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

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 136
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,494moderator
    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. 
    Problem is, some developers won’t give customers the option to pay via the App Store.  They might take all in-app payments only via their external payment gateway.  And there will be an opportunity for someone to be that gateway outside the App Store for all iOS developers who want to take advantage.  A third-party payment gateway could slide in under the 30 or 15% Apple commission with a 10%, or 5% commission for handling transactions.  This will be great for developers, but will leave Apple with nothing for its work creating and maintaining the App Store, it’s work testing apps, it’s costs to host and provide bandwidth to download apps, and it’s efforts to design, develop and maintain the 150,000 APIs and associated developer tools.  Well, except the $99 developer fees.  Not sufficient to cover costs I’d guess.  
    edited September 2021 killroyrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 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. 
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfBUUhFueI
    killroy
  • Reply 43 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. 
    Problem is, some developers won’t give customers the option to pay via the App Store.  They might take all in-app payments only via their external payment gateway.  And there will be an opportunity for someone to be that gateway outside the App Store for all iOS developers who want to take advantage.  A third-party payment gateway could slide in under the 30 or 15% Apple commission with a 10%, or 5% commission for handling transactions.  This will be great for developers, but will leave Apple with nothing for its work creating and maintaining the App Store, it’s work testing apps, it’s costs to host and provide bandwidth to download apps, and it’s efforts to design, develop and maintain the 150,000 APIs and associated developer tools.  Well, except the $99 developer fees.  Not sufficient to cover costs I’d guess.  
    Which is why they'll likely end up coming up with fee structure changes to recapture what's lost. I'd look for something that makes life much easier if developers stick with the existing App Store payment structure. 
    radarthekatkillroyrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 136
    AppleZulu said:
    Which is why they'll likely end up coming up with fee structure changes to recapture what's lost. I'd look for something that makes life much easier if developers stick with the existing App Store payment structure. 
    Or maybe accept the fact that something like a 65% margin on the AppStore instead of a ~75%.     
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 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.
    Does Apple also get a copy of the home version of the game as a consolation prize? Or maybe a box of Rice-A-Roni?
  • Reply 46 of 136
    bluefire1 said:
    Can’t Apple appeal the decision?
    Definitely
    killroy
  • Reply 47 of 136
    croprcropr Posts: 1,075member
    Bosa said:

    the payment thing will not matter , 90 percent of developers will stay same because the cost of collecting your own payments will be much more of what Apple charges 
    As a developer I can say it is the opposite.  Up to now I had to develop and maintain 3 interfaces to payment systems, 1 for iOS apps, 1 for Android apps and 1 (commission 2,7%)  for the rest: web apps, Windows apps and Mac apps.     As I see it now, the last one will be sufficient in the future.  Next to the lower commission, there is also a cost savings in development and also in administration, as I need only 1 reconciliation of the payments in my accounting system.

    rundhvidmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 136
    Bosa said:
    Not sure why stock is down because a Federal Judge just said Apple is not a monopoly!!! That mean it will be harder for anybody in the future to claim Apple is if Apple doesn’t change any business practice! That is huge!!! No company breakup! Stock should be up $15 just on that!

    the payment thing will not matter , 90 percent of developers will stay same because the cost of collecting your own payments will be much more of what Apple charges 
    Why would the cost of collecting their own payments be more than 15% to 30%?
  • Reply 49 of 136
    Bosa said:
    Not sure why stock is down because a Federal Judge just said Apple is not a monopoly!!! That mean it will be harder for anybody in the future to claim Apple is if Apple doesn’t change any business practice! That is huge!!! No company breakup! Stock should be up $15 just on that!

    the payment thing will not matter , 90 percent of developers will stay same because the cost of collecting your own payments will be much more of what Apple charges 
    All the headlines that popped up in notifications portrayed the ruling as a big loss for Apple. That's why the stock is down. Stock prices (especially in the short term) are completely about perception and have little to do with actual valuation of a company.

    For the same reason, if a company makes billions in profit on its quarterly report (and has consistently done so in the past), but falls just slightly short of the projected profit figure that analysts on TV made just the day before, the stock will go down. The stock market system, quarterly reports and the insistent habit of making trends out of two-data-point comparisons (year-over-year) are all corrosively bad for how businesses function in this country. Short-term profit and rapid, unsustainable growth are rewarded while long-term planning  and strategic thinking is beyond the grasp of an inordinate number of people who control ridiculous amounts of money. 
    spock1234radarthekatthtmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 136
    jimh2 said:
    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.
    Well you could probably pay people to walk around in Walmart wearing T-shirts with those advertisements.
  • Reply 51 of 136
    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 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.
    You know it is pretty easy to get fraudulent charges removed from a CC. As long as a person monitors their accounts in a timely manner which they should be doing anyway.
  • Reply 52 of 136
    DAalseth said:
    As far as allowing alternate payment systems, from what I’ve been reading on several sites it doesn’t say Apple cannot charge more for companies that do that, and it does not say Apple cannot still claim a percentage of sales that go through alternative payment systems. 

    Simple question for which I do not know the answer: if a third party payment system is used, would Apple get to know about the transaction or any of the amounts exchanged? Why couldn't one encrypt the transactions end-to-end, for security and privacy reasons Apple surely agrees with given its very consistent stance on such matters. 
  • Reply 53 of 136
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    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.
    I don’t think it’ll be good for customers in the short term or Devs in the long term. 

    Customers like convenience. Many aren’t going to navigate to a website, sign in, add CC info, submit payment. Wait for the funds to process then go back to the app and determine if the app updated with the payment. 

    Devs are going to realize the pains of processing CC, secure user logins and have it sync up to the apps. Plus they’ll see less customers buy in-app stuff. 
    spock1234n2itivguykillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 136
    I see nothing that states Apple cannot stipulate that alternate in-app payment mechanisms have to also offer the Apple-Pay option and be equally priced across mechanisms. Or that Apple cannot still require the same 15% or 30% cut even if an alternate payment mechanism is used. 


    spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 136
    Initial reaction, Apple we are Happy with the verdict, but we are studying the complete verdict. Epic, we appeal, guess it’s clear who has won.
    spock1234killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 136
    Xed said:
    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.
    "Your argument is that a judge is infallible and can’t be questioned or disagreed with"

    Sure.  Someone with the legal expertise and experience as her.

    "
    Epic is not your friend. Sooner you realize that the better your life will be." =>  I agree.  I don't care for Epic any more or less than I do Apple, MS or any other company.  Doesn't make the legal ruling incorrect,.
    elijahg
  • Reply 57 of 136

    jungmark said:
    I don’t think it’ll be good for customers in the short term or Devs in the long term. 

    Customers like convenience. Many aren’t going to navigate to a website, sign in, add CC info, submit payment. Wait for the funds to process then go back to the app and determine if the app updated with the payment. 

    Devs are going to realize the pains of processing CC, secure user logins and have it sync up to the apps. Plus they’ll see less customers buy in-app stuff. 
    Devs already use services like Stripe which in many ways is superior to Apple's offering.  We have an analagous situation on the Mac.  Many do opt for the simplicity of using Apple IAP and many more realize it isn't.  

    For an app that is cheap the Apple offering will be preferred by many.  It's where you get to products/services that have nothing to do with iOS where the developer is incurring all the costs that they won't want to incur 30% for a service (payment processing) that they can get for ~3% elsewhere.  

    Then there are products like eBooks and Comics which are impossible to offer on iOS.  This ruling makes those potentially available to consumers which will be a huge improvement for users.  As most already have an Amazon account there is nothing inconvienent about it.  For other products/services, you don't hear too many issues with people engaging in eCommerce for physical products from the iPhones so I don't think the entering payment details is too much of an issue especially since with services like Stripe developers could even offer Apple Pay.

    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 58 of 136
    Apple still beats the cost of marketing and to a greater extent hosting and serving these “free” apps. 

    If a developer then charges for in app transactions, they need to pay Apple a percentage. Apple isn’t hosting and serving their app as a charity. 
    spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 136
    XedXed Posts: 1,434member
    Xed said:
    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.
    "Your argument is that a judge is infallible and can’t be questioned or disagreed with"

    Sure.  Someone with the legal expertise and experience as her.

    "Epic is not your friend. Sooner you realize that the better your life will be." =>  I agree.  I don't care for Epic any more or less than I do Apple, MS or any other company.  Doesn't make the legal ruling incorrect,.
    So all legal rulings are correct if the judge has "experience"? LOL Oh boy, history is not on your side when it comes to that claim.
    edited September 2021 spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 136
    Apple likes and pushes for big government along with regulation. 

    Dear Apple, let me introduce you to big government. 

    Awesome. It’s their turn. 
    elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.