How does Sweeney keep his job at this point? The losses as a result of removing Fortnite from iOS have got to be in the billions of dollars by now, in addition to the millions in legal fees; and it was all for nought. Surely his one man crusade will not be looked upon kindly by his board and investors.
Sweeney like Zuckerberg can't be kicked out he has controlling interest and is the inventor (sole creator) of the one thing of true value at Epic, the Unreal Gaming Engine probably the best in the world.
Apple should return the flavor by developing a Game Engine in house in short respond by designing and engineering like you did when Intel said no iPhone cpu's roll those sleeves up again. The best solution is to keep moving and design around.
Most of the ingrate developers will find out like the Music and Video steaming business there is a true cost to software/hardware infrastructure, if you don't plan and account for it's cost up front in your road to imagined riches you will whine up like Disney, Deezer or Spotify. Note revenue isn't profit nor is giving away golden parachutes to upper management....
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.
That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence.
I get where you're coming from, and Apple made various unsuccesful arguments about the broad scope of the injunction. Regardless, this injunction applies nationwide - e.g., to apps downloaded outside of California and sales made outside of California and with regard to developers that operate outside of California.
Sometimes remedies for state law violations end up effectively applying nationwide. One important question is, does the court in question have proper jurisdiction over the defendant on which it is imposing a remedy? In this case there's no doubt that it does. And as for Epic, the courts have essentially accepted its argument that it can be harmed even by other developers not being able to steer their users to other payment options because those other developers might steer their users to Epic's own store to make payments relating to their iOS apps. So even though other developers aren't parties to this action (and it isn't a class action), the imposed remedy applies to them as well.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.
That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence.
Texas, Florida, and the whole Southeastern United States would have a lot to say about that, California law doesn't apply to other states. Now if they pass the same law in that state that would be different but that ain't gonna happen
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
I would argue there is some benefit to developers not paying the 30% cut, they wouldn't have been protesting so hard if it was so clear cut as you said.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.
Unfortunately, I think that people miss the fact that China owns a 40% stake in epic. That’s likely where the impetus for Epic’s (losing) push comes from.
So now Apple can require all developers to give 5% of revenue once they make 1 million outside of IAP just like Epic does?
Negative. Epic offers that model because that have to in order to stay competitive and push adoption of its tech. Kind of like a drug dealer - the first hit is free. Then you’re dug in and “need” it. We will see how long epic keeps that pricing model.
Meanwhile, one company doesn’t have to make minimal profit just because someone else does. The market dictates. Apparently, people find greater value with Apple and are willing to pay what they see as equitable. Epic doesn’t have that cachet so they can’t command the same type of profit/expense model.
How does Sweeney keep his job at this point? The losses as a result of removing Fortnite from iOS have got to be in the billions of dollars by now, in addition to the millions in legal fees; and it was all for nought. Surely his one man crusade will not be looked upon kindly by his board and investors.
Sweeney owns the controlling shares and the other big investor in Epic is Tencent, which owns 40%. Tencent wants this as much as Sweeney.
China blocks the Google store and services and Asian app stores take over. Tencent is 4 on the following page:
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.
That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence.
The other states should follow soon, since all 50 of them ganged up to extort money from Google in a recent play store case.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
Going into the future the software developers will start to see the true cost of infrastructure, that developer fee will start to go up.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
You’re not wrong, but Apple will likely apply it worldwide (outside of Europe, which has its own rules now). Apple has zero interest in creating different versions of the App Store on a state-by-state basis, and even if they could do so it would tempt other states to create similar regulations that would be harder to customize.
Wah, Apple won't let me dictate the way I sell my apps to their customers! Ridiculous. It's their store, they built it, and everyone has to follow the rules while using it. Don't like it? Don't use or develop for iOS, you can stick to other platforms that will likely not allow you to grow as much. Apple offers a certain opportunity, and only you can decide whether or not you like those terms.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
Not actually true. It’s quite possible they will get MORE of the income, but payment processors, banks, and secure payment hosting on websites will now take much of the chunk that Apple was taking before. Have fun dealing with a half-dozen companies for 70-80 percent of the revenue instead of a one-stop shop that gave you 70-to-85 percent of the revenue, developers!
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.
You’re not wrong, but Apple will likely apply it worldwide (outside of Europe, which has its own rules now). Apple has zero interest in creating different versions of the App Store on a state-by-state basis, and even if they could do so it would tempt other states to create similar regulations that would be harder to customize.
Just to be clear, and as I indicated earlier, the injunction applies nationwide. Apple doesn't have the option of only applying it in California.
For those who still have doubts on this front, from Judge Rogers' Rule 52 Order (citations and footnotes omitted):
Apple argues that any equitable relief issued “under state law,” presumably including under the UCL, must be “limited to California” to avoid a violation of the Commerce Clause. The only authority that Apple cites to support this proposition is Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989), which holds that “[t]he Commerce Clause precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.”
In Healy, an association of brewers and importers of beer sought declaratory judgment that a Connecticut statute was unconstitutional because it regulated out-of-state conduct in violation of the Commerce Clause. The statute in question required out-of-state shippers of beer to affirm that their prices for beer sold to Connecticut wholesalers were no higher than prices at which those products were sold in bordering states. The Supreme Court held that the Connecticut statute violated the Commerce Clause because the interaction of the Connecticut statute with beer-pricing statutes of bordering states had the “practical effect” of controlling prices “wholly outside” of Connecticut’s borders.
Healy is inapposite. Here, in contrast to Healy, there is no challenge to the constitutionality of the UCL. Rather than seeking to invalidate the UCL on the basis that it violates the Commerce Clause, Apple seeks to restrict the geographic scope of any injunction issued under the UCL to California based on the Commerce Clause. The proper scope of an injunction issued under state law is not an issue that was addressed in Healy. Further, even if Healy had any relevance to that issue, Healy’s holding that a state statute cannot be applied “to commerce that takes place wholly outside” of that state would nevertheless be inapposite. Here, neither the conduct at issue, nor its effects, are taking place “wholly outside” of California. Apple is headquartered in California; the DPLA is governed by California law; and the commerce affected by the conduct that the Court has found to be unfair takes place at least in part in California. Accordingly, Apple has not shown that Healy prevents the Court from enjoining conduct outside of California that undisputedly harms California and its residents.
By the same token, Epic Games provides the Court with no authority that an injunction could issue globally based upon a violation of California’s UCL.
Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their:
Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP.
Nor may Apple prohibit developers from:
Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app
This decision to deny cert on Epic's petition in particular is pretty important. It's going to make it harder for anyone - to include the DOJ - to establish that Apple has monopoly power in certain relevant markets and thus to establish that Apple has violated anti-trust laws.
One of the things the Ninth Circuit did in its opinion in this case is outline the circumstances under which a relevant antitrust market can be limited to a single brand. Under the guidelines the Ninth Circuit established it will be difficult to show that iOS distribution, for example, is a relevant antitrust market. The Supreme Court just decided not to review those guidelines and perhaps overrule or alter them. The Supreme Court didn't actually affirm them, so it's still plausible that it will in the future effectively overrule them. But for now it's a positive development when it comes to the likelihood that those guidelines, or something close, will live on.
What the Ninth Circuit said on this front is only legally binding in that circuit, but courts in other circuits may find it persuasive if they need to consider such matters themselves. At any rate, I think this cert denial makes certain kinds of antitrust actions the DOJ may bring in the future more difficult and may incline it to file such actions in a different circuit.
This effectively kills potential bills by politicians to force things like sideloading and seriously hampers the DOJ from going after Apple.
As you said, the Ninth Circuit isn’t binding across the US, but it sets a pretty strong precedent.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
With Epic, in was never about opening their own app store on iOS. it was about finding ways to weasel out of paying Apple any commission for profits made from using Apple IP. Epic could have notified all their game playing customers of getting a discount on Fortnite Bucks on their own website, by using the email they already have on all their account holders. Apple only banned Epic from advertising this inside Epic free iOS app or from the email address they got from customers paying with their iTunes account. Epic didn't need to advertise this in their app, in order to inform their customers. What Epic really wanted was a direct link to their own payment system, without the customer having to leave the game and log on to their account on Epic's web site. This as an attempt to avoid paying Apple a commission on IAP, using the free app on iOS that users downloaded from the Apple App Store.
Epic already knows that opening their own app store in iOS would never be as profitable as having their games in the Apple App Store and paying Apple their 30% commission. They know this from Android, as profits from games from their own app store on Android is/was never as profitable as having their games in the Google Play Store (even after Google's commission). They know that for what ever reasons, the vast amount of users will never use a third party app store, no matter how trusted the developers are. Otherwise Fortnite would still be as profitable (and popular) on Android (after being kicked out of the Google Play Store) as it was when it was available in the Google Play Store. If this were the case,, Epic would had had no reason to sue Google for kicking them out of the Google Play Store. But Epic much rather have their apps in the Google Play Store and not have to pay Google their 30% commission. Google 30% commission was Epic main reason for suing Google for abusing the monopoly they have with the Google Play Store on Android.
Comments
Sweeney like Zuckerberg can't be kicked out he has controlling interest and is the inventor (sole creator) of the one thing of true value at Epic, the Unreal Gaming Engine probably the best in the world.
Apple should return the flavor by developing a Game Engine in house in short respond by designing and engineering like you did when Intel said no iPhone cpu's roll those sleeves up again. The best solution is to keep moving and design around.
Most of the ingrate developers will find out like the Music and Video steaming business there is a true cost to software/hardware infrastructure, if you don't plan and account for it's cost up front in your road to imagined riches you will whine up like Disney, Deezer or Spotify. Note revenue isn't profit nor is giving away golden parachutes to upper management....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine The sole 90% creator of (Unreal Engine)
I get where you're coming from, and Apple made various unsuccesful arguments about the broad scope of the injunction. Regardless, this injunction applies nationwide - e.g., to apps downloaded outside of California and sales made outside of California and with regard to developers that operate outside of California.
Sometimes remedies for state law violations end up effectively applying nationwide. One important question is, does the court in question have proper jurisdiction over the defendant on which it is imposing a remedy? In this case there's no doubt that it does. And as for Epic, the courts have essentially accepted its argument that it can be harmed even by other developers not being able to steer their users to other payment options because those other developers might steer their users to Epic's own store to make payments relating to their iOS apps. So even though other developers aren't parties to this action (and it isn't a class action), the imposed remedy applies to them as well.
Texas, Florida, and the whole Southeastern United States would have a lot to say about that, California law doesn't apply to other states. Now if they pass the same law in that state that would be different but that ain't gonna happen
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.
China blocks the Google store and services and Asian app stores take over. Tencent is 4 on the following page:
https://appinchina.co/blog/the-top-15-app-stores-in-china/
Tencent doesn't like revenue sharing, they'd rather be the official iOS app store in Asia and take all the revenue:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tencent-games-removed-huawei-app-store-over-revenue-dispute-source-2021-01-01/
They make some of the highest grossing games on iOS and currently have to share revenue with Apple:
https://gurugamer.com/mobile-games/tencent-games-list-16486
China is a big market for apps, iOS alone is probably worth $10b+.
Going into the future the software developers will start to see the true cost of infrastructure, that developer fee will start to go up.
Not actually true. It’s quite possible they will get MORE of the income, but payment processors, banks, and secure payment hosting on websites will now take much of the chunk that Apple was taking before. Have fun dealing with a half-dozen companies for 70-80 percent of the revenue instead of a one-stop shop that gave you 70-to-85 percent of the revenue, developers!
For those who still have doubts on this front, from Judge Rogers' Rule 52 Order (citations and footnotes omitted):
As you said, the Ninth Circuit isn’t binding across the US, but it sets a pretty strong precedent.