That is not even in the lawsuit because Apple already allowed that (well there is no way to Apple block a external store to sell things).
Plus now if Apple wants they could ask commission to the sales generated by that external store link.
Is that true of physical items, too?
that walled garden bs is going to get pretty tough to maintain
Apple doesn't even allow in app payment for physical goods.. they dont want to be involved in anything not consumed on the phone, they dont want to deal with physical returns and things like that.
I admit I read that thread and the tweets and thought it was a win for Epic.
Not necessarily your fault; there are 2-3 outlets declaring it a win for Epic, all gaming web sites.. often with just outright incorrect statements about the situation. The main thread here on the topic echo'd one of those article titles, and mods never bothered to change it.
Apple payment system is not allowed to be involved with physical items.
So basically, any App that is expensive enough that Apple's cut is more than £30, can use physical unlocking to bypass their cut. yes?
No; because anything unlockable on the phone has to be also sold via the phone.
I don't believe Apple will do that either because they don't care with external web store sales.Plus now if Apple wants they could ask commission to the sales generated by that external store link.
That would defeat the whole point.
pretty sure this won't fly. Then again apple is in a lot of different shit in the EU at the same time too.
that walled garden bs is going to get pretty tough to maintain
I believe only Fortnite because it was the App that break the rules of App Store.
It still is if it is monopoly.
Apple was forced last year by a court injunction to re-enable that account.
Well Apple still take their 30% cut on very expensive software beyond gaming AFAIK. Taking Apple's £200 fee out of the equation would make a huge difference to those organisations, and they wouldn't care about the added snail mail time or dongle use to unlock to get a 30% discount on all those copies they buy AFAIK - as the saving might run to a few thousand.
Yeap it is open to case to case deal between Platform holder (Apple) and developer.
should you be using the word stan? you're one of the most active posters in the fortnite OT.
The ruling specifically states that
Ah interesting.
Are you 12?
It's not easily enforceable.
Apple couldn't care less, it's barely affecting them. They're the smallest user base for fortnight and the smallest in terms of revenue for it. They're one of the richest companies in the world. Saying they're losing money over this is like saying a billionaire is losing money over dropping their change and some of it rolling in the drain. It's a drop in the vast, vast ocean.Both companies are losing money over this, and I couldn't be happier.
Same way Sony can get money from Epic if the PS Store revenue is lower than what they expect from the playing userbase.
Lawyers won. Everyone else lost.
Didn't know which Tim you were referring to - the Sweeney brand or the Cook variety. Had to decipher EGS. Thx for that.
Exactly this. Apple are using Epic lawsuit to show the others they'll protect their walled garden whatever the cost. Sweeny was really naive thinking he could win this and he should have predicted this.
Different definition. In my view (uk) a monopoly is a major player with more than 25% of the market.
Read the actual court ruling. Apple are entitled to charge their 30% commission on any payments made via the in-game link to the external payment methods. Apple know how many times people will click out, and unless developers want to risk their game and account, they'll pay up.
That's what Apple does. Protect wallets.
www.techspot.com
