What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.
The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.
Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?
Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
Yes - The general interpretation of the ruling is that Apple is going to lose their 30% App Store revenue stream. The question of side-loading apps was largely ignored or missed. It is noteworthy that Apple's stock dropped right after the ruling, although only by about 3%.
I don't know how much of an effect this will have. 30% is not a small amount; if a developer charges $50 on the App Store and then puts a link saying you can get the software for $35 I bet a lot of people will click the link.
In the end, Epic filing an appeal simply puts off any changes so Apple gets to keep the status quo. I'm sure that suits Apple just fine!
But a 30% discount would not be the discount developers that don't have to pay the commission, would be offering, if they offer a discount at all. Remember, when the developer has to process the payment, it cost them something. Even if they already have a payment system in place. When Epic discounted V-Bucks for iOS and Android players, if they bought them using the in app linked to Epic website, the discount was only $2.00 (20%) and not $3.00. (it went from $9.99 to $7.99). By offering a discount outside iTunes with a link inter app, Epic actually broke two rules with Apple. Even though most are only familiar about the link inside their app, that is often mentioned as what out them banned from the Apple App Store.
Second, when Epic did this, they had to discount V-Bucks on all platforms. So Xbox players also got the $2.00 discount. Even though Epic was still paying Microsoft a 30% commission. This because each platform has a clause where Epic can not charge less for V-Bucks on other platforms because the game is using a free app on the platform. This not only affected Epic's bottom line, it would also affect the bottom line of all the other platform owners, if the discount don't drive players to purchase more V-Bucks.
This makes sense when digital or virtual items purchased on one platform, can be used on all platforms by the purchaser. So iOS and Android players that got a discount for V-Bucks and purchased a cool looking virtual outfit from their mobile devices, can use that cool virtual outfit when playing on their Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. This will not make the other platform owners happy, as their players would just use their mobile devices to purchase virtual items with discounted V-Bucks. And then can still use those purchased items on their game consoles, when playing using a free app. Game console platform owners would demand the same discount from the developers that are accessing their platform with a free app. So there this reason why the discount on items that are crossed platform, might not be that big, if they exist at all.
Even Apple and Google, do not offer a discount when they don't really pay a commission on payments thru their respective platform. Image how pissed off Spotify would really get, if Apple offered Apple Music for $6.99, for subscribers paying through iTunes. But if Apple offered that discount, Apple Music would have to cost the same $6.99, when paying from all platforms. The other platforms would demand it. So it wouldn't make much sense for Apple or Google, to offer such a discount.
Third, Apple could just lower their commission on IAP to 15%. This would stop developers from offering a substantial discount to lure customers to pay for their IAP outside iTunes.
But with IAP on games that can be played on other platforms, I don't expect to see any substantial discount between paying at the developer external site or staying in the app and paying with iTunes. IAP is the bulk of Apple App Store revenue. Now native only apps are a different story. There the developer can offer a discount and still make more profit by not paying the commission. But not sure this if this ruling would include them, as the ruling might only pertain to the "digital mobile gaming transactions" market and is really about IAP, where Epic main complaint was about the commission. Epic wasn't really fighting for the small developers that were mainly making money by selling apps.
With Epic, the real money is not in the saving from not having to pay the commission. The real money would be in being able to open their own third party app store in iOS. And this ruling can't force Apple to allow for that because the court didn't find that Apple was a monopoly, not to mention that they aren't violating any anti-trust laws. To me, that's the reason for Epic's appeal. Epic needs a ruling that Apple is a monopoly and is an illegal monopolist, so Apple can be forced into allowing third party app stores in iOS, using anti-trust laws.
Epic would rather spend their money on pursuing this legally than improving their games. “… though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market, and that Epic did breach contractual terms.”
Who is getting screwed here!??
SMH!
Shake your head all you want. Fortnite made $2.5 billion last year. They have plenty of money to invest and use wherever they want. Epic knows exactly what they are doing. $3.5 million payment to Apple is a joke.
The joke is on Epic when Apple takes a greater interest in writing game engines and taking a real interest in game graphics now that they have their own in house cpu. Intel down check, Qualcomm modems soon to be replaced check and now game engines on the list due to Epic, with Stream in the background saying leave the beast alone.
Or companies can continue to use a mature and cheap (5% royalties after $1m) engine that's on almost every platform right now, vs a fictional engine by Apple who only supports gaming because it's the biggest source of App Store income. Apple doesn't give a shit about gaming other than making profit from it. Apple also knows that to ban the UE they would hobble a large number of iOS games. So an Apple game engine is extremely unlikely.
the court didn't find that Apple was a monopoly, not to mention that they aren't violating any anti-trust laws.
The court didn't rule on whether Apple was a monopoly nor did it state that Apple wasn't violating anti-trust rules. In fact they hinted that Apple could in fact be a monopolist, but that Epic's case per se didn't prove that. The judge specifically said "The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist".
What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.
The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.
Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?
Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
If I understand it correctly, it doesn't even do that. It simply enjoins Apple from prohibiting such links/buttons. I suppose that is "providing a way." Either way, I agree...this won't have much impact. Apple can always uncharge the developers who choose to use this. They'll call it a risk adjustment/revenue protection fee or something. Or, if they really want to piss off Epic and look good publicly, they'll offer a discount for developers who don't use a 3rd party system. Watch heads explode!
What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.
The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.
Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?
Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
I don't know how much of an effect this will have. 30% is not a small amount; if a developer charges $50 on the App Store and then puts a link saying you can get the software for $35 I bet a lot of people will click the link.
I think you are underestimating how much iPhone users appreciate the convenience and security of in-app purchases. And also you are overestimating how much savings developers are going to pass on to their customers. How many developers lowered their prices when Apple cut their commission to 15%?
The media should be embarrassed because this indicates what really happened - Epic lost and Apple won. To quote Epic's Tom Sweeney on the verdict from his own Twitter account, "Today's ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers"; Epic LOST on everything they asked for and the concession against Apple (a link to pay outside the App Store) isn't what Epic wanted. Now that Epic has appealed, Apple can counterclaim the one ruling against them.
100% right.
The only App Store remains Apple's app-store; the only in-app purchases remain through Apple.
It's not nothing to require linking to external sites, but it's not a lot.
It's also possible that Apple will figure out ways to get back a portion of whatever they lose. Just because they are required to allow links to external sites, does that mean they aren't allowed to ask for a piece of that action? That is -- ok, sure, link to your own site. But we still want our 30%. Is there anything in the ruling to preclude that?
Honestly I have to worry about stock market manipulation by certain entities. It does not take much of a suspicious mind to imagine that knowing the verdict would be poorly reported by the tech media that one could promulgate a doom and gloom "Apple lost" to depress the stock for a few days to make a good market killing. Sure it's only a dollar here or there, but knowing it would be just a temporary slump can translate into some nice profits.
The only thing "epic" is their hypocrisy - they run their own gaming platform store and surely will not let developers & gamers offer in-app purchases via their own billing systems, only Epic's. They don't want "freedom" they just want to be Apple, owning the mall.
The only thing "epic" is their hypocrisy - they run their own gaming platform store and surely will not let developers & gamers offer in-app purchases via their own billing systems, only Epic's. They don't want "freedom" they just want to be Apple, owning the mall.
What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.
The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.
Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?
Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
Yes - The general interpretation of the ruling is that Apple is going to lose their 30% App Store revenue stream. The question of side-loading apps was largely ignored or missed. It is noteworthy that Apple's stock dropped right after the ruling, although only by about 3%.
I don't know how much of an effect this will have. 30% is not a small amount; if a developer charges $50 on the App Store and then puts a link saying you can get the software for $35 I bet a lot of people will click the link.
In the end, Epic filing an appeal simply puts off any changes so Apple gets to keep the status quo. I'm sure that suits Apple just fine!
Remember that if Apple charges $50 and a third-party developer sells the same software from their own store at $35, it's not like the developer is pocketing any extra money. It's really a $15 refund to the consumer. Will this create good will? Perhaps. Will this increase unit sales volume beyond a negligible amount? Disputable.
A developer running their own app store and/or using an alternate payment system will incur their own costs so that $35 in revenue will likely end in lower margins than letting Apple take their 30% cut of a $50 purchase. Buying extra server hardware, paying co-lo rental fees, electricity, staff to administer and monitor systems, Internet connectivity charges, payment processor fees, worrying about network and customer data security, etc.
And it's not like every single App Store developer is ready to run for the hills. Many will be content letting Apple keep their 30% IAP cut (it's 15% for smaller devs). With freedom comes responsibility. There is no free lunch.
This all assumes that Apple allows third-party developers to mention actual price differences (which is definitely NOT a given).
Epic lost nine of ten counts and this was not the one they really wanted to win. I'm not sure the appeal will overturn anything. This story isn't over. Only the lawyers pocket more money.
Comments
Second, when Epic did this, they had to discount V-Bucks on all platforms. So Xbox players also got the $2.00 discount. Even though Epic was still paying Microsoft a 30% commission. This because each platform has a clause where Epic can not charge less for V-Bucks on other platforms because the game is using a free app on the platform. This not only affected Epic's bottom line, it would also affect the bottom line of all the other platform owners, if the discount don't drive players to purchase more V-Bucks.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366259/epic-fortnite-vbucks-mega-drop-discount-iphone-android
This makes sense when digital or virtual items purchased on one platform, can be used on all platforms by the purchaser. So iOS and Android players that got a discount for V-Bucks and purchased a cool looking virtual outfit from their mobile devices, can use that cool virtual outfit when playing on their Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. This will not make the other platform owners happy, as their players would just use their mobile devices to purchase virtual items with discounted V-Bucks. And then can still use those purchased items on their game consoles, when playing using a free app. Game console platform owners would demand the same discount from the developers that are accessing their platform with a free app. So there this reason why the discount on items that are crossed platform, might not be that big, if they exist at all.
This the reason behind the statement .... "It isn't yet clear if Apple will allow discounts externally as Sweeney proposes, versus what is offered as in-app purchases." In this AI article ........ https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223890/apple-not-a-monopoly-but-must-allow-alternate-payment-methods-for-apps-judge-rules/p1
Even Apple and Google, do not offer a discount when they don't really pay a commission on payments thru their respective platform. Image how pissed off Spotify would really get, if Apple offered Apple Music for $6.99, for subscribers paying through iTunes. But if Apple offered that discount, Apple Music would have to cost the same $6.99, when paying from all platforms. The other platforms would demand it. So it wouldn't make much sense for Apple or Google, to offer such a discount.
Third, Apple could just lower their commission on IAP to 15%. This would stop developers from offering a substantial discount to lure customers to pay for their IAP outside iTunes.
But with IAP on games that can be played on other platforms, I don't expect to see any substantial discount between paying at the developer external site or staying in the app and paying with iTunes. IAP is the bulk of Apple App Store revenue. Now native only apps are a different story. There the developer can offer a discount and still make more profit by not paying the commission. But not sure this if this ruling would include them, as the ruling might only pertain to the "digital mobile gaming transactions" market and is really about IAP, where Epic main complaint was about the commission. Epic wasn't really fighting for the small developers that were mainly making money by selling apps.
With Epic, the real money is not in the saving from not having to pay the commission. The real money would be in being able to open their own third party app store in iOS. And this ruling can't force Apple to allow for that because the court didn't find that Apple was a monopoly, not to mention that they aren't violating any anti-trust laws. To me, that's the reason for Epic's appeal. Epic needs a ruling that Apple is a monopoly and is an illegal monopolist, so Apple can be forced into allowing third party app stores in iOS, using anti-trust laws.
If I understand it correctly, it doesn't even do that. It simply enjoins Apple from prohibiting such links/buttons. I suppose that is "providing a way." Either way, I agree...this won't have much impact. Apple can always uncharge the developers who choose to use this. They'll call it a risk adjustment/revenue protection fee or something. Or, if they really want to piss off Epic and look good publicly, they'll offer a discount for developers who don't use a 3rd party system. Watch heads explode!
Let’s just do what we want.
they are sore losers. No specifics means “not fair. I’m telling mom.”
The only App Store remains Apple's app-store; the only in-app purchases remain through Apple.
It's not nothing to require linking to external sites, but it's not a lot.
It's also possible that Apple will figure out ways to get back a portion of whatever they lose. Just because they are required to allow links to external sites, does that mean they aren't allowed to ask for a piece of that action? That is -- ok, sure, link to your own site. But we still want our 30%. Is there anything in the ruling to preclude that?
It does not take much of a suspicious mind to imagine that knowing the verdict would be poorly reported by the tech media that one could promulgate a doom and gloom "Apple lost" to depress the stock for a few days to make a good market killing. Sure it's only a dollar here or there, but knowing it would be just a temporary slump can translate into some nice profits.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games-store-implements-in-game-purchases-for-third-parties
A developer running their own app store and/or using an alternate payment system will incur their own costs so that $35 in revenue will likely end in lower margins than letting Apple take their 30% cut of a $50 purchase. Buying extra server hardware, paying co-lo rental fees, electricity, staff to administer and monitor systems, Internet connectivity charges, payment processor fees, worrying about network and customer data security, etc.
And it's not like every single App Store developer is ready to run for the hills. Many will be content letting Apple keep their 30% IAP cut (it's 15% for smaller devs). With freedom comes responsibility. There is no free lunch.
This all assumes that Apple allows third-party developers to mention actual price differences (which is definitely NOT a given).
Epic lost nine of ten counts and this was not the one they really wanted to win. I'm not sure the appeal will overturn anything. This story isn't over. Only the lawyers pocket more money.