-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple
- Thread starter reksveks
- Start date
If you didn't see if after last week, or the last month, you needed to pay more attention.
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
I meant why were people expecting epic to loose this in the first place?
Doesn't make sense to me.
It should be quite obvious that apple is in the wrong here.
FullMetalx117
Member
This always made sense but for some reason people on gaming sites who think they know what capitalism is/truly believe we are living in a free market were confused and had arguments like “free market”. If Microsoft wasn’t allowed a cut for every sale made on windows, why should Apple be allowed a cut? Never made any sense
Guilty_AI
Member
I still don't know if they actually "won" here. Apple wasn't ruled an monopolist and they still have control over the Apple store.
Sure they can't forbid other forms of payment in iOS apps but i don't think they are forced to publish any software in their store.
Basically, they can still just choose to not have Fortnite in their store anymore if they don't want it. Or at least i think so, i'm no law person or anything.
The Pleasure
Gold Member
Is tim apple going to be like the metal slime in dragon quest where you miss 99% of the time?
wipeout364
Member
Sony will be next, essentially this ruling opens the door to buy in game currency from outside the ecosystem which Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft block. For example Activision will be able to sell COD points on their own website without giving 30% cut to Sony or MS.
i don’t understand why the people think this will be limited to mobile. This is the first ruling, it will be extended to all digital goods on the next challenge which will be filed by somebody within 24 hours. This is a massive amount of money the platform holders have been getting for doing nothing , it is ridiculous and should have been stopped years ago.
i don’t understand why the people think this will be limited to mobile. This is the first ruling, it will be extended to all digital goods on the next challenge which will be filed by somebody within 24 hours. This is a massive amount of money the platform holders have been getting for doing nothing , it is ridiculous and should have been stopped years ago.
MightySquirrel
Banned
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I dont work in tech, so it's obvious tech has different rules than physical goods on shelf.
If Walmart and a supplier agree to sell a product on shelf for $50 retail, it makes sense Walmart gets their $10-20 cut. It's Walmart's stores and the supplier doesnt want to sell it direct because it costs to much and is a hassle. That's what the concept of channels of distribution is all about. Someone makes it, someone distributes it.
What Epic wants would be like Walmart and a supplier trying to agree on a deal where Walmart carries the product because they are saints, but make zero money on it. All sales go to the suppliers. Or, Walmart allows a supplier to put up products on shelf with a big sign saying "Don't buy it here. Buy it direct from us at our website".
These situations would never stand in retail.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
It's already being on the Xbox Store by Apple no less.
The AppleTV app sells movie and TV rentals and episodes also subs to things like Epic and Starz from within the app on my Xbox.
Last edited:
Epic still had to prove that and they failed to prove a number of things.
Don't worry about that soon.
wipeout364
Member
Actually this is more like you buying a coffee maker at Wal Mart and then having a security system in it that only allows coffee from Wal Mart to ever be used in the device. This is not reality so Wal Mart does actually allow this behavior of buying from other vendors to use the device you originally purchased at Wal Mart.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
So does this mean that you can put up apps for free and then put a store in your app, but apple still gets a 30% cut of anything sold on their store or the in-app stores of other apps?
If so, that seems reasonable I guess.
If so, that seems reasonable I guess.
saintjules
Gold Member
Dr Bass
Member
This is just the beginning for Apple. With these rulings, combined with all the legislation coming across the globe to say they can't limit where installs happening ... Apple is dumb to not try and get ahead of this and just offer it all themselves. They are going to have their hand forced by governments instead and end up looking quite bad.
Fess
Member
Lol yeah that would be silly. Tim pretends to be a saint and do this for the little guy but he’s really just a greedy freeloading pig who wants more millions. I’d love if the judge had ruled that third party devs could sell their own in-app things but not Epic because they’re too big.
Haggard
Banned
this isn`t about Epic, this is a pretty fundamental ruling about alternate methods of payment on any platform.
Pagusas
Elden Member
We need some adjustments to what people think Epic was sueing for. Epic had 10 issues presented against apple, of which Apple was cleared of 9 of them.
" Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple clear on nine of ten counts but issued an injunction preventing Apple from stopping developers from informing users of other payment systems within apps."
People were saying Epic would not get a ruling to tear down the closed garden, allow separate app stores on apple devices or be found to be a monopoly. So did Epic win? They won 1/10th of their ask, and were found guilty of the counter suit regarding breach of contract, but they did strike a blow against apples ubiquitous control of the app store, so that alone is worth a gold star as many app devs will benefit.
The key things people were claiming this suit could do though? That was all found in apples favor, such as apple not being a monopoly, the judge not even considering the app store and its framework in her decision (so no touching of the closed garden) and no forcing apple to change their fee structure.
This tweet perfectly sums it up:
Last edited:
AndrewRyan
Member
This has nothing to do with the percentage cut they get, necessarily. It's about requiring developers to use Apple Pay only and not mentioning, encouraging or allowing users to pay for things from outside the app.
It ultimately reduces Apple's profits since they don't get a percentage cut from the outside payments, but they can continue to charge 30% from those that use Apple Pay. Same will go for Google since they have been trying to force developers to use Google Billing but have been pushing the mandatory date back. September was going to be the requirement date but it's pushed back to 2022, but that's probably not going to happen now.
Since Sony already allows payment from 3rd parties like Paypal, credit cards, etc., it doesn't affect them. Not sure about Microsoft but doubt they force their own payment system.
It's really good news for consumers, especially for apps that have reoccurring payments like subscriptions.
It ultimately reduces Apple's profits since they don't get a percentage cut from the outside payments, but they can continue to charge 30% from those that use Apple Pay. Same will go for Google since they have been trying to force developers to use Google Billing but have been pushing the mandatory date back. September was going to be the requirement date but it's pushed back to 2022, but that's probably not going to happen now.
Since Sony already allows payment from 3rd parties like Paypal, credit cards, etc., it doesn't affect them. Not sure about Microsoft but doubt they force their own payment system.
It's really good news for consumers, especially for apps that have reoccurring payments like subscriptions.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
This is literally just removing their rule that disallows linking people to web sites where you can buy stuff alternatively lol
Apple already allowed that...
This is about being able to link to your web store from within the app.
Apple already allowed that...
This is about being able to link to your web store from within the app.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
So why wouldn't every single game just be f2p on Apple, and link to a payment off-site?
Could just literally be $0 for literally any game sales for Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Xbox now from the sound of it. Could even have free online multiplayer on PS if it was f2p but then purchased on a separate store.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
There is appeal yet... so it is not the final decision.
In any case the court rulled out the Epic claim of monopoly or violation of antitrust laws... they said "success is not illegal".
Let's see how it works from now.
The Apple PR response btw.
"Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone."
In any case the court rulled out the Epic claim of monopoly or violation of antitrust laws... they said "success is not illegal".
Let's see how it works from now.
The Apple PR response btw.
"Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone."
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
If it's all about accessibility to various forms of payment, then millions of companies should be charged. Theres still many places that are cash only. One credit card only. And only some allow Interac or Paypal.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Because Apple has rules against that, that this ruling doesn't effect.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
What in the world are you talking about?
Apple already allowed companies to sell things outside of an app, that appears in an app.. apple already accepts PayPal.. and credit cards..
This is literally just about them being able to tell people from within the apps, and link to, where they can buy outside the app.. AKA the companies web store.
ethomaz
Banned
That
Adding a bit more from 2022 forward Apple will allow linking to alternative stores for "reader" apps like Netflix, Spotify, Kindle, etc.
The judge decision (if hold) will open that new rule for others type of Apps.
Last edited:
wipeout364
Member
I thought in game currency was not allowed to be bought outside of the apple ecosystem? As well linking to it was prohibited. Using PayPal, visa or MasterCard to pay your apple account is a complete separate issue. The above mentioned examples offer no retail on the apps : Netflix, Spotify, audible etc. Can you give an example of a game that allows in game and outside purchases of in game currency?
Last edited:
prinz_valium
Member
Apple down 3% intraday. Right now it's 2.3%
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Didn't they win the ability to be able to sale their stuff on iphones without the need of the App Store?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm not sure, but people said Epic didn't stand a chance in court.
Nope, they won the ability to steer customers to their own store via their app.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Nope, nothing even close to that.
They did lose alot of the points or more correctly failed to prove them.
ethomaz
Banned
Court denied almost all their arguments.
Guilty_AI
Member
No, they wanted the ability to sell stuff in the app store without needing to pay anything to apple.
In fact i think it was possible to install 3rd party software in iOS already without needing the app store already.
Last edited:
Would have to jailbreak or basically pretend it as a business specific app, neither of which are real solutions to a consumer app.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Which is good for Epic, right? Which means once you buy VBucks from their store, you can use those VBucks in Fortnite on your iPhone.
It wasn't really about that. It means that epic could stick a button in the app that would like out into safari/browser where you could buy the Vbucks and then obviously you can go back into fortnite and use it.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Exactly! That's a win for Epic. Obviously they didn't win everything under the sun.
Guilty_AI
Member
assuming apple will let them back on the store, even Sweeney doesn't seem too happy with this result.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
That will be the next lawsuit.
Dr Bass
Member
Wouldn't this ruling allow for 3rd party payment processors, like Stripe/Paypal, to be embedded into apps as well? Doesn't have to be a link out does it?
AdjudicatorHead
Member
Nope, that’s not permitted under the lawsuit. They specifically lost that request.
Dr Bass
Member
That's ridiculous lol.
Doesn't matter. The hammer is coming from legislation anyway. Apple is not going to end up on the right side of this in the long run.
AdjudicatorHead
Member
Remains to be seen, it will likely be possible for Apple to insist in their terms that the price available via IAP is equal to the price on their third party payment website, which will make the whole thing pointless as 99% of people will go via IAP for convenience then.
Last edited: