Epic v. Apple trial testimony turns to 'cross-wallet' gaming
So-called "cross-wallet" gaming featured large in the second day of the Epic Games v. Apple trial, with Epic and other developers arguing the payment method is not a viable alternative to in-app purchases.
Available as a continuity feature for users, and an option for developers averse to in-app payments (and Apple's cut of those payments), the "cross-wallet" alternative allows for the use of in-game currency purchased from another device or platform. For example, "Fortnite" players can buy V-Bucks on a PC or through Epic's website and use those V-Bucks to buy in-game items on iOS -- or at least they might have when the game was still on the App Store.
As noted by The Verge, Apple allowed Epic to implement cross-wallet play in "Fortnite" until the game was stricken from the App Store for violating Apple's rules against direct payments. The fact, noted by Apple's lawyers, undermines a central argument that claims developers have little choice but to give Apple 30% of all in-app purchase proceeds.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers asked Epic CEO Tim Sweeney why the option was not added to "Fortnite." The executive admitted his company could have instituted the feature, but said "it wasn't a very attractive option for our customers."
"To set Fortnite aside and pull out some device, browse to a website, log in, make a transaction there, it's extremely inconvenient," Sweeney said. "There's a huge amount of payment processing and customer friction associated with selling a user of an app an item outside of that app."
Rogers suggested such friction might not be a bad thing considering "Fortnite's" target audience.
"Why is it so inconvenient that someone can't make what I would call, as a parent, an impulse purchase?" Rogers asked. "Isn't that a responsible way to deal with a young client base?"
Benjamin Simon, CEO of the company that develops yoga app Down Dog, took the stand to testify that, while it does offer out-of-network payments to its clients, Apple's rules hinder discovery of the in-app payment alternative. Specifically, Apple rejected multiple versions of Down Dog for telling users that they could score a discount on their subscription by signing up through the web. Such advertisements are in violation of App Store guidelines.
Simon added that Down Dog is unable to readily communicate the discount to its customers through in-app mechanisms and must instead reach out via email or some other form of communication.
"We're restricted in our ability to communicate with our customers from within our product," he said.
These limitations on open communication between a developer and its customers are part of Epic's argument.
Available as a continuity feature for users, and an option for developers averse to in-app payments (and Apple's cut of those payments), the "cross-wallet" alternative allows for the use of in-game currency purchased from another device or platform. For example, "Fortnite" players can buy V-Bucks on a PC or through Epic's website and use those V-Bucks to buy in-game items on iOS -- or at least they might have when the game was still on the App Store.
As noted by The Verge, Apple allowed Epic to implement cross-wallet play in "Fortnite" until the game was stricken from the App Store for violating Apple's rules against direct payments. The fact, noted by Apple's lawyers, undermines a central argument that claims developers have little choice but to give Apple 30% of all in-app purchase proceeds.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers asked Epic CEO Tim Sweeney why the option was not added to "Fortnite." The executive admitted his company could have instituted the feature, but said "it wasn't a very attractive option for our customers."
"To set Fortnite aside and pull out some device, browse to a website, log in, make a transaction there, it's extremely inconvenient," Sweeney said. "There's a huge amount of payment processing and customer friction associated with selling a user of an app an item outside of that app."
Rogers suggested such friction might not be a bad thing considering "Fortnite's" target audience.
"Why is it so inconvenient that someone can't make what I would call, as a parent, an impulse purchase?" Rogers asked. "Isn't that a responsible way to deal with a young client base?"
Benjamin Simon, CEO of the company that develops yoga app Down Dog, took the stand to testify that, while it does offer out-of-network payments to its clients, Apple's rules hinder discovery of the in-app payment alternative. Specifically, Apple rejected multiple versions of Down Dog for telling users that they could score a discount on their subscription by signing up through the web. Such advertisements are in violation of App Store guidelines.
Simon added that Down Dog is unable to readily communicate the discount to its customers through in-app mechanisms and must instead reach out via email or some other form of communication.
"We're restricted in our ability to communicate with our customers from within our product," he said.
These limitations on open communication between a developer and its customers are part of Epic's argument.
Comments
If they discovered through the App Store then shouldn’t Down Dog count that as a user gained via the App Store and the benefits it provides and be happy to pay 30% as a commission or finder’s fee or what have you? If the app was discovered via their website why does the CEO think it’s such a burden for customers to go back to their website?
Not to mention, I get emails with discount codes from businesses ALL THE TIME! Guess what. Mother’s Day is right around the corner. Just since Sunday I’ve gotten emails from at least 3 businesses touting products with a discount code for Mother’s Day gifts. That’s just this week. One of them is from a photographer we use for family photos a few times a year. The discount works for photo products they offer through a third-party that, wait for it, gets a cut of the sale!
None of what Sweeney, et al, are complaining about is unique to the particular situation they are complaining about.
Wait! What other device? I usually can open Safari by swiping up and taping Safari icon one time.
I guess Sweeney is using his device the wrong way. LOL
I am actually subscribed to Down Dog with the 1-year subscription.
Guess what I did when I wanted to make a 1-year commitment with my money?
Oh, was it so easy to guess? That I went to their web-site to check if they have the option to subscribe.
Could I have paid through the app? Sure. But there are so many apps with the subscription which offer the option on their web-site. So it is just obvious to check them for larger purchases than 0,99$.
This is no different than Netflix. I pay for my Netflix subscription with auto charge on my CC. I get no discount for doing this, even though Netflix do not have to pay any app stores a commission. But if I did not have this option, I would probably pay monthly using the Netflix app on my iPad or Apple TV mainly because of iTunes. Much more convenient than having to log on to Netflix on my Mac.
I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure I've been paying this way all the way back when Netflix was just renting DVD movies by mail. Before they became a movie streaming subscription service.
2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.
The review guidelines say this which contradicts:
This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
need to reduce the split to probably no higher than 15-20% in that case or nobody would use IAP. Apple also considers them their customers, so they would not want you processing transactions for their customers.
Ideally my preference would be for Apple to let developers obtain their own customers from their website or another platform. If a developer obtains a customer away from the App Store with a user account created outside the app then it is the developers customer and they can use alternate payment methods for additional purchases directly in an app, if Apple obtains the customer by the user creating the account in app then it is Apple's customer and they need to use IAP since Apple would be responsible for those transactions. This makes much more sense to me than the weird rules that try to prevent bypassing Apple's IAP by making it a poor experience for end users.
The other problem with the current system is that Apple essentially steals a developers customer obtained elsewhere if that customer wants to use an Apple device since Apple now owns the customer in respect to IAP.
To take it a step further, I think it would be ideal if a developer could opt-out of listing with a hidden store page. If they do that then they could also opt out of Apple's IAP. Apple could even limit the size of these apps so that a developer would need to use their own CDN to obtain non-executable content for large apps. With hidden store pages, Apple could also be more selective with what they list on the store. That way they could get rid of junk apps more easily while still giving an alternative way for those apps to list. Getting rid of the junk apps would increase the listing value to developers that create great apps and make it less likely people will find apps that don't get the same level of scrutiny by reviewers.
Yours is a boutique shop, with all the amenities for higher spending customers. For that, you must have higher margins to maintain profitability.
Now imagine that big name provider is advertising in the very labels of their products that YOUR customers—they are in your store—could get a better deal (like 5 % off) on the store next doors! How would you react to that, as the competing store owner?
By your argument, there should be no trouble at all. You should be happy to build and maintain a higher end store, while your providers use your product placement to point out that there are better deals just around the corner.
Now answer me: what (if any) other company is expected to do business that way? This lawsuit, like so many others, is rooted in a very simple fact: Apple is worth trillions and have hundreds of billions sitting in the bank.
store for free?