic was last week ordered by the court to pay 30 percent of the revenue that it collected from the Fornite app using its illicit direct payment option." (Sep 13, 2021) Unless the article messed up (extremely likely the way Epic's "win" was misreported) going to the Epic store would be a payment gateway which is a different thing.

Now sit back and think about that. Epic's induction to keep Fornite on the Apple App Store failed - cutting off all IPAs internal to Fortnite as far as Apple was concerned. By basic math that works to $20,000,000.

Epic's whole stick has been they want to compete with Steam regarding the purchase of Apps not purchase in Apps (like how any of Steams programs even have IAPs?). Yet Epic's store doesn't have what even single transaction sites have - an itemized shopping carts. Heck that is so basic that even small websites that have perhaps 10 items have an itemized shopping carts but Epic either can't or won't implement one on their site for purchasing many programs at once.

Not having a shopping cart for programs is not consumer friendly ergo anybody that supports no shopping cart for programs is anti-consumer. Either knowingly or though ignorance anyone saying having no shopping cart for programs is fine is allowing already ridiculously rich companies to make even more money rather than having a set up that causes the consumer to go 'what am I doing?!'

 

[turbotech]

But that is why people are complaining about Epic not having a shopping cart: they have buy each program individually.

But the IAP (In-App Purchase) is not a shopping cart in the context of Epic store complaints. We are talking about a shopping cart for applications themselves not purchases made within the app

Actually for programs (not In-App Purchases) that is exactly how Epic does and that is what everyone and their brother is complaining about regarding the Epic store. The majority of complaints about Epic store are not about not being able make In-App Purchases but about buying the games themselves. This is why I used the example I did.

Someone on Reddit commented on this and how insidious it is: "The second is that there is some psychology behind not having a shopping cart. Our brains are more likely to make two separate purchases of $60 than a single purchase of $120. Even though we know it is the same thing, seeing the "$120.00" on the screen makes us double-think what we are doing and cancel the transaction."

Another had this to say "When you have a series of games or a game /w DLC people want to buy that in one go a lot of the time. Especially if they ever get certain publishers on their store NO ONE is going to want to do dozens of transactions to get a game and all the DLC (plus it's a good way to get fraud protection to kick in and lock your payment method)." Nothing about IAPs there.

"People are lazy. If there is multiple items someone wants they may not want to (mess) around with payment processing multiple times in a row. I can't speak for others, but tons of tiny transactions is too much work if I'm buying (stuff) I'm doing it in as few of transactions as humanly possible. Makes for cleaner billing statements too. And judging by my Steam activity feed during sales most my friends buy multiple things at once quite frequently."

Remember Epic makes money on IAPs and that was what their whole suit was about and they had to pony up millions on IAPs to Apple because those were part of their contract with Apple -Apple got the 30% in or out of their Store App store. Remember the court allowed Apple to keep Fornite off Apple's App-store (it was when Apple went after Epic's developer account the Judge came down on Apple) but Apple still got money from IAPs - so that money wasn't coming from Epic's store but from Fortnite IAPs.

Look at this 2018 article: Fortnite: How to get your money BACK if your child racks up a huge bill on in-app purchases not Epic's store but IAPs regardless of it being Apple or Google getting their 30%.

"Epic Games today paid Apple $6,000,000 in royalties, ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said on Twitter. As part of the ruling in the ongoing Epic v. Apple legal battle, Epic was last week ordered by the court to pay 30 percent of the revenue that it collected from the Fornite app using its illicit direct payment option." (Sep 13, 2021) Unless the article messed up (extremely likely the way Epic's "win" was misreported) going to the Epic store would be a payment gateway which is a different thing.

Now sit back and think about that. Epic's induction to keep Fornite on the Apple App Store failed - cutting off all IPAs internal to Fortnite as far as Apple was concerned. By basic math that works to $20,000,000.

Epic's whole stick has been they want to compete with Steam regarding the purchase of Apps not purchase in Apps (like how any of Steams programs even have IAPs?). Yet Epic's store doesn't have what even single transaction sites have - an itemized shopping carts. Heck that is so basic that even small websites that have perhaps 10 items have an itemized shopping carts but Epic either can't or won't implement one on their site for purchasing many programs at once.

Not having a shopping cart for programs is not consumer friendly ergo anybody that supports no shopping cart for programs is anti-consumer. Either knowingly or though ignorance anyone saying having no shopping cart for programs is fine is allowing already ridiculously rich companies to make even more money rather than having a set up that causes the consumer to go 'what am I doing?!'

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You never cease to entertain us with your long-winded, word salad rambling... and how you go off talking about issues that have nothing to do with what was being debated and then bring it back to some other way to try and tie it all together.

If you were a trial court attorney a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom with how you try to "present evidence" to support your claims that you've been making in different debates.

You tried to claim that Epic was technically incompetent and that's why they didn't have a shopping cart yet for their Games Store. You were clearly told by myself and also @Fabercon why you were WRONG and that they were doing it as a strategy to test conversion/monetization by not having a shopping cart like other game marketplaces have done, like Steam has done in the past.

After being told about Shopping Cart Abandonment rate problems you challenged that, trying to dig for ways to make your point that Cart Abandonment wasn't an issue unless you had design and flow problems with your shopping cart. When you were PROVEN WRONG YET AGAIN you don't even acknowledge it, but try and figure out how to 'spin' the conversation another way to try and save face.

Now here you are replying to @Fabercon and stating all these things (based on your opinion) why not having a shopping cart isn't a good strategy to make more money and even if it is it's still anti-consumer. ROFL!

You go on some tirade about IAPs being different than the game sales that the Epic Games Store and Steam are making and so it doesn't correlate to using a Shopping Cart.

SPOILER ALERT: YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE HOW THIS DEBATE TURNS OUT JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE...

Once again, Ye Who Isn't In The Game Business And Doesn't Know What He's Talking About...

Many PC games DO have IAPs. Free-To-Play is one of the fastest and most successful business models in gaming on PC, Xbox, Playstation and more. IAPs for games aren't just in iPhone & Android games.

Go do your little 'research' on a game called APEX LEGENDS. It was originally made for PC (you can get it via Steam) then it expanded to consoles. Now recently it's expanding to Mobile. It's a F2P game that relies on IAPs. Apex Legends has pulled in over $1.6 Billion in IAP purchases (the game itself is free) and is almost at a $1B/year run rate.

That's just one example, there are TONS of F2P games that rely on IAPs as well as hybrids. More released every month.

There are many 'hybrid' games that you have to pay for upfront AND they also include IAP micro-transactions if you want to buy add-ons, skins, DLCs, etc. within the game.

So you're wrong about IAPs and you're wrong about Shopping Cart usage. In the games business, which you have demonstrated you know very little about except copying & pasting quotes or linking to articles that you 'think' support your positions, there are many uses of game-buying that doesn't include shopping carts. Microsoft's XBox, for example, has some game purchases in their XBox Store inside the console that have no shopping cart modes where you're just buying a game one at a time and can do 1-click buying once they have your credit card info stored. YES, you'll find users on Reddit or discussing elsewhere how they don't like some of these marketplaces not having Shopping Carts, but if they're not being used it's for a strategic business reason; which I'm sure has been heavily split-tested.

What you apparently fail to understand is that you're discussing MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR companies. These guys run tons of split-tests constantly and are analyzing data constantly to see what will maximize sales, etc. If they're doing something it's for a reason. They employ DATA SCIENTISTS to monitor their data, tests, and monetization non-stop. So again... if Epic is not using a shopping cart for its Games Store it's for a strategic reason, as you were already told.

With that being said... you really need to "Stay in your lane." You've clearly demonstrated how very little you know about how the Games Industry today operates.

 

[Ceed]

So much bolding, capitalizing, and italicizing really reduces their impact and effectiveness, and comes off rather overwrought. Rein it in a bit, yo.

 

[turbotech]

So much bolding, capitalizing, and italicizing really reduces their impact and effectiveness, and comes off rather overwrought. Rein it in a bit, yo.

LOL at @Maximara liking this comment when his posts contain 10X that stuff compared to anyone else's.

 

[Maximara]

LOL at @Maximara liking this comment when his posts contain 10X that stuff compared to anyone else's.

Because I have to explain to people what is going on and how you officiate Epic's store with IPA which are not the same thing. Oh you do know that Epic has a clause in their use contract where you can't sue Epic and have to go through binding arbitration, right?

 

[Maximara]

Just read a post by Davidw over on Appleinsider that sums up the can of worms this will open and it does a far better job than most people (even myself) have. I thought I should share it with all of you.

--Start--
For one, customers would have to provide their CC info and maybe other financial data to a third party developer. Might not be a problem with well established developers like Epic or Spotify or Microsoft . But the developer selling a $2.99 app might not be as trustworthy with customers data.

Second, Apple must allow developers to provide a direct link for payment outside the App Store. Though Apple do a decent job of stopping malware from getting through the Apple App Store, they by no means can stop all of it. One bad link and thousands or tens of thousands of customers could be affected, before Apple finds out about it.

Third, when Apple handle the payment for the customer, they also handle any refund, if the app doesn't performed as advertised. With a third party payment, the customer must go through the developer to get a refund.

Fourth, what happens to customers that buy a new iDevice or has to factory reset on the iDevice they have. How do they get their purchased app back, if they don't have a backup? With Apple iTunes payment, Apple reinstall them automatically, providing they are still available. But customers paying on developers sites would need to contact each developer they purchased an app from, to verify purchase and get it reinstalled or have to open an account with them when they made the purchase.

Fifth, who's going to take responsibility when a not so well established developer server gets hacked into and customers data is stolen?

Yes, these are problems that are not impossible for developers to solve but how do the customers know when making an impulse purchase from a developer they never dealt with or even heard of? It's one thing to allow developers to inform customers that payment can be made on their website and provide a link that opens a browser to that website. It's quite another to allow developers to provide a direct link in their app, to their own payment system.
--End--

I would be leary of even "a link that opens a browser to that website" (which curiously they mentioned further up) as that is a prime target for social engineered malware which has replaced viruses as the main distribution method.

 

[bigsnake49]

So can Apple scare the bejesus out of you before you follow that link? Like, we are have not checked out that link to see where that goes, you are solely responsible for what happens to you if you follow it. Any refunds, complaints and support must be directed to the developer.

 

[Maximara]

So can Apple scare the bejesus out of you before you follow that link? Like, we are have not checked out that link to see where that goes, you are solely responsible for what happens to you if you follow it. Any refunds, complaints and support must be directed to the developer.

I would think Apple will have something along those lines. Apple may even throw something about binding arbitration in there like Epic Games already does: (sorry about the all caps but I want to keep this as much as it appears as possible)

"THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS (“TERMS”) APPLY TO YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITES OF EPIC GAMES, INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (“EPIC”, “WE” “US” OR “OUR”), (legal text removed to keep this short and sweet since some parts of the internet have an attention span that would insult a goldfish and hide behind a myriad of excuses if you try to call them out on it.)

THESE TERMS CONTAINS A BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND CLASS-ACTION WAIVER PROVISION. IF YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS, YOU AND EPIC AGREE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES IN BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT INDIVIDUALLY OR AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION, AND EPIC AGREES TO PAY YOUR ARBITRATION COSTS FOR ALL DISPUTES OF UP TO $10,000 THAT ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH (SEE BELOW)." - Epic Games Terms of Service

This is what any supporter of Epic doesn't realize. The very thing that Epic has used to supposedly get Apple in line (a lawsuit) Epic doesn't allow its users to do. The only defense to that is a "shock the conscience" ruling by the appeals court which got used in the Circuit City case where the binding arbitration clause was so one sided it got thrown out. Note that case started in 1997 and this ruling came down in 2003...so it takes a long time to get there.

 

[turbotech]

This is what any supporter of Epic doesn't realize. The very thing that Epic has used to supposedly get Apple in line (a lawsuit) Epic doesn't allow its users to do. The only defense to that is a "shock the conscience" ruling by the appeals court which got used in the Circuit City case where the binding arbitration clause was so one sided it got thrown out. Note that case started in 1997 and this ruling came down in 2003...so it takes a long time to get there.

I could care less what Epic does. In fact, they're one of our competitors like they are to many other game companies. As for your comments above, a big company will create an API to handle the 3rd party processing with ease, and they'll probably also add support for refunds, restoring purchases, etc. Stripe, PayPal, Amazon, Google, etc. will all be fighting for a piece of that 3rd party processor pie. Developers won't waste their time trying to host their own payment system, it will all go through a big company like the ones I mentioned (and most consumers already trust). Whether it loads an external browser window or all stays self contained inside the App will come down to the rules that Apple sets when they add that 3rd party 'steering' option for developers. But either way, some big companies will figure out solutions for it.

 

[Maximara]

I could care less what Epic does.

Since that is what Apple is appealing you should care. That is the whole point. As Hoeg Law points out because the whole case was regarding Epic, Epic is no longer on the App Store, and the one point Epic won on involves a very vague state law Court of Appeals will likely "maintain the status quo" Apple had to be back to the original court who wasn't going to go 'oh yeh we kind of messed up' so they could go on to the Court of Appeals. (he goes over 4:20-cv-05640 Document 830). In earlier video Hoeg felt that Apple would get its stay but couldn't pull any data because it is borderline nonexistent.

I note you don't want to address Davidw's points as they are a problem few are pointing out and were Apple's very worries some of which the court did agree with (though not all). The question is will the Court of Appeals even get to hear Apple's arguments before the deadline or worst (for Epic and the lower court) get to the case after the deadline and rule in Apple's favor that the injunction should have been granted.

As the mess with Bitcoin Scam App Approved by Apple Robs iPhone User of $600,000+ shows Epic isn't the only one to do funky things with its code after Apple approved the App.

It was a version of the old bait and switch. We have seen this with games submitted to reviewers and after they have rated it some piece of code they didn't know about was activated changing the way the game worked. Do we blame the reviews who effectively got scammed? No, we should blame the maker of the program.

But who are people going to go to sue if the website Apple was given is changed to something else and people loose buckets of money? Apple. Especially if the maker of the program went silent.

 

[turbotech]

Since that is what Apple is appealing you should care. That is the whole point. As Hoeg Law points out because the whole case was regarding Epic, Epic is no longer on the App Store, and the one point Epic won on involves a very vague state law Court of Appeals will likely "maintain the status quo" Apple had to be back to the original court who wasn't going to go 'oh yeh we kind of messed up' so they could go on to the Court of Appeals. (he goes over 4:20-cv-05640 Document 830). In earlier video Hoeg felt that Apple would get its stay but couldn't pull any data because it is borderline nonexistent.

I note you don't want to address Davidw's points as they are a problem few are pointing out and were Apple's very worries some of which the court did agree with (though not all). The question is will the Court of Appeals even get to hear Apple's arguments before the deadline or worst (for Epic and the lower court) get to the case after the deadline and rule in Apple's favor that the injunction should have been granted.

I don't actually care what Epic does at this point. The court ruling, even if successfully appealed, is the beginning of the end of Apple's dominance and egregious commission pricing on the App Store. More governments, states, and other jurisdictions will end up passing laws & regulations that force Apple to allow developers to tell their users about other payment methods to buy from them. You don't realize it, but Apple already LOST this battle regardless of how this specific case turns out. The PR that Epic created from all of this has permanently damaged Apple and has brought to light these issues. The momentum is building against them and there's no stopping it. They'll have no choice but to make changes, it's just a matter of WHEN.

As for those issues you mention, someone will figure out solutions, they always do. As for the 'bait and switch' of URLs within code, someone can do that NOW with an iOS App. But that's also solved with whitelisting URLs, which Apple already does some of. So the big companies that will compete for 3rd party processing will end up being whitelisted in App code and that's what Apps will link to for this 3rd party payment stuff.

This bill has already been introduced in the US Senate (in August 2021) and has bipartisan support. It's only a matter of time before it gets passed and becomes law:

Bipartisan bill targets Apple and Google's ability to profit from app stores

App developers have complained to Congress of unfair treatment by Apple and Google.

www.cnbc.com

This is a key part from that article to note and expresses how many Senators feel about the issue, those feelings have been created from, or at the very least reinforced by, Epic's case against Apple:

Blumenthal said in an interview Wednesday on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” that Apple and Google’s arguments that tight control of their app stores protect users’ security is a “pretext to maintain their monopoly position.”

“It is not only disingenuous it’s ironic because they’re the ones who are actually invading privacy and stealing data from the developers and all the while they’re saying, ‘Oh, well, we’re the privacy protectors,’” Blumenthal said. “In fact, our legislation in Section 4 has a specific provision that protects privacy, even more than it is now. So this kind of argument is totally bogus and I think it is going to be absolutely transparent that, actually, privacy would be better protected with this legislation.”

 

[Maximara]

I don't actually care what Epic does at this point. The court ruling, even if successfully appealed, is the beginning of the end of Apple's dominance and egregious commission pricing on the App Store. More governments, states, and other jurisdictions will end up passing laws & regulations that force Apple to allow developers to tell their users about other payment methods to buy from them.

This bill has already been introduced in the US Senate (in August 2021) and has bipartisan support. It's only a matter of time before it gets passed and becomes law:

Bipartisan bill targets Apple and Google's ability to profit from app stores

App developers have complained to Congress of unfair treatment by Apple and Google.

www.cnbc.com

There are actually two bills: S. 2710 and H.R. 5017 (both called Open App Markets Act) both of which are at the Committee stage (08/11/2021 and 08/13/2021 respectively). "Most bills — about 90% — die in committee or subcommittee, where they are pigeonholed, or simply forgotten and never discussed." 6e. How a Bill Becomes a Law

Now if either of these beat the odds then on to the report stage and then there is the debate-vote stage. Now if this flowchart is correct this is where it could get weird.

Normally a bill is sent to the other House of congress where it goes through the introduction, committee, debate and then it goes to the Conference stage where any differences are sorted out and then the President gets it. This can take a long time. The CARE Act for example took over a year to work its way through this process.

As near as I can tell the bills are identical so I don't know if both survive the committee stage (1% Chance) they have to go through the other part of Congress or go straight to the Conference stage.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't actually care what Epic does at this point. The court ruling, even if successfully appealed, is the beginning of the end of Apple's dominance and egregious commission pricing on the App Store. More governments, states, and other jurisdictions will end up passing laws & regulations that force Apple to allow developers to tell their users about other payment methods to buy from them. You don't realize it, but Apple already LOST this battle regardless of how this specific case turns out. The PR that Epic created from all of this has permanently damaged Apple and has brought to light these issues. The momentum is building against them and there's no stopping it. They'll have no choice but to make changes, it's just a matter of WHEN.

I do often wonder if people are all too eager to proclaim the death knell for Apple. There was a time when everyone was saying that Apple would lose out to Android’s overwhelming market share, and the rest as we know it is history.

It seems that as Apple goes on to become ever more successful, people grow even more desperate to show that Apple is anything but winning the smartphone race (in fact, I would argue that Apple already has).

You will be disappointed.