j2fusion

I think the article is a little misleading in that Apple does not have to provide alternative payment methods only that it cannot disallow external links placed by developers in the app that provide information about alternative payment methods or bring the user to an external payment processor. Most developers especially smaller ones won’t do that.  

MplsP said:

mpantone said:

williamlondon said:

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!

App purchasing itself will not change so the scenario above cannot happen. The ruling does not allow alternative App stores so the user will still have to purchase the App through Apple and it will still get the 30% cut. The only way the developer could avoid paying is to offer the App for a reduced cost or free and put a link on the App Store to activate it through an external payment. As others have said, most people won’t bother so little has changed. Remember when you click the in-app-purchase button in the App Store, you’re done. When you click the external link, you are going to have to enter credit card information in addition to other information. Sweeney knows most people will take the convenience of purchasing through the App Store over an outside link. That’s why he is appealing. 

What I want to know is if Apple can still require a developer to offer Apple’s in-app payment system in addition to the links to an outside payment system. If that’s the case, I think many people will still use Apple’s payment system. Where it breaks down is if developers can use the outside system exclusively. Also, what happens if a developer has many complaints, for example, children running up a big bill or other errors but the developer refuses to refund the user.  Can Apple ban that developer from using an external payment system or ban the app completely?

I guess next we’ll see signs from the manufacturer in Walmart saying you can get a better deal for this item at Target. 

elijahg said:

genovelle said:

neoncat said:

retrogusto said:

Let’s see a show of hands—how many would like to see a change in the way the App Store is run vs. how many would like to see a change in the way congress is run. 

And which’s would make a bigger and more positive impact?

I'll take your bait. Speaking only for myself, I'd be happy to see the entire App Store paradigm burned to the ground, and then burned again. But this reflects my own preferences. I am not so strident that I can't see how the structure, as it exists, serves a certain class of user quite well. 

The App Store paradigm is your company spends billions developing a store to offer safe goods of a certain quality. You set a fair price and allow others to profit off your creation. Greedy developers who want all the profits for themselves complain and even get government stooges to demand you give them your profit while continuing to invest in the platform. 

Your options are continue at a loss or shutdown development and invest those funds into a new venture with profit potential. The only loosers here will be the 99% of developers who this model as worked well for and real Apple supporters. Apple will cut bait just like they did with Newton and more recently IPod. Even though fans will want a continuance, a lack of profitability will determine its fate. 

At this point, the App Store as you know it is doomed. Not because there will be many ways to buy apps. More likely, there will only be ways to buy web apps but because Native 3rd party apps will go away and hundreds of thousands of developers will be unemployed over night. 

You realise if it wasn't for "greedy developers" the iPhone wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is today? It wouldn't be making Apple the vast sums it is now, and Android would be 99% of the market.

And you realize that most developers never would have had a chance to make the money they made if it wasn’t for the system Apple set up.  How many developers could have set up a distribution and payment system if Apple haven’t done it for them.   How many developers came out of nowhere to create great apps simply because they could afford $99.00 which gave them access to Apple’s entire ecosystem. How many users (not developers) have you heard complaining about the App Store?