Epic appealing Apple's 'resounding victory' in App Store trial

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 10
As Apple declares victory in the Epic vs. Apple App Store trial, Epic has announced it will appeal the court's ruling.

Epic to appeal Apple's 'huge win'
Epic to appeal Apple's 'huge win'


Apple won on every count in the Epic versus Apple case except for one -- anti-steering practices. As a result, the company is required to allow developers to link to external payment methods within the next 90 days.

In a statement to AppleInsider, Apple General council Kate Adams shared Apple's positive reaction to the news. She says the decision is a "resounding victory" and validates that Apple's "success is not illegal."

"The Court correctly rejected Epic's 'artificial' view of the competitive environment in which Apple operates and determined that 'developers like Epic Games have benefited from Apple's development and cultivation of the iOS ecosystem, including its devices and underlying software,'" Adams said in the statement. "Underlying the App Store business is a framework, including App Review, curation and protection of the security and privacy of our users. The Court has ruled that this framework is lawful and Apple was justified in terminating Epic's status as a developer on the App Store."

Epic didn't come away from the ruling completely clean. The company is required to pay Apple 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue collected through Epic Direct Payment, plus 30% of any revenue collected relevant to iOS through November 1 to date of judgement, plus interest.

Thanks to everyone who put so much time and effort into the battle over fair competition on digital platforms, and thanks especially to the court for managing a very complex case on a speedy timeline. We will fight on.

-- Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic)


At nearly the same time as Apple's statement, Epic announced that it will appeal the court's decision. What precisely it is appealing and on what grounds isn't clear.

Apple did not detail how the court ruling's ban on steering anti-practices would affect apps on the App Store, only stating that it prohibits the company from enforcing those steering guidelines. The company says no decision has been made on the implementation of new steering policies.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    Sore losers!
    buttesilverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 24
    He's pissed we wasted the companies money fighting this case and wants another go at it since his lawyers suck and he need to find new one.
    edited September 10 buttesilverbshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 24
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,816member
    I wish it were a 100% victory for Apple, but happy that Sweeney got his a** handed to him.  Expecting Apple to literally do all the work of keeping and getting new users for its iPhone only to let Sweeney solely profit from it?  Screw him.
    buttesilvermike1StrangeDayswilliamlondonbshankScot1AppleUfmyIn2itivguyskippingrockwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 24
    Now all of the developers who stated they charge higher prices for apps because of Apple’s cut to show and prove. We should see  a slew of apps cutting prices. They were acting as if other payment platforms would collect their revenue for them free of charge…
    bshankskippingrockwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 24
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,804member
    maestro64 said:
    He's pissed we wasted the companies money fighting this case and wants another go at it since his lawyers suck and he need to find new one.
    Not sure any lawyer would have made this a case.
    Sometimes the good ones don't take the cases they know they can't win.

    bshankskippingrockwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 24
    The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

    Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 
    edited September 10 williamlondonn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 24
    The ruling only said that Apple can’t stop developers from pointing users out of the App Store to do “out-of-app” purchases. If they use the Apple in-app purchasing they will still have a percentage taken by Apple. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 24
    jayweiss said:
    The ruling only said that Apple can’t stop developers from pointing users out of the App Store to do “out-of-app” purchases. 
    Legally, it's such a strange idea: that App Store users require specific instructions to make them aware that a developer could have a web site that sells things. 
    williamlondonbshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 24
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

    Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 
    In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

    Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

    Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 24
    danoxdanox Posts: 676member
    sflocal said:
    I wish it were a 100% victory for Apple, but happy that Sweeney got his a** handed to him.  Expecting Apple to literally do all the work of keeping and getting new users for its iPhone only to let Sweeney solely profit from it?  Screw him.
    It was….
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 24
    Question, if the judge ruled that Apple has to allow developers to use a third party payment option, but still awarded Apple it’s 30% cut of the money epic made through its third party payment option… is that signaling that Apple is still allowed its 30% cut regardless of the payment system used in apps moving forward?
    williamlondonp-dogwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 24
    p-dogp-dog Posts: 105member
    I think the big loser here is Microsoft, who has been in the background of litigation like this providing amicus testimony, information, and dirt against Apple, Google, and Amazon in a myriad of different antitrust cases, yet Microsoft never is on the docket these days as being under investigation themselves. They are just behind the curtain whispering into every regulator’s ear in Europe and the US. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 24
    It is a victory for Google. LOL The court thinks Google's way is better.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    Apple could give developers a choice. If they like users to get updates through App Store, then they cannot link to external site. 
  • Reply 15 of 24
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,089member
    jkeeven said:
    Question, if the judge ruled that Apple has to allow developers to use a third party payment option, but still awarded Apple it’s 30% cut of the money epic made through its third party payment option… is that signaling that Apple is still allowed its 30% cut regardless of the payment system used in apps moving forward?
    This judgement isn't about allowing third party payment options, it's about anti-steering.  Apple now has to allow developers to include links to their websites to arrange purchases and subscriptions there.  Epic are ordered to pay 30% of the revenue they earned on their alternative in app payment method that was in breach of contract.

    The third party in-app purchases verdict was in the South Korea lawsuit.
    edited September 11
  • Reply 16 of 24
    rcfa said:
    The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

    Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 
    In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

    Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

    Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
    You make good points, but I don’t think they need to allow which essentially means they condone/support sideloading.  This significantly makes the device less secure.  If you want to do that, jailbreak, or get an Android.  The security is an important feature for many people.  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 24
    I wonder how much longer Sweeney will remain CEO.  He has shown a bit of a lack of fiscal responsibility, and has really helped shed more light on how shady their business practices like loot crates, preying on kids significantly more than many other games, etc.  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 24
    rcfa said:
    The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

    Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 
    In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

    Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

    Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
    I don’t want side loading allowed for this one reason. Because of the way it is right now, I’m in complete control of what apps that are available get installed on my iPhone. Apps that I know have been vetted as secure and not doing anything that is contrary to what I want my device used for. 

    If side loading is ever allowed, this is what will happen. Governments with less than an exemplary track record for rights will get the back door that they want for iOS. 

    You visit their country and they could force you to installing tracking or spyware onto your device and there is nothing that you nor Apple could do to stop it. 

    Basically fighting to be able to install some worthless game on your phone would open up Pandora’s box to being forced to install other things. Things that can report on you when you use other apps that are banned in your country like Twitter or Telegram or track your whereabouts. They could say all they want that they don’t but you’d have no way to validate if they are speaking the truth. Apple’s curation process stops all that. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 24
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,089member
    rcfa said:
    The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

    Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 
    In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

    Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

    Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
    I don’t want side loading allowed for this one reason. Because of the way it is right now, I’m in complete control of what apps that are available get installed on my iPhone. Apps that I know have been vetted as secure and not doing anything that is contrary to what I want my device used for. 

    If side loading is ever allowed, this is what will happen. Governments with less than an exemplary track record for rights will get the back door that they want for iOS. 

    You visit their country and they could force you to installing tracking or spyware onto your device and there is nothing that you nor Apple could do to stop it. 

    Basically fighting to be able to install some worthless game on your phone would open up Pandora’s box to being forced to install other things. Things that can report on you when you use other apps that are banned in your country like Twitter or Telegram or track your whereabouts. They could say all they want that they don’t but you’d have no way to validate if they are speaking the truth. Apple’s curation process stops all that. 
    Why do you think allowing side loading means removing user control of app installation?  They're pretty different things.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    jkeeven said:
    Question, if the judge ruled that Apple has to allow developers to use a third party payment option, but still awarded Apple it’s 30% cut of the money epic made through its third party payment option… is that signaling that Apple is still allowed its 30% cut regardless of the payment system used in apps moving forward?
    I think it just means that Apple is entitled to the 30% that they charged to Epic. Apple already has this money, they just get to keep it. When Apple collects money for the developers they don’t pay the full amount and then ask for the 30% back, Apple just pays them 70% and keeps the rest. Epic was suing for this 30%, plus interest back. Basically all the judge is saying was, no the terms under the selling under the Apple’s in-app purchase was legal and Epic couldn’t get the 30% nor get any interest for the 30% either. It’s just closing that door, that’s all, nothing more. But yes if Epic continues to use Apple’s in-app purchase or any other developer Apple can continue to charge 30%. If a developer uses another payment system like PayPal they’ll have to pay them whatever cut too. 

    What I don’t get is why credit card companies can get away with requiring the merchants to not allow any discounts for paying in cash, but Apple will not. Anyway that’s another subject. 
Sign In or Register to comment.