Apple not a monopoly but must allow alternate payment methods for apps, judge rules

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 136
    Xed said:
    This is a foolish verdict and sucks for Apple and consumers, but it's only possible because the judge doesn't really see non-iPhones as real choices. At least that's something positive Apple can take away from this.
    So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.
    Two can play this game. You think that you're smarter than Tim Cook? Go apply for his job <insert more nonsense here>
    uraharaXedwilliamlondonjony0spock1234killroythtn2itivguyrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 136

    So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.
    So you believe that Apple should be required to allow developers to put their apps on Apple’s App Store for free and users download them for free and the developer can charge for the app outside of Apple’s App Store. So then Apple makes no money for providing a really easy place for the developers to distribute apps while spending money for the resources and infrastructure to maintain a secure App Store?

    Talk about a spoiled and entitled attitude…
    flyingdpuraharaXedradarthekatwilliamlondonStrangeDaysjony0hlee1169bloggerblogspock1234
  • Reply 23 of 136
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    “Success is not illegal.” Isn’t that the truth. 

    If the ruling just involves adding external links in games, I’m ok with that.

    if it involves allowing alternate pay systems inside ios, that is not good. 
    get seriouskillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 136
    aderutter said:
    Well Apple should not allow Epic back regardless.

    Other than that, I hope that Apple adds a new app-store rule stating that apps that use in-app purchases other than Apple-Pay cannot be free to download.

    I suggest a minimum purchase of $4.99 of which Apple get the usual 15%/30%. Apple needs to recoup it’s costs somewhere.


    Wow, did you even read what you wrote before posting it!?
    I read his post. I think it’s a great idea. 
    You imply that something wrong with his post. What?
    williamlondonspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 136
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 402member
    There is no way you should be able to get away with paying $99 to give away in the App Store and then collect money from outside of the App Store. I'll equate it to being able to install a sign inside of Walmart directing the customer to your online store completely which completely cuts Walmart out. The world does not work like this. There are real costs to running the App Store, just like any other store. Of course many people do not realize what it costs to run any type of store including virtual stores which many assume are virtually free. 

    This will come back to hurt Epic and others, but it will not be in an obvious way. The biggest risk to Epic is that Fortnite is their pinnacle and interest in it is waning. Prior to phones gamers were a minuscule part of the population and irrelevant to most people. When phones became ubiquitous the group of gamers expanded exponentially and with that came large groups of people who are not serious gamers and never will be. The cool kids always lead the way and they can and do flip in an instant when something is deemed no longer cool. Epic will never have the growth they had with Fortnite again.
    uraharaget seriousStrangeDaysjony0hlee1169applguyspock1234fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 136


    georgie01 said:

    So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.
    So you believe that Apple should be required to allow developers to put their apps on Apple’s App Store for free and users download them for free and the developer can charge for the app outside of Apple’s App Store. So then Apple makes no money for providing a really easy place for the developers to distribute apps while spending money for the resources and infrastructure to maintain a secure App Store?

    Talk about a spoiled and entitled attitude…
    It doesn't matter what you believe or what you feel.  I trust the judge's ability to apply the law much better than myself.  Like I said before, if you think you're smarter and better than her, go apply for her job and stop acting like a whiney Apple apologist.
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 27 of 136
    aderutter said:
    …I hope that Apple adds a new app-store rule stating that apps that use in-app purchases other than Apple-Pay cannot be free to download.
    I totally agree. If the developer can steer the user away from the App Store for payment then Apple could be used simply for their own resources and expertise in developing the App Store and the iPhone/iPad ecosystem and get no money for it.

    It’s insane to me to read some comments on this issue. People actually believe they’re entitled to apps on their devices in however way they want them—yet they contributed exactly zero to developing and manufacturing those devices and don’t even legally own any of the system software or apps they have on those devices.
    aderuttern2itivguywatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 28 of 136
    flydog said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    Are you an antitrust attorney with many years of experience handling these types of appeals?  Did you personally review all of the evidence admitted at trial?

    If not, then you have no clue what you are talking about. 
    No clue? It's common knowledge that web retailers have anti-steering clauses. Both the App Store and web retail involve electronic payment. Both can be done on device by an iPhone user. The injunction itself proves that the judge knows iPhone users already have access to developer web sites via the internet. All that being true, does it seem legally sound to say the App Store is required to provide info about alternate market choices while something like Amazon's web site is not? Remember, it's the same iPhone user in either case. And that same iPhone user will be seeing that same contrast in approaches to an electronic payment over and over and over. 
    radarthekathlee1169spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 136
    Apple can spin it anyway they like but it's a great ruling for developers and customers alike.   Also, please spare us the absurd comparison of brick & mortar stores; Apple wanted it both ways in terms of being the sole App Store for apps and with that, tried to disallow any in-app purchases form outside the store.  
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 30 of 136
    This is what the stock drop $4 after this ruling, this means apple is could be cut out of profits of the apps when developers place a payment method in their app to turn things on and get rid of ads.

    How many of you want your credit card information stored over lots of different companies servers. I personally limit how many places have my credit card information. As much as I hate Amazon it make doing transaction easy from a lot of different vendors. I also have CC information with Paypal which many cite accept so I pay with Paypal and they hand the transaction and none of my personal information is stored on third part cites. Think about all the website who have been hacked over the years. When Apple came out with tokenization of CC transaction in Apple Pay i was all in since no company would every have the actual CC number so it can not be stolen.

    I wonder if Apple would just make up the loose here by charging Develops to use the store or the developer tools. I could see they doing one time fees to set up an app on the store and fee to verify the app work properly and soo, Apple could fee the developers to no end.
    edited September 2021 get seriouswilliamlondonGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 136
    carnegie said: A defendant doesn't have to have monopoly power to violate California's Unfair Competition Law in the way that they do in order to violate, e.g., certain parts of the Sherman Act.
    What about CA iPhone users that access the web? If anti-steering violates CA Unfair Competition Law, then CA iPhone users should expect to see alternate market choice info on any web retail site they visit?
    spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 136
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,991member
    Beautiful is that we will be able to see how harmful is for Consumers!

    next step: right to repair & etc ! I want to be able to change the battery on my iPhone, the memory on my Mac Mini and etc. !
    Consumer: Hey Apple. I bought this app and it doesn’t work right. I want a refund.

    Apple: Sorry, you may have bought it in the App Store but you didn’t pay for it through the App Store. You used the developer’s gnarly payment system to get a discount.

    Consumer: What do you mean I didn’t pay you for it? I want my refund.

    Apple: Sorry, you’ll have to contact the company/developer directly. We’re out of this. You’re on your own.

    Consumer: Fucking Apple! The government needs to break you up! Okay, how to I contact the developer?

    Apple: As we told you, you’re on your own.

    Consumer: @#$^$%&$&(&%^&) I’ll never buy an Apple product again.

    I’d say that’s harming the consumer right there. Tell me this scenario won’t happen. 


    get seriouswilliamlondonradarthekathlee1169bloggerblogapplguyspock1234thtn2itivguyGG1
  • Reply 33 of 136
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,853member
    Xed said:
    This is a foolish verdict and sucks for Apple and consumers, but it's only possible because the judge doesn't really see non-iPhones as real choices. At least that's something positive Apple can take away from this.
    So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.

    He's expressing his opinion, one with which you disagree.  That's fine. What's not fine is using an Appeal to Authority fallacy combined with straw man.  One doesn't need to be "smarter than the judge" to form an opinion.  You state your opinion, now let him state his.  There is no reason to attack him over his post.  
    XedwilliamlondonStrangeDaysradarthekatbloggerblogtenthousandthingsmacxpressspock1234thtn2itivguy
  • Reply 34 of 136
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,853member
    maestro64 said:
    This is what the stock drop $4 after this ruling, this means apple is could be cut out of profits of the apps when developers place a payment method in their app to turn things on and get rid of ads.

    How many of you want you credit card information stored over lots of different companies servers. I personally limit how many places have my credit card information. As much as I hate Amazon it make doing transaction easy. I also have CC information with Paypal which many cite accept so I pay with Paypal and they hand the transaction and none of my personal information is stored on third part cites. Think about all the website who have been hacked over the years.

    I don't think that's true at all.  Nothing says Apple isn't entitled to the revenue cut.  It will just be a matter of transparency and accounting.  Nothing says they can't charge developers who do this a fee, either.  Apple could add to its policies a provision that 3rd party payment systems incur a 10% surcharge automatically as a risk adjustment, and require quarterly disclosure of 3rd party sales that would have normally gone through the app store.   
    n2itivguyrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 136
    Allowing links to external developer stores is fine. I would bet most mainstream users will opt for Apple's App store for convenience sake rather than saving 10-30% on an App. I wonder, will the AppStore auto update system be supported on external purchases? Or will the purchaser have to revisit the external site to get updates. Also surely the unsubscribe process for third party purchases will super simple <sarcasm>
    Time will tell if store security, price and convenience will have a material impact on Apple's bottom line. 
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 136
    sdw2001 said:
    maestro64 said:
    This is what the stock drop $4 after this ruling, this means apple is could be cut out of profits of the apps when developers place a payment method in their app to turn things on and get rid of ads.

    How many of you want you credit card information stored over lots of different companies servers. I personally limit how many places have my credit card information. As much as I hate Amazon it make doing transaction easy. I also have CC information with Paypal which many cite accept so I pay with Paypal and they hand the transaction and none of my personal information is stored on third part cites. Think about all the website who have been hacked over the years.

    I don't think that's true at all.  Nothing says Apple isn't entitled to the revenue cut.  It will just be a matter of transparency and accounting.  Nothing says they can't charge developers who do this a fee, either.  Apple could add to its policies a provision that 3rd party payment systems incur a 10% surcharge automatically as a risk adjustment, and require quarterly disclosure of 3rd party sales that would have normally gone through the app store.   
    True, apple could say they still get the cut if you process the payment else, but there is already precedence against this, Neflix is one of them, Apple does not get a cut of any payment you make to Netflix even though you down loaded the apple from the app store and you do to Netflix website and setup the recurring payments. If Apple tried to make developers pay they would just reference that already do not collect a commission for outside the system payments. It a catch 22 for Apple and the developers. 

    We will have to see how this plays out.
    hlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 136
    XedXed Posts: 1,434member
    Xed said:
    This is a foolish verdict and sucks for Apple and consumers, but it's only possible because the judge doesn't really see non-iPhones as real choices. At least that's something positive Apple can take away from this.
    So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.
    What the what what!?! Your argument is that a judge is infallible and can’t be questioned or disagreed with? How many examples of judges making bad decisions for the people do you need? Even right now I’m fairly certain you disagree with many court’s ruling on abortion, for example.

    As for your other bad attempt at arguing, Epic is not your friend. Sooner you realize that the better your life will be. Except that I’m actually not making a foolish assumption that you care about Epic. You very easily may adhere to the simplistic notion you “more options are better” that is used constantly without any real thought to the pros and cons, or, in this case, how treating a non-monopoly as a monopoly will a have long-reaching impact that hurts consumers, which includes all the ways in which people play video games today and countless other avenues you haven’t even considered.
    edited September 2021 williamlondonStrangeDaysradarthekatspock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 136
    lkrupp said:
    jungmark said:
    “Success is not illegal.” Isn’t that the truth. 

    If the ruling just involves adding external links in games, I’m ok with that.

    if it involves allowing alternate pay systems inside ios, that is not good. 
    Success IS illegal if you’re a socialist. Can’t have some succeed and others fail. It just ain’t right.
    No that’s just some nonsense you made up in your own head and attribute to others. Democratic socialism is all over the planet including in our own US policies. Requiring the wealthy to pay taxes at at least the level of their employees in order to pay into the infrastructure that enabled their success doesn’t punish nor prohibit success. We now know many of our wealthiest billionaires pay $0 in income tax, less than than their own secretaries do. That’s fucked. 
    edited September 2021 gatorguyhlee1169canukstormelijahgspock1234killroyroundaboutnowmariowincon2itivguyrundhvid
  • Reply 39 of 136
    j2fusion said:
    I guess next we’ll see signs from the manufacturer in Walmart saying you can get a better deal for this item at Target. 
    Not to worry.  No one has suggested the app store will have to show ads for alternative payment methods.

    What Apple was doing was the equivalent of a retailer like Walmart selling an iPhone and then requiring that user go back to Walmart to purchase iCloud or Apple Music and ending that is good for consumers.
    elijahg
  • Reply 40 of 136
    designr said:
    It seems like a finding that Apple is not a monopoly and having that in a judge's ruling is a useful win for Apple here.

    For PR definitely a win.  But it will have little impact anywhere else based on the super narrow market definition the judge used.  Apple is not a monopolist in the "digital mobile gaming transactions" market.  
Sign In or Register to comment.