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

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 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
  • Reply 62 of 136
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,224member
    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…
    I have paid for Netflix and Youtube Premium outside of the app store for years now. Netflix premium is what actually made me aware of the 30% charge that Apple adds if you do the recurring payment through the app store. I was paying $12.99 a month , but I kept seeing the price advertised as $9.99? Eventually it dawned on the extra $3.00 was being put back on me because of Apple charging them 30% to handle the payment? I cancelled my subscription on my iPhone and set up my monthly billing through youtube's website. I have been paying $9.99 ever since.

    You can also sign up for Disney+ or their bundle with ESPN+ and Hulu on Disneyplus.com and pay them directly instead of through the app store.


    These services didn't steer me like Epic did by offering alternative payment options within the app, but the end result is still the same.


  • Reply 63 of 136
    The verdict is that Apple is correct in throwing Epic out of the App Store for violating the terms of the agreement.
    Also there is no judgment that says Apple has to allow them back in.
    Epic does not get its own separate payment store in App Store.

    Apple is not behaving in an unfair monopolistic way.
    Apple is not allowed to prevent developers and their app from directing the customer outside the App Store.
    But there is no judgment that says that Apple cannot charge extra service fee if a developer promote outside exchange.





    spock1234killroyn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 136
    ivanhivanh Posts: 597member
    Not monopoly, but oligopoly, duopoly. 
  • Reply 65 of 136
    Make no mistake: this ruling prevents Apple from monetizing on AppStore (under current rules). This is a business-destroying ruling. Shortly all apps will be "free" to download with in-app payments skirting Apple fees. The judge ignores the cost of infrastructure which needs to be provided to deliver the goods. It is like telling Walmart to bring the items to their stores and give 100% of proceeds to the manufacturer. This is not a sustainable business. How hard is it for the judge to grasp basic economic principles?

    If this sticks, Apple could change the rules of the game and charge a distribution fee per downloads and per MB for apps with in-app payments, which would be especially painful for the big apps.
    stoneygspock1234killroyn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 136


    Apple, US developers agree to App Store updates that will support businesses and maintain a great experience for users.


    https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/

    n2itivguykillroy
  • Reply 67 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. 
    This has always been my biggest frustration about Epic's claim with the App Store. Every retail location does this same thing. How you can force Apple to allow other payment options, when stores like Walmart are doing the exact same thing? 
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 136
    stoneyg said:
    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. 
    This has always been my biggest frustration about Epic's claim with the App Store. Every retail location does this same thing. How you can force Apple to allow other payment options, when stores like Walmart are doing the exact same thing? 
    They don't though and what analogy doesn't work. Nobody is saying the AppStore has to advertise alternative deals.  What they are saying is Apple should not be able to prevent apps from sharing that detail.

    When you buy an iPhone (the product) from Best Buy (the store) Best Buy cannot prevent Apple from advising from the product that you as a user can sign up for iCloud, Apple Music etc...  Apple isn't being required to allow alternatives from the AppStore (the store) and the ruling says they can no longer prevent it from apps (the product).
  • Reply 69 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.
    The court doesn't know about technology. In my country, android users are being robbed of millions of dollars for installing out-of-the-store apps because that is what thieves pretending to be banks suggest. That's why I'm using iOS and the court could ruin it.
    killroyXedn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 136
    The devil will be in the details here, so we’ll see, but this ruling dovetails nicely with the new South Korean anti-steering law that is in the works. It formalizes something Apple is going to have to do anyway because of laws like the one in South Korea. Like that law, this ruling doesn’t say Apple doesn’t have a right to extract payment from Epic for using its platform. Somehow I’m not worried about Apple figuring out how to do that. There’s a reason Epic is appealing this, and not Apple.

    I am flabbergasted there are people commenting on here who think the App Store cut is only for payment-processing. You’d think folks would stop for a second and think, “No, that can’t be right,” but they don’t. Yes, it’s not surprising given the times we live in, but I still find it to be — what’s the right word? — incredible.
    edited September 10 spock1234radarthekatkillroyroundaboutnown2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 136
    The devil will be in the details here, so we’ll see, but this ruling dovetails nicely with the new South Korean anti-steering law that is in the works. It formalizes something Apple is going to have to do anyway because of laws like the one in South Korea. Like that law, this ruling doesn’t say Apple doesn’t have a right to extract payment from Epic for using its platform. Somehow I’m not worried about Apple figuring out how to do that. There’s a reason Epic is appealing this, and not Apple.

    I am flabbergasted there are people commenting on here who think the App Store cut is only for payment-processing. You’d think folks would stop for a second and think, “No, that can’t be right,” but they don’t. Yes, it’s not surprising given the times we live in, but I still find it to be — what’s the right word? — incredible.
    It sure is.  I think this article is a good take on it

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667161/app-store-epic-ruling-difference-button-external-link

    EDIT:  This is not related but this is a damning take by the judge regarding Apple's malware concerns for the Mac

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667256/apple-vs-epic-trail-judge-craig-federighi-macos-security-arguments-iphone-ios-response
    edited September 10
  • Reply 72 of 136
    The title is factually incorrect or at least extremely misleading.  The one ruling against Apple (all others were in favor of Apple) was that Apple can no longer prevent developers from linking to alternative payment methods OUTSIDE OF Apple's ecosystem.  I.e. developers can present a link/button to an outside web site for making payments.  The judge did not tell Apple it must allow alternative payment methods within its ecosystem.

    Big deal!  Most iOS users will still use Apple's payment method because they trust it.  Who knows what that outside vendor will do with your credit card info.

    Fortnite lost on all real anti-trust claims.  And they have to pay Apple around $4 million for lost revenue.
    spock1234n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 136
    edited September 10
  • Reply 74 of 136
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    jcs2305 said:
    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…
    I have paid for Netflix and Youtube Premium outside of the app store for years now. Netflix premium is what actually made me aware of the 30% charge that Apple adds if you do the recurring payment through the app store. I was paying $12.99 a month , but I kept seeing the price advertised as $9.99? Eventually it dawned on the extra $3.00 was being put back on me because of Apple charging them 30% to handle the payment? I cancelled my subscription on my iPhone and set up my monthly billing through youtube's website. I have been paying $9.99 ever since.

    You can also sign up for Disney+ or their bundle with ESPN+ and Hulu on Disneyplus.com and pay them directly instead of through the app store.


    These services didn't steer me like Epic did by offering alternative payment options within the app, but the end result is still the same.



    That is wrong. One do not get a discount from Netflix (or YouTube Premium) for paying outside the platform. Whether paying on Android, iOS or a computer, Netflix charges the same.

    For one

    There is no $9.99 Netflix subscription plan. The lowest cost plan now is Basic and cost $8.99. Basic plan can only stream on 1 screen at a time and no HD. The Standard plan cost $13.99, stream on 2 screen at a time and has HD. The Premium plan cost $17.99  has 4K and can stream on 4 screen at a time. 

    For two

    $9.99 is not a 30% discount from $12.99. A 30% discount on $12.99 would be $3.90. So if you got a 30% discount, it should cost you $9.10.

    For three

    I don't think you can pay for your Netflix subscription on YouTube. And even if you could, you would not get a discount.

    For four

    About the only way to get a discount on your Netflix subscription is to buy discounted iTunes gift cards and use your iTunes account to pay for your subscription. But this has ended for new subscribers.

    https://runningwithmiles.boardingarea.com/a-trick-for-cheaper-netflix-has-ended-with-one-big-exception/

    I been paying for my Standard Netflix subscription for over 15 years now. I started when Netflix was only a mail order DVD rental business. And i've been paying using auto CC deduction since the second or third month. No discount given and no discount ever offered when they became a streaming service on mobile devices using their free app.  



     
    edited September 10 radarthekattenthousandthingsthtn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 136
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,403moderator
    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.
    And Walmart can legally deny entry to such people, both into its stores and its parking lots.  
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 76 of 136
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    stoneyg said:
    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. 
    This has always been my biggest frustration about Epic's claim with the App Store. Every retail location does this same thing. How you can force Apple to allow other payment options, when stores like Walmart are doing the exact same thing? 
    They don't though and what analogy doesn't work. Nobody is saying the AppStore has to advertise alternative deals.  What they are saying is Apple should not be able to prevent apps from sharing that detail.

    When you buy an iPhone (the product) from Best Buy (the store) Best Buy cannot prevent Apple from advising from the product that you as a user can sign up for iCloud, Apple Music etc...  Apple isn't being required to allow alternatives from the AppStore (the store) and the ruling says they can no longer prevent it from apps (the product).
    But BestBuy can prevent Apple from placing ads advertising that iPhones are on sale at their Apple Store, inside a BestBuy. And Apple can not force BestBuy to have their employees inform their customers looking at buying an iPhone, that iPhones are on sale at an Apple Store or on the online Apple Store.

    Imagine if BestBuy had to advertise for Apple, to the customers in their stores, after spending a lot of money on advertising to get customers into a Best Buy and setting up displays in their store so their customers can get the full experience of owning an iPhone.  Or imagine if you turn on an iPhone in a BestBuy and the first thing you see is an ad for discounted iPhones, online at Apple.com.  
    edited September 10 radarthekatn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 136
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,114member
    lkrupp said:
    ivanh said:
    Not monopoly, but oligopoly, duopoly. 
    You have no idea what any of those words mean, idiot.
    And you do?  Care to explain why there isn't a duopoly in smartphone apps?
  • Reply 78 of 136
    If I was Apple, I would never allow Epic in my products ever again.

    Crap ruling from a Crap Judge.

    If I lose the convenience of buying apps I will skip a lot of them.


    At least the judge understands the ruling, unlike yourself.

    Also, you have apparently no idea how big Unreal Engine is with regard to the Mac and iOS.
    killroy
  • Reply 79 of 136
    Apple could just ask any app that provides link to external payment must also support IAP, and the prices in the outside link must not be a better deal than what is offered in the IAP, and then drop the commissions to 10%, and call it a day. Would that stand in the court?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 80 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.
    You're not storing your credit card info on third party sites, they all would use payment processors like any online seller, and those payment processors are the ones that securely store your payment info, IF you opt into storing it. These payment processors adhere to the standards set by PCI-DSS as managed by the PCI Security Standards Council, which is a joint effort of brands like Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover. PayPal, Authorize.net, Stripe, Square etc — companies you use all the time whether you're aware of it or not.

    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.
    They already do, it's $99.
    edited September 10 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.