Epic Plans To Contest Apple's 'Bad-Faith' Compliance With Court Ruling Over App Store (techcrunch.com) 18
An anonymous reader shares a report: Fortnite maker Epic Games is not happy about how Apple intends to comply with a district court's injunction that permitted app developers to direct users to their own websites and payment platforms -- a court order that came into effect following the Supreme Court's decision to not hear the Apple antitrust case, leaving the current ruling to stand. Though Apple had largely won the case, as the court decided it was not a monopolist, a judge ruled that app makers should be able to steer their customers to the web from links or buttons inside their apps, something that forced Apple to change its App Store rules.
But Apple's compliance doesn't give app makers the victory they had hoped, as the tech giant aims to still charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps -- a decision Epic aims to challenge in court. According to statements made by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, shared on X, Apple's "bad-faith" compliance undermines the judge's order that would have allowed buttons or external links "in addition to [in-app purchases.]" The Ninth Circuit District Court had ruled on one count of out ten in favor of Epic in its decision, finding that Apple violated California's Unfair Competition law. The decision meant Apple had to remove the "anti-steering" clause from its agreement with App Store developers. This clause for years had prevented app developers from directing their customers to other ways to pay for in-app purchases or subscriptions from inside their apps, leading to confusing screens or broken features, where customers would have to figure out on their own how to make the necessary purchases from the developer's website.
But Apple's compliance doesn't give app makers the victory they had hoped, as the tech giant aims to still charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps -- a decision Epic aims to challenge in court. According to statements made by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, shared on X, Apple's "bad-faith" compliance undermines the judge's order that would have allowed buttons or external links "in addition to [in-app purchases.]" The Ninth Circuit District Court had ruled on one count of out ten in favor of Epic in its decision, finding that Apple violated California's Unfair Competition law. The decision meant Apple had to remove the "anti-steering" clause from its agreement with App Store developers. This clause for years had prevented app developers from directing their customers to other ways to pay for in-app purchases or subscriptions from inside their apps, leading to confusing screens or broken features, where customers would have to figure out on their own how to make the necessary purchases from the developer's website.
apple forcing you to apply for the right to do tha (Score:2, Interesting)
apple forcing you to apply for the right to do that. In it self should be all that it need to say it's bad-faith.
Also limited where, what they can say, and the number of links also is very bad-faith.
Re:apple forcing you to apply for the right to do (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Setting aside any arguments about how much or even whether Apple should be paid, there is no question that the way in which they are allowing payments here is draconian, bizarre, and as a long-time Mac developer put it, startlingly graceless [inessential.com], which I think just about sums it up.
I don't know that I agree that it's automatically bad faith because you have to apply for an entitlement to link to an external payment (after all, it's in their user's best interests to be warned that they are exiting the ecosystem they're used to that provides easy, safe payments with drop-dead easy subscription management/cancellation), but the other restrictions you're talking about? Yes. Devs shouldn't be limited in where they advertise prices that are available elsewhere, how many times they link to them from within the app, etc.. The ruling against them was specifically about an illicit anti-steering provision, and it feels like Apple is still putting their finger on the wheel to steer steer people away from external payments in an unreasonable manner.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really much different than eBay's fee avoidance policy. The real problem here is that the judge got the verdict completely ass-backwards. In a situation where you're selling on eBay or Amazon and don't want to give them a cut (you're basically paying for the exposure they provide), you can always just try selling your goods elsewhere. With Apple though, there is no selling your goods elsewhere; they operate the only marketplace for the platform.
Apparently Apple learned nothing from being bailed
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In a situation where you're selling on eBay or Amazon and don't want to give them a cut (you're basically paying for the exposure they provide), you can always just try selling your goods elsewhere. With Apple though, there is no selling your goods elsewhere; they operate the only marketplace for the platform.
This doesn't make any sense to me. In your analogy, eBay or Amazon would be the "platform/marketplace." If you want to sell software Apple does not control the means to do so, they just control one of many hardware devices that runs software. Not to mention the majority of iOS apps could be developed for the browser.
In fact, the only reason most developers want "apps" for things that would be cheaper and easier to do in the browser is because they want to try to mine your device for as much data as they pos
Re: (Score:1)
It's not really much different than eBay's fee avoidance policy. The real problem here is that the judge got the verdict completely ass-backwards. In a situation where you're selling on eBay or Amazon and don't want to give them a cut (you're basically paying for the exposure they provide), you can always just try selling your goods elsewhere. With Apple though, there is no selling your goods elsewhere; they operate the only marketplace for the platform.
Apparently Apple learned nothing from being bailed out by Microsoft, where sometimes it's better to allow a little competition so the government stays out of your business.
Government got the Ruling Wrong; because their Analysis should have Ended with the "Not a Monopoly" Holding.
With that Claim gone, there was absolutely no reason for the Court to "Reach" Epic's other Claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
None of it is bad faith there are many failed assumptions here but I'll focus on 2.
1. Epic seems to believe iOS customers are Epic customers. It's not just Epic that makes this mistake, every application develop since the beginning of time has made this failed assumption. The same happens to Microsoft. Enterprise software companies believe people buy there software just so there's something useful on Windows. iOS customers are Apple customers, Epic is just playing in Apple's pool. If Epic doesn't like they
Re:apple forcing you to apply for the right to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Epic seems to believe iOS customers are Epic customers. It's not just Epic that makes this mistake, every application develop since the beginning of time has made this failed assumption. The same happens to Microsoft. Enterprise software companies believe people buy there software just so there's something useful on Windows. iOS customers are Apple customers, Epic is just playing in Apple's pool. If Epic doesn't like they can make their own operating system, hardware, and ecosystem.
No, they are customers of both Apple and Epic. Even with Apple's high fees, most of the customers money still goes to Epic. Epic is helping fill Apple's pool. If Apple does not like that they can write all their own applications.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Epic is and has been acting in bad faith since this started.
Epic has been acting like a tantrum throwing toddler since the beginning. Epic tried to approach Apple with the payment changes and Epic opening their own store. Apple said no. Tim Sweeney took Apple's refusal as a "self-righteous and self-serving screed" and planned a response to the "injustice" by doing switching payment systems in Fortnite anyway.
Incidentally one of the legal questions that came up in the case was how Apple was different than other walled gardens like Nintendo, etc. because other walled
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a lot of money and that's not fair.
I actually agree that this is a problem, but the solution lies in changing things like how we collect corporate taxes, limiting corporate mergers/acquisitions, limiting executive pay, and other laws that promote a diverse marketplace that does not become overrun by a few big players. Basically, all things that Epic would oppose just as much as Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
None of it is bad faith there are many failed assumptions here but I'll focus on 2.
1. Epic seems to believe iOS customers are Epic customers. It's not just Epic that makes this mistake, every application develop since the beginning of time has made this failed assumption. The same happens to Microsoft. Enterprise software companies believe people buy there software just so there's something useful on Windows. iOS customers are Apple customers, Epic is just playing in Apple's pool. If Epic doesn't like they can make their own operating system, hardware, and ecosystem.
2. Apple has a lot of money and that's not fair. For some reason just because Apple has money a lot of people feel that's not fair and there for other million, or billion or trillion, dollar companies should be able to use Apple resources for free. Apple isn't an open source company, it's not a charitable organization. It's a business with the goals of making the best products it can and to make money off those products.
With all of that said could Apple of handled this better, probably. Is it acting in bad faith not at all. I do believe that when Tim Cook was on the stand he told the court this is exactly what Apple was going to do.
Instead of charging app developers a % of sales should Apple just switch to volume pricing for development tools, like other development tool makers? So instead of $99 / year made Apple should charge $10k/year per developer to cover Apple's development costs? Based on the fact Apple is offer a 3% discount to by pass the App Store it appears the credit card processing fee is ~3% and the remaining 27% goes to Apple continued development of the platform.
I think Epic is and has been acting in bad faith since this started.
100% This.
But it doesn't matter What Apple does; because of your Point #2, the MUST be Evil, don'tchaknow?
Re: (Score:2)
apple forcing you to apply for the right to do that. In it self should be all that it need to say it's bad-faith.
Also limited where, what they can say, and the number of links also is very bad-faith.
So, Devs. Just want to use Apple's Resources ENTIRELY For Free?!?
Just make your App "Free", then Charge to be "Unlock" all but the "Create an Account" Signup Screen? Yeah, I've downloaded (and Discarded!) more than a few Apps like that Already!
Fuck That!
Called it. (Score:3)
Called it [slashdot.org]. Not even a week. Barely a day.
This is so Epic (Score:1)
Sounds like there is going to be another epic lawsuit, leading to another epic decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like there is going to be another epic lawsuit, leading to another epic decision.
Guess who's going to run out of Money first. . .
Re: (Score:2)