davidw

mubaili said:

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?

That's the way it is now. No platform, not Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Amazon or Nintendo, would allow a developer to sell their products that can be used on their platform, that can also be used on other platforms, cheaper on the other platform. And no platform owner would allow Epic to charge less, for playing the same game on another platform. If it were cheaper to play Fortnite on a Playstation, than on an Xbox, Microsoft would complain about it and force Epic to charge the same to play on an Xbox. 

For instance, why would Microsoft agree to let Epic sell V-Bucks at a discount on their own website, that can be spent by players using an Xbox? All the Xbox players would just go online, using the Xbox none the less, to purchase their discounted V-Bucks and spend those V-Bucks while playing Fortnite on an Xbox. While bypassing Microsoft commission and yet be able to take advantage of what the Xbox has to offer.  

When Epic advertised V-Bucks for iOS and Android at a discount, when purchased on their website, just before they were kicked out of the Google Play and Apple App stores, they had to offer the same discount on the Xbox, Playstation and Switch. They had to to appease Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Even though Epic still had to pay the 30% on game consoles.

But iOS and Android players did not receive the discount if they purchased their V-bucks using iOS or Android. But Epic got kicked out soon anyway  and none of the already downloaded Epic Fortnite app could be updated to take advantage of the discount. So Epic gave these iOS and Android players matching V-Bucks that were already in their account, that can be used on other platforms. 


https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366259/epic-fortnite-vbucks-mega-drop-discount-iphone-android/

https://fortniteintel.com/epic-games-offer-free-v-bucks-to-mac-ios-users-following-apple-ban/36286/

So even if Epic were to offer a discount for V-Bucks on iOS or Android, iOS and Android players would not really be getting a discount from Epic for not having to pay Google and Apple the 30%. Xbox, Playstation and Switch p[layers would also get the same discount, even though Epic is still paying the 30% there. 

This is also true for nearly all subscription services and IAP, whose purchases are accessible on multiple platforms (by usually using a free app). Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, HBO, Disney, Hulu, etc. all cost the same, no matter which platform you close to pay from.

But one can get a discount by purchasing discounted iTunes gift card and using iTunes to pay for them. (One can do the same on Android with discounted Google Play gift cards.). This includes the IAP of V-Bucks.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/secret-way-discount-netflix-every-160513614.html


 

jcs2305 said:

georgie01 said:

canukstorm 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.

https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-hulu-espn-bundle

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.  



 

I'm not aware that S.Korea new law placed a ban on Apple 15%-30% commission. Just that developers can use their own payment systems. This is not like the suits going on  elsewhere, where developers are complaining about Apple 30% commission as being an abuse of a "monopoly".  

i would think all Apple have to do is to tell Epic that they will be allowed in the Apple App Store in S. Korea, as soon as they develop a payment system that keeps track of the 15% or 30% commission, that they would still owe Apple. (Or whatever commission rate Apple negotiate with developers with their own payment system.) Since Epic would probably still be required to collect the sales tax for S. Korea, it shouldn't be too hard for developers to also collect the "Apple tax" for Apple. 

I don't remember Apple ever claiming that the App store 15% or 30% commission is solely for processing the payment for the developers. Though there seems to be a lot of people that seems to think that that's all the commission pays for.  

crowley said:

davidw said:

Complaining that Apple is performing the scan and search while the photos are still on your device, is not nonsense. Your device and its contents are not considered in the hands of a third party and thus you lose any rights of privacy and protection from unreasonable and warrantless search, without probable cause.  You lose those rights once the contents of your device are in the iCloud and not before.

No, you lose those rights once you agree to waive those rights, which will be in the iCloud terms and conditions.  Agree to the terms and conditions and you agree to Apple scanning your photo on device.

Just because you agreed to it, it doesn't mean that what Apple is doing is legal. And if what Apple is doing is illegal, you agreeing to it doesn't make it legal on Apple part.

The classic example is that an employee can not agree to be paid less than minimum wage. If the employer pays an employee less than minimum wage, he would be breaking the law, even if the employee agrees to it. As an employee, one can not agree away their rights to be paid the minimum wage. 

Now, is what Apple doing with their search on their customers devices and how they are informing them about it, legal? The courts might rule that at least some of what Apple is doing, are illegal. And it wouldn't matter if you agreed to allow Apple to do the search or not.  

https://securityboulevard.com/2021/08/is-apples-client-side-child-porn-scanning-legal/

StrangeDays said:

theirongiant said:

crowley said:

I have heard of the EFF and know what they do.  They've done some decent and worthwhile campaigning in the past, but they're very close to being

no-compromise privacy zealots.  And I doubt Apple are going to be much bothered to engage with people who cannot be reasoned with given the concurrent obligations Apple feels that it has.

"no-compromise privacy zealots" is how a lot of people would describe Apple.  Remember the San Bernardino case where they refused to help decrypt the shooter's iPhone? What about when the FBI asked for a backdoor to help fight crime?  In both cases, Apple has clearly said "NO, we will not help you hack our phones because it would compromise our users' privacy."  Beginning in MacOS 10.8, Apple added privacy checks that required applications to ask permission to read your personal data.  In Mojave (10.14), they ramped it up with the requirement to ask permission to use the camera and microphone, and in Catalina (10.15) they make apps ask permission to use screen recording or scan most files on your disk.  They have made an entire series of commercials about privacy.

The one place, sadly, where Apple has "compromised" is in their dealing with China, where they contracted iCloud to GCBD, a company that is capable of being influenced the Chinese Communist Party.  Without this arrangement, the CCP would have embargoed ALL iPhone sales inmainland China.  Period.  This set a terrible precedent, and the EFF and others continue to give them flak for it.  The CSAM image scanning would be a bridge too far, because scanning and reporting rules could be enforced by foreign governments looking to silence dissidents for sharing memes or pictures that match a "known database" of images.

Apple didn’t simply refuse, they don’t have the ability to decrypt encrypted devices. You get that right?

That's not right. Apple was not asked to decrypt the data on the iPhone. (Which as you correctly stated, they didn't have the ability to do so.) Apple was mandated under a court order to create special software that can be installed on the iPhone that for one, will bypass security features that wipes out the data on the iPhone after so many attempts at guessing the passcode. And then Apple was required to provide that software to the FBI. But they refused a court order to do so. One of Apple claim was that once the FBI had the special software, it could be use to unlock other iPhones, that were not part of the court order.  Thus compromising the privacy and security of other iPhone users. The case never went to trial as some other entity was able to unlock the iPhone in question. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute


>As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone's iOS operating system that could be installed and run in the phone's random access memory to disable certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy which required it to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sheri Pym, to issue a court order, mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.[21] The order was not a subpoena, but rather was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789.[22][23]<