Judge in Epic Suit Says Apple Restrictions Anti-Competitive (theverge.com) 161
A U.S. judge on Friday issued a ruling in "Fortnite" creator Epic Games' antitrust lawsuit against Apple's App Store, labelling Apple's conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions as anticompetitive. From a report: The case may determine whether Apple is allowed to retain control over what apps appear on its iPhones and whether it is allowed to charge commissions to developers. The Verge adds: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers issued a permanent injunction in the Epic v. Apple case on Friday morning, handing a major setback to Apple's App Store model. Under the new order, Apple is: "permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app."
How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:2)
How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt of court? For the time it takes to get back on the app store?
Re: (Score:2)
Judge in Epic Suit Says Apple Restrictions... (Score:5, Funny)
Why does it matter what the judge is wearing?
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for mod points!
A criminally underrated post, OP. Well played, well played.
Re: Judge in Epic Suit Says Apple Restrictions... (Score:2)
You lifted my day. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
"Judge in Epic Suit"... the implication is that the judge's outfit is Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
"Judge in Epic Suit Says..."
Maybe some puns are too subtle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
First, the judge's ruling doesn't take effect until December, so they won't be in contempt unless they go past that date in the ruling.
Second, it's sure to go to an appellate court, where they will also ask for a stay on the ruling, so that date only applies if the appellate court declines to take it up, or declines to issue a stay on the injunctive order.
Re:How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:4, Interesting)
How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt of court? For the time it takes to get back on the app store?
The thing about contempt of court, you can't just treat it like a cost and choose to pay it.
Whatever the initial fine is, if it doesn't work to achieve compliance, it will be raised. There is no cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's some fascinatingly bad logic in the judge's decision that I think will probably get overturned in appeal, making Epic's win even more significant. In particular:
More specifically, Apple’s IAP, as used here, is a secured system which tracks and verifies digital purchases, then determines and collects the appropriate commission on those transactions. In this regard, the system records all digital sales by identifying the customer and their payment methods, tracking and accumulating transactions; and conducts fraud-related checks. IAP simultaneously provides information to consumers so that they can view their purchase history, share subscriptions with family members and across devices, manage spending by implementing parental controls, and challenge and restore purchases.
...
The Court agrees that simple payment processing can occur outside of IAP and plaintiff points to examples of this happening in 2009. 331 However, those examples only concern simple payment processing, not all the functionality outlined in the preceding paragraph, including the functionality to ensure Apple received its commission. Nor do the examples show that Apple was waiving its commission for those developers. Rather, in December 2008, the product was new, so, by definition, in flux.
Epic Games ignores this other functionality to argue that Apple merely “matches” developers to consumers; a “matching” service.332 This statement is partially true, but Apple has never argued that it levies a commission merely because it matches the developers with the customers. Apple argues that it uses this model to monetize its intellectual property against the entire suite of functions as well as to pay for the 80% of all apps which are free and generate no direct revenue stream from the developers other than the annual $99.00 developer fee.
Apple's commission is inherent in the transaction. Apple earns that commission in exchange for providing the transaction. Transactions made outside of Apple's payment system don't give Apple a commission, so the notion that a third-party payment system on iOS would somehow have to track how much commission to give Apple is nonsensical.
Re: How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:2)
Unless of course the console manufacturers decide that Epic is more trouble than they're worth and also boot them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course the console manufacturers decide that Epic is more trouble than they're worth and also boot them.
That's almost certainly not going to fly unless they materially breach the contract with the console manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
This will get appealed. It isn't like developers signed an agreement with Apple, or anything like that, or that contract law is first semester law school stuff.
Not all clauses in contracts are enforceable.
As a non-lawyer I do find this to be an interesting question. The various app stores are certainly competitive in one sense, but to the extent they're the only access to their particular ecosystem they're also monopolies.
The very fact that these app stores seem to set their rates based on PR more than market pressure does imply a non-trivial monopolistic aspect that may be require some regulation.
Re:How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that they aren't. On Android and Apple it is pretty trivial to sideload apps.
Except that your very own link say it's not trivial at all on iOS. Only on Android.
Re: (Score:3)
but to the extent they're the only access to their particular ecosystem they're also monopolies.
Except that they aren't. On Android and Apple it is pretty trivial to sideload apps.
https://www.wired.com/story/in... [wired.com]
https://www.howtogeek.com/3134... [howtogeek.com]
From the link:
Before we get started on how to do it, however, let’s first talk about why this setting is disabled by default, and the security implications you could potentially face by allowing your phone to accept installations outside of the Play Store.
[...]
Instead of having one universal setting to simply install unofficial apps across the board, “unknown sources” is now allowed or disallowed on a per app basis. For example, if you want to install things from APK Mirror, you’ll h
Re: (Score:2)
Checking a box on install of a sideloaded app is hard? Wow....you must have a difficult life.
Trivial means my mother could do it.
Jumping 4-5 levels deep into menus that change based on the OS version just to enable sideloading is not trivial.
Yes, a handful of advanced users are able to do so, but not nearly enough to actually create a financially relevant alternative to an app store.
Re:How much $ per hour will apple be in contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not all that hard on Android, but for iOS, you have to exploit a security flaw on the iPhone in order to root it. Meanwhile, Apple does everything in it's power to close the flaw and prevent that (possibly bricking your phone in the process). It's fairly clear that Apple's intent is that you not be able to sideload.
That's like saying it wasn't unlawful imprisonment because you could have eventually scraped the mortar out of a segment of the wall with your fingernail.
But you knew that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Its not as if PC manufacturers signed an agreement with Microsoft in the 90s, or anything like that, etc etc.
Careful with absolutes (Score:2)
Sounds pretty good so far (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Apple has been too tight not allowing companies to offer other forms of payment in applications... Apple will find a lot of customers still prefer to use Apple's payments, even if they are higher - it's just easier to pay, and for subscriptions easier to cancel.
I'd rather pay $15 for a month of HBO through Apple than $10 through HBO because I know how easily I can drop the Apple subscription...
So if this ruling sticks, it will be better for everyone.
Re:Sounds pretty good so far (Score:5, Funny)
> I'd rather pay $15 for a month of HBO through Apple than $10 through HBO because I know how easily I can drop the Apple subscription...
A 50% convenience premium EVERY MONTH. I guess corporate was right, those rubes really exist.
Re: Sounds pretty good so far (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be assuming the desire for a long term subscription on the part of someone who just said they want ease of cancellation.
Re:Sounds pretty good so far (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting experiment in "how much will people pay for convenience?"
Maybe HBO should offer two levels of service: One for $10/month that is hard to cancel, and one that is $15/month that is easy to cancel. Maybe the first one will require you to talk to 5 levels of managers in other countries, then you must fax a notarized hand-written cancellation request letter and wait 6 weeks. The other one lets you cancel online.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe HBO should offer two levels of service: One for $10/month that is hard to cancel, and one that is $15/month that is easy to cancel. Maybe the first one will require you to talk to 5 levels of managers in other countries, then you must fax a notarized hand-written cancellation request letter and wait 6 weeks. The other one lets you cancel online.
I'm sorry, you have exceeded the global evil threshold. Report to your nearest liquidation center.
Seriously, what the hell? Don't give them any more horrible ideas. It won't be HBO that adopts that scheme. It will be Comcast. Who will then "accidentally" put everyone in the outrageous tier while charging the convenience tier.
Re: Sounds pretty good so far (Score:2)
I pay a lot my of money for convenience on various stuff. 5 bucks is chump change. Whatâ(TM)s your point?
Re: (Score:2)
> the only thing I've seen him full on criticise them for is their child porn filter, can't think why that might be.
Probably because his "dick pics" kept getting flagged as that of a pre-pubescent child's.
Re: (Score:3)
Put these things on a credit card. Tell the "retention specialist" that they have been duly notified and any future attempts to charge the card will be charged back. Thank you, have a nice day.
If you paid with a CC it wasn't that hard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your credit rating gets ruined in the process.
Lots of companies see the block as "Oh, your credit was declined, nevermind, we'll give you service" then after a few months of this and reminders, they send it to collections and now you got a ding on your credit report for several months saying your bill was not paid.
A lot of companies do this - i
Re: (Score:3)
> I value my time ... yet spends it arguing with rando's on the internet, haha.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you were lying about it being hard, but you really had another reason?
You don't notice that makes you look even stupider than if you had bad information?
You didn't know they still get your details?
Re: Sounds pretty good so far (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This wouldn't even be a consideration or issue if the credit card companies allowed you to tell that auto-charges to your bill should be canceled, as you have notified the business of your intent to cancel and they should deny and future charges.
For some cards I have found this to be EXTREMELY difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay but I was really hoping for a photo of this epic suit the judge was wearing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a funny take on the lawsuit ruling. Apple won 9 out of 10 claims Epic needs to pay Apple's legal fees. The judge also ruled Apple does not have a monopoly on the store so they still have a shitload of control over devs
Re: (Score:2)
No I meant the tone of the article and all the comments. Had I not seen the articles earlier you could be excused for thinking Apple lost Vs Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you like the convenience of managing your subscriptions in iCloud, then you can do so.
If you don't like the markup, then you don't need to pay it.
Regardless of anyone's subjective opinion on convenience, any result where everyone gets what they want is a good result.
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
So, Apple is prohibited from banning external payment links. Are they also prohibited from not offering free App Store hosting to whoever wants to use such links to get the all the commission for themselves while using Apple's facilities?
I mean, as a developer I did think that the 30% cut was kind of steep, but it as a better deal than the 30% of the Google store and the more than 30% of the Kindle store for what you got in return, so it still was the "best deal". They are currently down to 15% which is quite decent - and Google had to follow too.
Now, Epic themselves, while they are trying hard to compete with Steam, so trying to undercut them in various ways, still get a 12% cut from developers for their Epic store, which, for those who have dealt with it, is quite crappy and offers a small fraction of the functionality of the Apple Store. Why should they get a rather high commission (for what they are offering) and demand others don't? How anti-capitalist of them!
I dislike Apple, but any sane legal system should throw this Epic suit out. I don't know of many sane legal systems of course, so we'll see how it goes!
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they also prohibited from not offering free App Store hosting to whoever wants to use such links to get the all the commission for themselves while using Apple's facilities?
My understanding is that Apple charges developers $99/year to be on the app store, even if they don't publish any apps for that year.
...so [Apple's app store] still was the "best deal".
I publish an occasional app to the Play Store. Google requires a one-time fee of $25 to register as a developer. I registered years ago, and haven't paid an additional dime in registration fees. I'm not what you would call a prolific publisher, so the Play Store has been a far, far better deal for me than Apple. Twenty five dollars versus nearly a thousand dollars is a significant difference.
Epic themselves, while they are trying hard to compete with Steam....
While Epic is in this for themselves, we all benefit from an Epic win.
...any sane legal system should throw this Epic suit out.
You and I have a very different perspective on what is sane. I am fully on team-Epic (figuratively speaking). Apple's pricing policies are crazy to a part-time developer such as myself. Google will also be subject to this judgement, and we developers will then be able to explore new avenues for monetizing our work. I'd buy that for a dollar.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, I don't understand your logic as your arguments are a bit antithetic.
You use the $99/year vs $25 developer fee as an argument, but you seem to be arguing for monetizing the work of developers.
Well, the $99/year vs $25 argument is only an issue if you DON'T monetize your apps. For completely free apps (unless you are a non-profit of course or an educational institution in which case Apple can waive the fee), that fee will make a small difference. However, if you start monetizing, even in the form of ads, the Apple Store will make you much more income than the Android store, so that fee will be a non issue. How much more income? Well, I can give you an example based on the company I work for which has both an iOS and an Android app to access their service and which sell the same service upgrades (as in-app purchases) on both platforms. Most users are in the UK, where iOS vs Android is about 50/50 and the income share is 2:1 for iOS vs Android. In the US it might be a bigger difference. This is a big sample, as it is a platform that does not even qualify for the Apple under $1 million sales commission discount. Apple has built an App Store that users value more, or a user base that is more inclined to spend on apps, and overall that is worth much more than that $99/year.
I have been a developer for long enough to remember how things were before Apple.
I have a hobby app for fun and I submit dozens of updates per year and apple tests and publishes all of them. It actually makes some non-trivial income and it is my idea of fun. Compare that to 15 years ago, if you wanted to submit an app to the Verizon Get It Now store based on the BREW platform, you had to pay $1000 PER DEVICE TYPE as a testing fee in a complicated process. To cover enough devices to have a chance of getting picked by Verizon in the first place you had to invest around $30-$40k just in testing fees. So, yeah, I find the Apple Store a good deal and I definitely not find the pricing policies crazy - they should be allowed to charge as much as they feel their services are worth.
If you want me to talk about things I don't like about the app store, I have plenty of course! They interpret their TOS any way they want, they can reject your app on a whim of one tester re-interpreting some obscure term. If you try to appeal, they usually double-down even if they are on the wrong. While I did not mind the 30% fee as I had signed up for it, there is a currency exchange fee on top of it. Most of my app's revenue is in $ and I'd love to have it go directly to my dollar account, but as I am in the UK there is no choice but to get them in GBP, with Apple's conversion rate eating something like 5% (my bank would do it for half that). There are many more issues I have with apple products (including their pricing) and apple software (especially the way their desktop OS is going). But how can you someone call their pricing policies as "crazy" when they are amazingly good compared to the then market when they came out, and everybody else just sort of matched them without even offering the same value usually.
Re: (Score:3)
Compare that to 15 years ago, if you wanted to submit an app to the Verizon Get It Now store based on the BREW platform, you had to pay $1000 PER DEVICE TYPE as a testing fee in a complicated process. To cover enough devices to have a chance of getting picked by Verizon in the first place you had to invest around $30-$40k just in testing fees.
But how can you someone call their pricing policies as "crazy" when they are amazingly good compared to the then market when they came out, and everybody else just sort of matched them without even offering the same value usually.
You're using Verizon as your benchmark for acceptable fees? Were you dropped on your head as a child? If you look in the dictionary under "gouging ass motherfuckers" you find the Verizon logo. If you look in the dictionary under "will sell their own grandmother then charge you a convenience fee to take possession of her" you find the Verizon logo. If you look in the dictionary under "Rockefeller and Carnegie were pikers and we prove it every day of the week" you find the Verizon logo.
When your benchmark
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess it's good that there's now precedent based on which to sue Epic!
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fairly broad language it seems like Epic probably violates this order in their own store.
The language isn't broad, you're reading a summary.
The market was found to be "mobile digital game payments."
Epic isn't creating a market for "mobile digital game payments." They're not selling items in their store for games from other companies. If they were doing that, you'd have a point. But they're not.
Take your phone out of your mouth and put your thinking cap on.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical extension of this is that it should be possible to legally compel a retailer to accept whatever payment mechanism the customer wants.
In this scenario, Apple was effectively acting like the retailer for products that were sold on consignment to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, Epic themselves, while they are trying hard to compete with Steam, so trying to undercut them in various ways, still get a 12% cut from developers for their Epic store, which, for those who have dealt with it, is quite crappy and offers a small fraction of the functionality of the Apple Store. Why should they get a rather high commission (for what they are offering) and demand others don't? How anti-capitalist of them!
I wonder what Epic would say if you gave a game away on their store, and charged a fee on the back end for access to the content to avoid their fee.
Re: (Score:3)
Before the App Store, you would be lucky to get %10 of the take from publishers.
You would also be restricted to offer the products to any other publishers.
If they wanted a version, for example, in Korean, you had to do it for free,
compensate them for their translation, or forego any profit from the Korean version
which they would then own. They would also want your source code in escrow.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep getting caught-up on the costs, which is not what this trial is about. The complaint isn't that Apple charges too much or offers too little. If that was the complaint then I agree, it should be thrown out.
The complaint is that Apple is trying to dictate what developers can and cannot do in their apps in an anti-competitive way. Also, Apple does this quite selectively. If I use the New York Times app on my iPhone, I must by my NYT subscription via the Apple Store. But if I use the Amazon app
Re: (Score:2)
Therein lies the misunderstanding.
It's not really just their app. They might hold the copyright, but all apps developed for iOS are treated as enhancements *TO* iOS. and iOS is Apple's property, Developers who do not want to write for Apple in this way should not develop for iOS in the first place.. But I can understand how tempting getting a slice of the iOS market share can be.
Re: (Score:2)
but all apps developed for iOS are treated as enhancements *TO* iOS
That's just dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is rightly trying to protect revenue from applications that they essentially host for free for developers and do not get an up front payment to download.
Except that the judge concurred with my opinion, which is that doing so is not "rightful", at least under California law.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they also prohibited from not offering free App Store hosting to whoever wants to use such links to get the all the commission for themselves while using Apple's facilities?
I think if Apple made the costs transparent, maybe itemizing out separately how much hosting costs them, it'd make folks entirely happy.
This will go to the Supreme Court (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely it will be heard by the SCOTUS. What is your proposed circuit split?
They don't hear every case just because one of the parties is a big company. They turn down the vast majority of applications.
You have to wait until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case. If they come up with an odd ruling, maybe it would get to the SCOTUS. But if they make a normal ruling, as is most likely, it won't.
Appeal! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an extreme government overreach. As the judge stated, Apple is not a monopolist and success is not illegal. Apple's App Store does not operate any differently than most app stores on all other platforms (PlayStation, Xbox, Google, etc).
You can subscribe to most apps independently from the App Store on their website and then enter our credentials into the app to use it. Apple does not restrict this. What Apple is restricting is the developer advertising other payment options in the App itself that is published through the app store. This would be like forcing Best Buy to allow vendors to post signs next to their items on the show floor that shows the pricing from competing stores such as Amazon.
The government does not exists to enforce your every little wish and desire on a private company that is not acting unethically or illegally. The only reason to agree with this ruling is Apple Derangement Syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be like forcing Best Buy to allow vendors to post signs next to their items on the show floor that shows the pricing from competing stores such as Amazon.
"Best Buy" in this analogy IS the App Store, so this would be more like Apple letting you post competing pricing within the app listing, or within search results. I agree this would be nonsense and shouldn't be regulated by the government.
But, should Best Buy be able to restrict vendors from putting a flyer INSIDE their packaging (that the customer can't see without opening the box)? That's what Apple is doing here. Downloading an app = walking out of best buy with a prod
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is flawed here for one major reason. Downloading the app is free, it's the subscription that costs money.
That's not a flawed analogy: it's a flawed business model, which the analogy makes clear.
Best Buy's show floor is analogous to Apple's App Store, despite the differences in business models. Apple's current business model of freely leasing much of their "show floor" works because they are forcing companies to give them a cut of subsequent purchases for those products (e.g. replacement ink cartridges/in-app purchases), but that isn't something they can lawfully do, according to this ruling. Just as Best Buy c
Re: Appeal! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's App Store does not operate any differently than most app stores on all other platforms (... Google, etc).
That's plainly false. The ruling was about the specific part that is different. The parts that are the same they don't have to change.
That's beyond a straw man, that's a straw village (Score:2)
This is an extreme government overreach. As the judge stated, Apple is not a monopolist and success is not illegal. Apple's App Store does not operate any differently than most app stores on all other platforms (PlayStation, Xbox, Google, etc).
Who the fuck said success is illegal. I am not sure "success" is the label I'd use for strong-arming me into an extremely high commission at a massive, massive profit. But I guess you showed that straw man who's boss!
The goal of the lawsuit is to reduce unreasonable restrictions. Just because everyone is shitty doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make the market better and healthier. Apple has 75% of the tablet marketshare (I thought it would be higher admittedly) and about 55% of the phone share i
Re: (Score:3)
This is an extreme government overreach. As the judge stated, Apple is not a monopolist and success is not illegal.
Though I agree that this is a resounding victory for Apple, you apparently missed the very next paragraph in the ruling:
Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with Apple's incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.
You don't need to be a monopolist to be engaging in unlawful anticompetitive behavior, which is one of the biggest misunderstandings people have here at Slashdot. That said, this is also a VERY narrow ruling and is almost entirely in Apple's favor: they don't have to change their business model, they don't have to break up the App Store and payments, they don't have to allow Fortnite back
Re: (Score:2)
This would be like forcing Best Buy to allow vendors to post signs next to their items on the show floor that shows the pricing from competing stores such as Amazon
No, this would be like forcing Best Buy to stop prohibiting other companies from putting additional information in their own product boxes. I keep hearing this "show floor" analogy trotted out, but it's fundamentally flawed because the correct analog to Best Buy's show floor is clearly Apple's App Store, but no one is asking that Apple be forced to let companies link from there. What devs want is the ability to stuff their app with the digital equivalents of the "register your product here" and "buy replacement printer cartridges directly from us" and "here are some other things we sell" cards that fall out of the packaging for the products you purchase from Best Buy.
While I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote, I don't think this is quite accurate. Specifically, the analogy wouldn't be to a card in the product package to "buy replacement cartridges directly from us" since those cartridges would be provided directly by the manufacturer... This would be more akin to picking out a Sony television at Best Buy, bringing it to the register, and then having Epic's representative lean in through the front door and shout "hey, you can just walk out with that televisio
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote, I don't think this is quite accurate. Specifically, the analogy wouldn't be to a card in the product package to "buy replacement cartridges directly from us" since those cartridges would be provided directly by the manufacturer... This would be more akin to picking out a Sony television at Best Buy, bringing it to the register, and then having Epic's representative lean in through the front door and shout "hey, you can just walk out with that television without paying. Instead, pay me, and I'll make sure Sony gets their cut."
So, I think you may be confused about one of two points:
1) The reason I went with a printer and ink is because nothing about this ruling affects the initial app purchase/download. Only in-app purchases are affected. Given that this is only about subsequent purchases intended for use with the initial purchase, the analogy to ink subsequently purchased for use with the printer you initially bought from Best Buy makes sense. A TV doesn't really make sense because there are no subsequent purchases to go with it
Re: (Score:2)
... nothing about this ruling affects the initial app purchase/download. Only in-app purchases are affected... the user won't see these new links until after they complete their initial [acquisition] of the app, exit the App Store, go to their home screen, and open the app.
Slight change there, given that this applies to freemiums.
Well, according to the ruling, it's because Apple's App Store provides significant benefits such that the vast majority of consumers surveyed prefer it. But those benefits all go away if everything goes freemium and Apple's trying to provide that service for just $99 per app per year. Hence my latter point:
Regardless, I worry that the end result of this may be that every app goes freemium, and that with no paid apps to subsidize the rest, the App Store becomes unprofitable and dies... and we then revert to the wild west of uncurated shovelware from questionable sites.
Re: (Score:2)
That "Well, according to the ruling" paragraph was in response to your last paragraph about why the consumer is in Best Buy in the first place.
Alternative title (Score:2)
âApple wins on 9 counts out of 10â
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So this works for other stores? (Score:3)
Ok, so I want to put my own movie on HBO and I want people to pay for it thru my own site, not HBO's. That will be fine now?
The google store will open up the same way to let in others now?
I want to put my app on the Epic store, but I want people to pay thru my own store, that is ok now?
Amazon? I want to sell my stuff, but I want you to pay for it thru my own web site, not Amazon?
What if I want to sell my own fruit at Whole foods, but you can buy it thru my app store front?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's more that the store gets the cut of the sale of the app. The store would not get a cut of future in-app purchases. F'rinstance, I buy my car from the dealer, and they get their cut. The dealer will not get a cut of my future gas purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
The jist of Epic's argument was that they already had a payment processing system in place for in-app purchases. But Apple's policies prohibited them from using it, forcing them to use Apple's payment processing and pay Apple's considerably more e
How is the alternative not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Epic wants to use its own payment system instead of Apple's so they don't have to fork over any fees to Apple. The judge should have said that Epic can't use its own payment system either nor can they have any stake in a third-party payment system if the ruling were to be truly anti-competitive.
App Store requirements (Score:2)
I expect as soon as 3rd party app stores are permitted, there will be a windfall and publishers will pull their apps from Apples store publish through more economical variants instead.
When this happens, I want controls in place that make it so app stores and apps installed by them can be easily and legally yanked by Apple when trust is violated.
I have never been opposed to paying mo
Re: (Score:2)
If there were only (2) malls in all of North America... then yes. But there are multiple malls in every city so competition maintains an equilibrium.
https://www.kantarworldpanel.c... [kantarworldpanel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Plus there are multiple other outlets for people to go to and shops to be setup.
An interesting question though, could a mall require that all POS transactions go through their network and disallow any other form of payment?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not like some developer couldn't come along and build a new mall. Not only are there essentially two malls in the mobile world, they both actively seek to discourage anyone else from building a competing mall. Apple is more aggressive than Google on this front, but we know that Google has been offering bribes to companies like Samsung to entice them from offering their own competing malls and put up roadblocks in front of people who want to sideload their own.
I mean, from the dawn of the modern c
Re: (Score:2)
. Not only are there essentially two malls in the mobile world, they both actively seek to discourage anyone else from building a competing mall
Isn't that basically this entire case? Epic are trying to build a new mall and being told no.
Re: (Score:2)
Equilibrium for competition is not a right.
But it IS strongly in the public interest and the entire basis of the justification for a market economy.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to sell to people in your small town i can. I don't have to get into the town mall. I can sell to you directly online. I can also open a shop in your town that isn't in the mall.
If you lived in a small town where there was only one mall, and you were forced to buy everything in that mall, and you weren't allowed to order online, or even drive to the next town to buy stuff if you wanted to. If your ONLY option to purchase outside the mall is to your house and move to another town with different rul
apples $100/year is the rental fee and the shop is (Score:2)
apples $100/year is the rental fee and the shop is paying for there own hosting aka the (Utilities)
Now can an mall say you MUST use MALL pay that takes 30% of each say and you can't even talk about ways to buy an gift card to get around that 30%?
Re: (Score:2)
The competition is vs. other phone systems.
Shall a mall have to allow any shop in, and have the rental rates dictated?
The judge just ruled on what the relevant market is.
A bit late for new proposals.
The market was found to be mobile digital game payments.
Apple can only appeal to argue that it was what they said: digital game sales.
So know absolutely that the market wasn't "phone systems."
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, say what?!
Apple's App Store is just fine, legally-speaking, except for these specifics that are getting sorted out now. It never ceases to amaze me how people will want to purchase a proprietary product from a vendor and then get all bent out of shape when it turns out you have to use that vendor's systems along with it. I never met a single person using an Android device who cared a bit what was going on over on Apple's App Store.
If you choose to use Apple's iOS products, then their App Store is the p
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a Playstation 5, you have to use Sony's online store/servers with it too.
Not when I rent a movie on Amazon Video running on a Playstation 5.
Re: (Score:2)
There -should- be no difference, but if I happen to be on iOS when I click the rent-it-now button, apple wants 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple App Store isn't even a monopoly on their platform, there is a mechanism to sideload apps on Apple.
Now, Playstation, Switch, and Xbox likely do have a monopoly, but so what?
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple App Store isn't even a monopoly on their platform, there is a mechanism to sideload apps on Apple.
Not a usable one. You can ostensibly hope that the jailbreak community will keep finding security holes sufficient to let you install a third-party store, but that's entirely dependent on Apple screwing up repeatedly; it isn't even remotely guaranteed to work next week, much less next year. So there is no opportunity for gaining revenue through such a store, because any purchases have low probability of continuing to function.
I suppose you could theoretically sign it yourself with a development certificat
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling won't change the fact that Epic isn't going to be allowed back in the app store in the first place.
Epic should make their app available outside the App Store for jailbroken iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
1) That depends on the outcome of their counter-suit.
2) That counter-suit is going to be very difficult with this ruling, because the contract provision that Epic was violating has been tossed. You can't enforce unlawful contract provisions.
3) If they lose their appeals they'll end up paying for Epic's losses, so it is their call to maximize those losses in the short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Epic violated the terms of their agreement with apply by enabling functionality after it passed app review. The judge ruled that Apple was within their rights to terminate Epic's account. I don't see that changing on appeals.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Epic violated the terms of their agreement with apply by enabling functionality after it passed app review. The judge ruled that Apple was within their rights to terminate Epic's account. I don't see that changing on appeals.
I disagree. The judge determined that the prohibition on third-party payment systems was a violation of California's unfair competition laws, but simultaneously determined that the prohibition on actually unlocking functionality in response to paying through another payment system was a valid contract term, and thus that the contract term that Epic breached was valid. Those are two entirely contradictory views on what is, at least from a user's point-of-view and from a developer's point-of view, the exact
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Epic's removal will be overturned. They enabled functionality after review which is clearly against the contact. It doesn't matter if it was to enable functionality that should have been allowed. The very presence of any functionality that was undisclosed is enough to get you booted. Plus Apple can tank your account for literally any reason.
I do suspect that Apple may come to an arrangement with Epic to let them back on with some concessions from Epic. I don't think Apple wants to be seen as t
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so.
Competitive pricing is the goal of anti-trust law.
Apple could also choose to lower their transaction fee. They could have the highest rates and still be competitive because of the convenience premium.