Fortnite Maker Wins Appeal in Australia (cnet.com) 40
Epic's legal spat with Apple over App Store practices will spill over to Australia. From a report: After a series of hearings and trials that stretched nearly nine months, Apple and Epic made their final pitches to a US District Court in California on May 24. Both companies now await Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' decision, but that doesn't mean the litigation is over. After a successful appeal Thursday by Epic, the case will soon be brought to an Australian court. At the center of the legal action is Apple's App Store. Epic's ultrapopular Fortnite was kicked off the iOS App Store in August after Epic built a direct payment system into the game that would allow it to bypass Apple's 30% fee for App Store purchases. Epic sued Apple immediately, accusing the company of anticompetitive practice. Epic argues that the App Store is monopolistic, that developers hoping to get their apps to customers have no choice but to go through the App Store -- and pay the fees associated with that. Apple calls Epic's lawsuit a marketing stunt and argues that the App Store gives developers access to a huge audience of iPhone and iPad users.
In November, Epic brought the issue to Australia, initiating proceedings against Apple by arguing that the iPhone-maker's practices contravene Australia's Competition and Consumer Act. Apple was able to appeal against the suit in April, arguing that the case should be settled in the US District Court. Epic quickly counter-appealed, arguing that public policy concerns justify a separate trial. Australia's Federal Court ruled in favor of Epic on Thursday. "This is a positive step forward for Australian consumers and developers who are entitled to fair access and competitive pricing across mobile app stores," an Epic spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our fight for increased competition in app distribution and payment processing in Australia and around the world."
In November, Epic brought the issue to Australia, initiating proceedings against Apple by arguing that the iPhone-maker's practices contravene Australia's Competition and Consumer Act. Apple was able to appeal against the suit in April, arguing that the case should be settled in the US District Court. Epic quickly counter-appealed, arguing that public policy concerns justify a separate trial. Australia's Federal Court ruled in favor of Epic on Thursday. "This is a positive step forward for Australian consumers and developers who are entitled to fair access and competitive pricing across mobile app stores," an Epic spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our fight for increased competition in app distribution and payment processing in Australia and around the world."
There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:1)
I can allow that Apple might deserve reasonable compensation for making all those iPhones available to app developers in one place. 30% isn't reasonable. It's a blatant ripoff. There is absolutely no doubt one or more app libraries would have arisen independently if Apple hadn't screwed down access to their iPhones. Look at all the sites like MajorGeeks and FileHippo that provide access to a huge variety of software. The very term "jailbreak" speaks volumes.
And 30% is a blatant ripoff.
Re:There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:5, Insightful)
30% isn't reasonable. It's a blatant ripoff.
In the olden days before iPhones, I worked for a software company that did its own marketing and distribution. We spent more than 30% of our revenue and reached far fewer potential customers than are available on the App Store.
My spouse has a one-person app business that would be impossible without the App Store.
So is 30% unreasonable? I don't know.
There is absolutely no doubt one or more app libraries would have arisen independently if Apple hadn't screwed down access to their iPhones.
Yet this hasn't happened for Android. There are independent sites, but they are festering heaps of crap and malware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
30% isn't reasonable. It's a blatant ripoff.
In the olden days before iPhones, I worked for a software company that did its own marketing and distribution. We spent more than 30% of our revenue and reached far fewer potential customers than are available on the App Store.
My spouse has a one-person app business that would be impossible without the App Store.
So is 30% unreasonable? I don't know.
There is absolutely no doubt one or more app libraries would have arisen independently if Apple hadn't screwed down access to their iPhones.
Yea, it's a whole lot better today. One thing people forget is Apple will still find a way to make money. Want to bypass IAP with your own setup? OK, you no longer are a "free" app but one that must pay per download since you charge for game items. Instead of taking a cut from sales they'll simply charge for distribution, and it will be a lot harder to argue that is unfair. Apple is not stupid when it comes to making money.
Yet this hasn't happened for Android. There are independent sites, but they are festering heaps of crap and malware.
Or as was when jailbreaking was easier a whole bunch of pirated apps. If Apple we
Re: There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:3)
The app store doesn't do all of the marketing for you, all it does is make your app available. That would be kind of like listing a business in the yellow pages and then calling it done.
Re: (Score:2)
30% isn't an excessive gross margin. Check out [nyu.edu] Retail (online), and the Software categories.
Re: (Score:3)
Gross margin is cost of goods purchased vs revenue. The App Store doesn't purchase apps and resell them, their gross margin is damn near 100% (all revenue, no purchases). However, net margin is a good indicator of excessive price. From your link, net margin in retailing is well below 10%. I would guess the net margin on the App Store is 50% or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Customer buys for $100, Apple acting as the retailer takes 30% gross margin. Of course, they also have to pay bills to run the app store, so their net margin is less. To the developer, it's no different than selling a CD which retails for $100 to a brick and mortar for $70.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet this hasn't happened for Android. There are independent sites, but they are festering heaps of crap and malware.
F-Droid and Amazon App Store are both pretty decent honestly. F-Droid's limited by its mission (and in a few cases, by politics) of course.
Re: (Score:1)
So is 30% unreasonable? I don't know.
I do. 30% is very reasonable, for what a developer gets in return. But that's not the issue here.
The issue is that a developer has no choice but to pay that 30%. If a developer want to use a competing app store to put apps on a iPhone, run a competing app store themselves, or do similar with a different pay system, then they can't. They are forced to pay that 30% or forgo the customers they might reach.
Ultimately though, the customers of the developers are themselves forced to pay that 30% (because the cu
Re:There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you define, without emotion, what level of compensation is "blatant ripoff" versus "acceptable"? Why is your (or my) definition of "fair return" correct?
I'm actually curious about this from the standpoint of how would you go about setting a price point. I mean sellers always want to put the price as high as they can - when is it a "ripoff" versus when is it a proper reflection of value add?
Re:There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Epic had a contract for that rate. If you think it is high, then don't sign the contract. Ignoring the contract, and bypassing the agreed on payment is pretty sleazy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easy, you allow competition. Remember the Apple ebook price-fixing case? Apple was appalled at the notion that Amazon would take much less than 30% for ebook sales, so it colluded with the publishers to ensure that it could always get 30%, and nobody else could sell for less. The price of ebooks increased 50% overnight. When they lost that case Apple could continue to collect its precious 30%, but other retailers charged less. Apple's ebook sales suffered as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
When you hold all the cards, aka Apple App Store, you don't need to collude, you just abuse your market position.
Re: (Score:2)
Let users side load and avoid being forced to use the Apple App store. Then Apple can charge whatever it wants, because there is always an alternative way to load software onto your phone. Until that happens, Apple does hold a monopoly with regards to the Apple App store. If you want an app and you use an iphone, you have one choice and only one choice.
Re:There's fair return, and then there's greed (Score:4, Informative)
To me the problem has nothing to do with how much Apple charges. Its the fact that they charge for the privilege to use their store but prevent there from being any other options. In the automotive world this would be called tieing and is illegal.
The fact they can get away with that just shows how much the courts and congress have over extended the powers over intellectual property. It is now eclipsing the power of real property rights. Somehow Apple has more say over the use of an iPhone than the actual owner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can allow that Apple might deserve reasonable compensation for making all those iPhones available to app developers in one place. 30% isn't reasonable. It's a blatant ripoff. There is absolutely no doubt one or more app libraries would have arisen independently if Apple hadn't screwed down access to their iPhones. Look at all the sites like MajorGeeks and FileHippo that provide access to a huge variety of software. The very term "jailbreak" speaks volumes.
Yea, and even sites like Cydia barely cracked $2million in sales when jailbreaking was relatively easy. I doubt you'd see many successful 3rd party stores except those run by big software companies, who sure as hell won't cut prices 30%
And 30% is a blatant ripoff.
Before the app store I'd have gladly given someone 30% in exchange for handling all the distribution, sales, tax calculations, etc. worldwide and leave me just to develop. Developers today do not realize what a deal it is; and if it was only a 10% cut would still whine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People forget that apps are what make the platform and attract user base, it's a two way street.
True, but access to a large user base means a developer has a good chance to make money even with a niche product.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about bigger/medium sized companies that have a finance department. When your sales are only in the thousands to tens of thousands, yes, a 30% cut is fine to avoid those headaches. But when you're talking millions of sales (and tens of millions of dollars), 30% is a huge amount that could be saved by bring those extra's in house. Telling a medium sized company that m
Re: (Score:2)
While it's great for you as a small developer to just have to pay 30% cut and get all those extra's, this isn't about small developers. This is about bigger/medium sized companies that have a finance department. When your sales are only in the thousands to tens of thousands, yes, a 30% cut is fine to avoid those headaches. But when you're talking millions of sales (and tens of millions of dollars), 30% is a huge amount that could be saved by bring those extra's in house. Telling a medium sized company that makes $10 million in sales that they need to pay $3.3 million, instead of spending maybe a couple hundred thousand to handle these financials could mean a huge difference to their future and possibilities for their future.
I'd guess the overall savings might not be that big, once you factor in all the costs. If Epic had to create their own store, market their products, hire staff to handle all the local regulations, etc., they could very well be close to what it costs them to pay Apple for access to their user base.; and taht is before Apple adds no fees for access if they lose IAP revenue They got big partly due to iOS, and now might be able to pull that off; but I am not convinced it would be a slam dunk.
Of course, what th
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't market your app global or even locally, unless you pay Apple to do that.
Most of the host of the game is on Epic's servers. Every time you play a game of Fortnite, it's played on Epic's servers. Apple doesn't supply free multiplayer server hosting (unless I'm missing something?)
Epic already hosts it's own forums for Fortnite, on their own website which I think Epic would prefer you
Re: (Score:2)
Only issue here is a lot of what you mentioned that they want Apple to do is not what Apple does or has ever done. Apple doesn't market your app global or even locally, unless you pay Apple to do that.
Last I checked you could put your software on the app store globally, so I'd consider that helping market your product globally; as well as handles currency conversion, billing, local tax rules, etc.
Most of the host of the game is on Epic's servers. Every time you play a game of Fortnite, it's played on Epic's servers. Apple doesn't supply free multiplayer server hosting (unless I'm missing something?) Epic already hosts it's own forums for Fortnite, on their own website which I think Epic would prefer you to use.
So? They'd have to have their own servers no matter what; they pay Apple for access to a large and lucrative user base.
And you mentioned that if Epic had to build their own store, all the fee's, etc, Epic already does exactly that. https://www.epicgames.com/stor... [epicgames.com] Epic already has all of that built and financed. Why would Epic want to build all of this and then have to pay 30% of all their sales just for Apple to attempt to "re-invent" their own wheel? As for hosting the app on their store, that's fractions of a penny to Apple. Other companies like Humble Bundle and Itch.io have been doing this for years, so it's not so huge money vaccuum to run these.
Interestingly, Epic's CEO said Valve could be profitable at 8% but then chose to charge 12% for their store; and gave Fortnight content creators a whooping 5% of the revenue generated. Epic did
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple raised prices, then people would find a cheaper alternative (that Apple currently is prevent). Apple's App Store is a global market, so can a 3rd party market. Apple handles currency exchanges. So do other billing providers that I already pointed out. (Which you're also repeating yourself to things show to be not a valid complaint).
You mention that iPhone users are so
Re: (Score:3)
There is an alternative platform.
"iphone" is not a genericized term, it is a proprietary brand owned exclusively by Apple, and Apple has every right to decide to exclusively control what applications run on it.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't true for Microsoft Windows in the 90s, so why would it be true for iOS now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the F? (Score:2)
Both arguments are equally stupid. The US case has nothing to do with Australian law. What is illegal in one country may not be in another. Public concern is not a factor in hearing a case, only the applicability of law is.
Like really WTF?
"Wins appeal" is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They did win the appeal. The original ruling was they couldn't file the case in Australia. They appealed that ruling and won. They can now file the case. "Granted a appeal" makes it sound like they lost a case and have filed for an appeal. That is untrue, there was no original case to appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Appeal" isn't even relevant until a case is decided. Apple made a motion to dismiss. Epic filed a counter-motion. The court granted Epic's motion and presumably denied Apple's motion, which means the case can proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, the original Apple motion was granted, and they appealed. If that's the case, then the only part that's wrong was where they said that Apple appealed, and they should have said that Epic appealed the court's prior dismissal of their lawsuit.
Either way, the way it is worded in the summary is some seriously confusing wording.
This whole thread is unappealing (Score:2)
The arguments (Score:3)
Health (Score:1)
Congratulations to all winners (Score:1)