Let's not forget the US is only one jurisdiction in a world of nearly 200 national jurisdictions, not to mention thousands of sub-jurisdictions like states and provinces. Whatever way this ruling goes, it will embolden other jurisdictions to levy even heavier interface burdens on Apple's App Store. There is no doubt that Apple has some line it won't cross. E.g., if there was a jurisdiction which said Apple must start allowing users to completely replace Apple's App Store with some other Vendor's App Store would be an example of a line Apple would consider uncrossable. At that point Apple would cease operating its App Store in that jurisdiction.
I just wonder when that point will be. And which jurisdiction will it be. And whether/when Apple will return to that jurisdiction once they remove their ridiculous levies.
Tim Cook has to have the "world view" in his mind, not just the situation that's occurring in the US courts right now. And for that reason, if I were the CEO of Apple, I would treat this very case as a line-crossing case. And now I'm ready for the majority of people to throw personal insults at me here, as they always do, because they are incapable of politely handling ideas that they don't agree with.
So a the supplier has the right to build another brick and mortar store inside the store owners brick and mortar store to sell other products without permission?
So they are basically saying that if I want to sell my product in a brick and mortar store I as the supplier can impose on the merchant/store owner what POS system they must use and what forms of payments they must accept in addition to what they already have.
Nope. In-App Purchases are not within Apple's store. They're in the app, the clue is in the name.
Weird reading. There is no brick and mortar store, these are digital stores. Apple sell apps. The app sells in-app content.
Plenty of actual brick and mortar stores sell things that can be used to buy other things. Electronics store may sell Macs and iPhones, but have no claim over the purchases made on them.
It’s called an analogy.
Yeah? So what? I can analogise anything to anything else, doesn't make it relevant or insightful. As I pointed out, actual brick and mortar stores sell products that can be used to buy other products. And the Apple App Store is inescapably not a brick and mortar store. So in as much as it's a useful analogy (i.e. not very), it disproves the very point that the analogy is trying to make.
"This will be the first time Apple has ever allowed live links in an app for digital content. It's going to take months to figure out the engineering, economic, business, and other issues." This statement is a bold face lie. It takes zero time to allow app developers to add links and buttons in their apps. Apple can figure out the economic, business and other issues whenever they want. It does not affect developers. The judge could consider perjury charges.
So a the supplier has the right to build another brick and mortar store inside the store owners brick and mortar store to sell other products without permission?
So they are basically saying that if I want to sell my product in a brick and mortar store I as the supplier can impose on the merchant/store owner what POS system they must use and what forms of payments they must accept in addition to what they already have.
Nope. In-App Purchases are not within Apple's store. They're in the app, the clue is in the name.
Weird reading. There is no brick and mortar store, these are digital stores. Apple sell apps. The app sells in-app content.
Plenty of actual brick and mortar stores sell things that can be used to buy other things. Electronics store may sell Macs and iPhones, but have no claim over the purchases made on them.
Wrong, Apple do not "sell" third party apps. The third party developers sell their apps. Apple only supply the means by which those developers has access to Apple customers, in order to sell their apps. The developer sets the price of their apps.
But with most cases involving IAP, the developer did not SELL their apps in the App Store. The apps were free for Apple customers. So Apple got nothing from the developers when Apple customers downloaded the free app from the App Store. The agreed arrangement is that when developers makes money off that free app with IAP of digital goods that rely in iOS, Apple gets a commission from that sale.
So your analogy is WAY OFF. When an electronic store sell Macs and iPhones, they made money selling them. They did not give it away. And any purchases made from those devices do not rely on the electronic store from where they were purchased. Here Apple did not make any money from the developer that offer their app for free, to Apple customers using iOS. Even though their free app relies on Apple IP and their IAP sales still rely on Apple IP, for it to be of any use to the purchasers.
If an Apple iDevice customer uses the free Amazon Shopping app to purchase a physical CD, Apple do not collect a commission. However, if an Apple iDevice customer were able to use the free Amazon Shopping app to purchase the MP3 version of that CD, that can be played using iOS, Apple collects a commission. (Which is why Amazon do not sell digital download of music and videos, within their Amazon Shopping app. One must pay for those purchases using the web.)
Or are you going to think like that looney Epic CEO, that because Apple made money selling the iPhones and iPads, Apple iOS IP should be in public domain and third party iOS developers should get a free ride with their IAP and not have to pay Apple anything when they make money using Apple IP along the way?
So they are basically saying that if I want to sell my product in a brick and mortar store I as the supplier can impose on the merchant/store owner what POS system they must use and what forms of payments they must accept in addition to what they already have.
It’s pretty clear you haven’t been following this case, or know what in-app … that’s IN APP … purchases are.
To be clear, I’m not defending Apple here. It was legal suicide to not give the judge a tentative timeline on when they could comply, and I think Apple fully expected the judge to deny them so they could buy yet MORE time to appeal this ruling. This also continues to put pressure on Manbaby Sweeney to drop Epic’s appeal.
I think there is zero chance Apple will be in compliance on Dec. 9th, and I think there is very little chance Epic will be let back into the App Store at any point in the future until Sweeney is gone.
Comments
I just wonder when that point will be. And which jurisdiction will it be. And whether/when Apple will return to that jurisdiction once they remove their ridiculous levies.
Tim Cook has to have the "world view" in his mind, not just the situation that's occurring in the US courts right now. And for that reason, if I were the CEO of Apple, I would treat this very case as a line-crossing case. And now I'm ready for the majority of people to throw personal insults at me here, as they always do, because they are incapable of politely handling ideas that they don't agree with.
This statement is a bold face lie. It takes zero time to allow app developers to add links and buttons in their apps. Apple can figure out the economic, business and other issues whenever they want. It does not affect developers. The judge could consider perjury charges.
But with most cases involving IAP, the developer did not SELL their apps in the App Store. The apps were free for Apple customers. So Apple got nothing from the developers when Apple customers downloaded the free app from the App Store. The agreed arrangement is that when developers makes money off that free app with IAP of digital goods that rely in iOS, Apple gets a commission from that sale.
So your analogy is WAY OFF. When an electronic store sell Macs and iPhones, they made money selling them. They did not give it away. And any purchases made from those devices do not rely on the electronic store from where they were purchased. Here Apple did not make any money from the developer that offer their app for free, to Apple customers using iOS. Even though their free app relies on Apple IP and their IAP sales still rely on Apple IP, for it to be of any use to the purchasers.
If an Apple iDevice customer uses the free Amazon Shopping app to purchase a physical CD, Apple do not collect a commission. However, if an Apple iDevice customer were able to use the free Amazon Shopping app to purchase the MP3 version of that CD, that can be played using iOS, Apple collects a commission. (Which is why Amazon do not sell digital download of music and videos, within their Amazon Shopping app. One must pay for those purchases using the web.)
Or are you going to think like that looney Epic CEO, that because Apple made money selling the iPhones and iPads, Apple iOS IP should be in public domain and third party iOS developers should get a free ride with their IAP and not have to pay Apple anything when they make money using Apple IP along the way?
To be clear, I’m not defending Apple here. It was legal suicide to not give the judge a tentative timeline on when they could comply, and I think Apple fully expected the judge to deny them so they could buy yet MORE time to appeal this ruling. This also continues to put pressure on Manbaby Sweeney to drop Epic’s appeal.
I think there is zero chance Apple will be in compliance on Dec. 9th, and I think there is very little chance Epic will be let back into the App Store at any point in the future until Sweeney is gone.