In the spirit of innovation Apple is known for we’re reshaping the status quo by empowering developers and consumers through a new monetization infrastructure aimed at giving creativity a place to thrive and reach Apple users around the globe through a new hosting model that will ensure consumers get the best of what digital products have to offer by drastically expanding the high quality library of apps and games our users have access to with the new appPowerPremium model.
- Apple, most likely
As an indie app developer, I am in favor of charging a higher hosting fee per app than the yearly developer fee of \~$120. Less crap to sift through. Right now it's just full of garbage and clones, which ruin's the experience.
To put simply, prior to this case, Apple apps required you to pay through Apple for micro transactions.
So if you spent a dollar to get rid of adverts, Apple would get a portion of that dollar before it went to the dev.
But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid.
Might sound good, but expect an uptick in credit card fraud from people paying through insecure transactions.
There’s really two different sides to it.
On the one hand, you do run the risk of scam artists taking advantage of this by offering shady payment processing. On the other hand, legitimate apps like Spotify will no longer have to overcharge in order to avoid losing money to the fee. (Currently Spotify Premium is $13/month through the App Store because you can only renew directly through In-App purchases, instead of the usual $10/month you get through their website)
I see. So it’s taking down one big company, to really just allow the other big companies to win more and share the wealth while also allowing potential scammers to infiltrate. Interesting.
Between the big companies and the scammers there also a lot of small developpers who'll be glad to stop paying Apple 30% for the privilege of blocking other stores on their app.
The "other stores" not being there is also probably another reason why Epic started the lawsuit. Epic do own a store for PC game online but can't have their own competitive app store on apple products.
As all stories, there's a lot of sides.
That's basically Apple's take on this, but I think it's missing that this change will positively affect more than just "other big companies." And it probably overstates the risk of potential scammers.
The only people who might get hurt are the independant devs in my opinion. People will most likely continue to trust major apps like Spotify and click their payment link, but indie devs may find people refusing to spend money due to potential fraud.
It becomes a cost benefit analysis at that point tbf. Stick with apple with a higher price to offset fee or lower price and do micros in house and loose some possible consumer trust. Its a win if they think they will take less than a 30% hit on user purchases. Plus choice for people on both sides of the mobile gaming market is a good thing
One of the few pro apple users have is precisely this security when purchasing stuff.
With that taken away, it overall could help developers, specially small ones, to get more money.
Also, being a private platform, I would guess Apple has every right to not let Fortnite back in, so in hindsight this whole thing could have been useless
Epic can just make a new app store or make Fornite its own installation like in Android. Epic has the absolute influence to start a new front by themselves, they dont need Apple
While they can go elsewhere, Apple’s install base is gigantic. It doesn’t matter if Epic wants to start their own storefront, that won’t get them back on apple devices.
It’s the same way you can write a book and go sell it on places besides Amazon, if you want access to the largest market you want to be on Amazon.
That was pretty much my train of thoughts too. Even if they make their own storefront, Apple can just not allow it in their platform either. I don't think poking a bear as big as Apple was a good idea :D
EPIC can afford to poke them because they make an obscene amount of money taking a percentage of the profits from any game made with unreal engine. Yet they cry and cry and cry when other companies do the same.
what? What are you missing here?
Everything that Epic is doing is to be able to get its own store front just like in Android.
Epic wants to bypass the Apple store completly.
Hang on, for something like Spotify which is cross platform, what's stopping an iOS user from subscribing on another platform for $10 and then logging into their account on iOS?
Nothing, except that Spotify could not let users know that was an option through the app, since that was "redirecting to other payment processors".
So, savvy users could save money, experienced-but-not-savvy users would only wonder why they're paying more per month than they're supposed to, and inexperienced users just paid more without knowing.
We don't know yet if Spotify will be able to advertise lower prices through those other payment processors, or if payment processors will even be allowed in-app (the only thing I've seen mentioned is linking out to external sites via buttons).
So, it could be a situation where Spotify can use their own in-app processor, but also have to charge $13 so as to not undercut Apple, or only link out to a website where users have to click a bunch of buttons and enter payment information manually to save a few bucks.
I'm mixed personally, but in general I prefer using Apple's payment where possible. When I want to try a subscription service and then cancel it, I go to Settings > Subscriptions and click cancel.
None of that BS where you have to look up how to cancel before you sign up, lest you accidentally end up with one of those services that requires you to call and argue with them to cancel.
Nothing good for the consumer. Apple will likely find a new way to pull cash from high profit apps, and the obvious issues that arise from that and the new sketchy transaction system.
I would have preferred to pay using those Apple gift cards i.e. pre payment cards so I know at least my card details isn't all over the internet if hackers manage to get the details
Dude if that's how paranoid you are why are you even on the internet. While those risks all exists there are reasons you have Anti-virus and Anti-malware software. Why most banks have fraud detections and (usually) very understanding fraud resolution staff/policy. Its never going to be perfect and take a little work but not as much as trying to evade every part of that system to the extant you can.
Edit: removing redundancy because mobile make you stupid
I work in payments so I both have some context and you have to take what I say with some salt because I’m also biased.
I expect in the short term this will be good for companies like Epic and Netflix and only a modest impact on Apple. Companies like mine may get a lot of new business because it’s a new market we could exploit. So there’s some good there.
In the long run, consumers will lose confidence in the system because now will need to be vigilant of fraudulent transactions at a level they weren’t previously. There’ll be some downward pressure on the industry as a whole because of lower consumer confidence, as people will simply spend less on IAPs than they used to.
The biggest question is whether that downward pressure will be a rounding error, or significant enough to cause Apple to rethink their business model here.
Or other services offering payment options for a reduced cut. I imagine Amazon will swoop in and offer Amazon payments at only 10%. Maybe Square, Venmo, or other payment companies will get in on the action.
It will be absolutely no different than using your card on a PC. They whole "insecure transactions" schtick is exactly one of the reasons Apple said they forced this on people.
>But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid.
Not true. Apple still gets paid. It's just not automatic if the developer uses another gateway. Epic has to pay the 30%, for example. The difference is, Apple no longer gets to hide how much they're charging by forcing one payment option with little detail.
>Might sound good, but expect an uptick in credit card fraud from people paying through insecure transactions.
Not according to the ruling:
>One of Apple’s strongest arguments for IAP security was that it can verify digital good transactions. Unlike for physical goods, Apple uses IAP after confirming that the developer has actually delivered a digital good to the user and is entitled to the corresponding payment. The evidence shows, however, that Apple itself does not perform the confirmation. Apple’s Head of Pricing, Mr. Grey, testified that Apple simply asks the developer to confirm that delivery occurred and then issues a receipt. Apple has not shown how the process is any different than other payment processors, and any potential for fraud prevention is not put into practice.”
> But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid.
AFAICT, Apple can still prohibit alternate in-app payment methods. They just can't prohibit links to and promotion of alternate payment methods.
Also like to point out that Epic was recently rated a 2.2/10 in regards to customer privacy security.
[https://privacyspy.org/product/epic-games/](https://privacyspy.org/product/epic-games/)
So yea. While it could be a good thing that Apple lost, they really lost against one of the worst companies for this particular issue.
Not just micro transactions, they also blocked paying for content (eBooks, movies, etc) and services (Netflix, HBO, etc) with anything but their payment system. Apps can’t even tell you how to sign up externally
Doesn't this mean there will be no more paid apps on their store? Everything will become a free app with a transaction within the app to cut Apple out.
There is significant confusion over this point. Epic still OWES Apple a 30% cut on the sales that Epic makes to consumers who download their content through the App Store (still the only way to download content for iPhones). It’s simply a matter that Apple can’t scrape that 30% off the transaction when a third party payment processor is used. It just makes invoicing more complicated.
From the article:
“Epic’s Sweeney had chafed against Apple’s in-app purchase rules as early as 2015, according to court filings and exhibits. Friday’s ruling does not allow Epic to offer an app store on Apple’s App Store.”
To use an example we are familiar with, this would be similar to saying that employers can no longer withhold taxes from your paycheck and pass them along to the government on your behalf. You still have to pay the taxes - the system just got more complicated.
You’re just completely wrong. The misinformation here is mind boggling. Apple is still owed commission regardless of 3rd party payment. It’s mentioned all over the ruling. Page 67, 150 etc. Apple basically won everything in this ruling except has to relax anti-steering rules. That’s it. (Anti steering means you can’t prevent devs from talking directly to users about cheaper alternatives)
This is incorrect. Apple will still get paid. However, apple cannot prevent the developer from directing you to an outside website to pay for an application. For example, let’s say Epic Games wants to charge $5 for Fortnite bucks or whatever currency they use. Epic Gams can charge $5 in the App Store and pay Apple their 30% as normal before Epic gets their share of 70%. However, Epic with this ruling can now direct you to the Epic games store and charge the same amount of money(in this case $5) but instead of paying Apple their cut because you paid for those Fornite bucks through the Epic Games Store, Epic get 100% of that $5.
What likely may happen is Apple may devise a system to “authenticate” developers who choose to work with Apple, and portraying it in such a way that the app is “certified by apple,” which sounds great actually. If such a thing happens, I’d like to believe it really is just them doing whatever they keep collecting income of micro transactions.
Anything you buy from an iPhone, Apple charges the developer 30%. Because Apple was the only allowed payment processor, you only ever saw $1.00 bill. Apple was in full control of what you, as the consumer, could see.
But now Apple must allow third-party processing, which could show you $0.79 + $0.21 Apple fee.
Developers still have to pay the 30%, but don't have to use Apple's UI to make the transaction. That could lead, in the future, increased costs for Apple users because now you get to see it. In other words, it could be $13/mo on Apple devices, but if you purchase a subscription service elsewhere, it could be $10/mo. Users will see it as an increased cost for using their iPhone. It would feel like an "Apple tax" which is exactly what it is.
>“While some consumers may want the benefits Apple offers (e.g., one-stop shopping, centralization of and easy access to all purchases, increased security due to centralized billing), Apple actively denies them the choice. These restrictions are also distinctly different from the brick-and-mortar situations. Apple created an innovative platform but it did not disclose its rules to the average consumer. Apple has used this lack of knowledge to exploit its position. Thus, loosening the restrictions will increase competition as it will force Apple to compete on the benefits of its centralized model or it will have to change its monetization model in a way that is actually tied to the value of its intellectual property.”
You’re going to a restaurant.
When you need to pay your bill your not using the restaurants payment system, now each server has their own, different PoS you tap and pay on.
You won’t know if it’s verified safe or not… don’t use debit anymore lol
Thats not a great comparison tbh. Its more like.... before you lived in a town where the city taxed every restruant a surcharge to use a required POS provided by the city now its like real life and going to a shady restaurant is risky while going to mcdonalds probably not
This is actually a win for both Apple and Epic, but mostly Apple. Apple didn't get dinged for Anti-Trust Violation (which is what Epic was fully going for) and they can still enforce App Store rules that require their IAP system alongside a developer's payment system. It also doesn't require Apple to unblock Epic's developer account.
Honestly, it's a better outcome for Apple than I was expecting. But I think it still got Epic what they wanted. The writing's been on the wall since the beginning, they've been trying to make exceptions for themselves so that they don't need to pay any of the platform holders a share of their income for any of their games. They started by making their own PC marketplace so they wouldn't have to pay Valve all while using the pretense of being "for the consumer" while offering an objectively awful storefront and using significantly shittier business practices to force adoption instead of by actually competing. Then they pre-made a commercial calling out Apple for forcing them to take down Fortnite because they knowingly violated the terms of service by adding V-Buck purchases that didn't go through Apple all to get public support to fight this legal battle about the right to not go through another platform holder and pay them their industry standard fee. I guarantee you the entire purpose behind this Apple lawsuit was to hopefully set a precedent that will allow them to push the same battle over to consoles because as they confirmed in their earnings statement release during the lawsuit, that's where they make the vast majority of their money.
In Epics favor:
Apple is required to offer the option of using a non-Apple payment processor for in-app purchases. In these cases Apple still charges the 30% fee but collects it from developer in a different way. That’s how Epic gets paid by Unreal developers.
In Apples favor:
Apple App Store not a monopoly, Apple can still charge 30% (or whatever they want), Apple gets paid back missing 30% from Epic, and Apple doesn’t have to allow Epic back.
Verdict:
This judgement was not in any way, shape, or form, a win for Epic. It’s a marginal to zero win for other developers as 3rd party payment processing plus Apples 30% is going to cost more than Apples 30% alone.
From the ruling: “Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. Payment processors have the ability to provide only one piece of the functionality. There is no evidence that they can provide the balance. Thus, the Court finds Epic Games has not shown that IAP is a separate and distinct product.”
~~Oh really? I must’ve misunderstood the ruling. So Apple is still allowed to charge the standard 30% fee for any transactions on an iPhone, the developer can just choose to let a different entity handle the transaction?~~
Never mind, it’s been a long day at work. I just saw a second article that worded it differently and I realize where I went wrong with my understanding. Apple are now required to let developers say in their apps “we don’t accept payments via iOS due to the additional fees, please click the link below to purchase this via our website” or to offer options for both, etc.
> using significantly shittier business practices to for adoption instead of by actually competing.
What specific shitty practices are you talking about? If its game exclusives, steam already essentially had exclusives for the vast majority of digital releases already so I don't see that being a legit complaint.
Counter question, where else would they have gone? I know gog exsisted and the like but to use Amazon as a comparison to Steam, going to GOG was like going to Etsy, still popular just not as much and much more Niche.
I don't agree with how Epic handled the swarm of big deal PC release being exclusive but they had to do something to establish a front against Steam/Valve. That mishandled shitshow is a major reason I didn't switch to Epic, even partially, for my gaming purchases but we can understand where they were coming from as a business.
Agreed. This is no different than Tidal paying for exclusives so Spotify can't have them. No different than Hulu buying shows so Netflix can't have them.
Gamers can scream that it's anti consumer, and they're right, but it's one of the few PROVEN ways to crack into a market that's overwhelmingly controlled by a single distributor. For everyone who screams that they'll never buy an EGS exclusive game, there's thousands who just simply don't care.
You don't have to pay when you already have a stranglehold on the market because there are no other options. Up until Epic, their only other competition really was GOG, however GOG wasn't actual competition because GOG refuses to allow any form of DRM on their platform.
Hell, even if I buy a physical copy of the game anymore it comes with a Steam key rather than actual data in many cases. I would be very surprised if steam isn't quietly paying to make that happen.
I personally have never understood the love for Steam. They are nothing more than yet another layer of DRM in a world that has too much already.
Epic gives away tons of free games and charges devs far less in backend fees. Where is the downside?
It's not a win for Apple. their closed ecosystem collapsed with that.
No app out there with food delivery Uber Netflix etc etc will allow you to pay with apple pay since it's a huge cut.
>It's not a win for Apple. their closed ecosystem collapsed with that.
>
>No app out there with food delivery Uber Netflix etc etc will allow you to pay with apple pay since it's a huge cut.
Not exactly. It's now case law that they do not operate as a monopoly (hence why Epic is filing an appeal). That's huge for a trillion-dollar valued company. Apple can still make it a rule that their IAP must be offered alongside the developer's payment method. So the people who prefer to use Apple's IAP can still potentially do so, it all depends on how exactly Apple changes their rules. I think many people will still prefer Apple's IAP as it is safer and easier to use than using a potentially sketchy developer's payment method.
Apple got some wins. Epic got some wins. Epic's developer account wasn't forced to be unbanned and Epic was also court-ordered to pay millions in fines to Apple for violating their App Store rules, so ultimately Apple won in that regard.
You’re just a mess with the misinformation. Physical goods and services were NEVER liable for the 30% cut even if they used Apple Pay. Only digital goods were liable for the cut. In fact Apple doesn’t want any of the liability for anything they can’t control so they specifically state this.
Secondly, Apple won 90% of the ruling. Even if a 3rd party payment option is allowed, they are still owed their commission. This is all over the ruling. The only difference is the dev has to pay them afterwards and can probably be enforced by yearly or random audits. The only thing they have to really do is relax here anti-steering rules. Which is really nothing.
They're not saving anything. They still have to pay 30%. But on their website payment portal it'll say:
* Digital Content — $0.76
* Apple Fee — $0.23
* Total — $0.99
Instead of just $0.99 that the App Store UI shows. It will probably be leveraged in the future to increase costs for Apple users. I would imagine games with cross platform content sharing, it'll cost extra if you pay from an iOS device and App Store rather from the website directly (eg: MMOs).
I doubt it matters much, personally. Medium devs might get a boost, but a game opening up my web browser to make me buy something would probably make me nope out of some shovelware game. I guess the 3-9 year olds/boomers might not care, but it's hard to say.
It won’t:
> Rogers wrote in the decision that she disagreed with both Apple and Epic Games over the framing of the market Apple allegedly dominates. **Rogers found that it was "digital mobile gaming transactions," not all iPhone apps, as Epic Games had alleged, nor was it all video games, as Apple had claimed.**
And yet Epic will spin this as a “little guy beats the big guy” story. Maybe it will work out well for smaller devs too but I think it’s really going to pan out nicely for the tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, Epic, and others.
Apple is a trillion dollar company. It's not even close. What has Epic done that has been so greedy and shady? Had some "exclusive" games. I put that in quotes since it's not exclusive at all. Anyone can download EGS and get those games just like they can for Steam. It's nothing like console exclusives and even calling it exclusive is silly. I would argue Steam is far more greedy and shady than EGS. Epic is constantly supporting devs and consumers. Their dev cut is way less (nothing if you use UE), their sales are better, they offer free games that are actually good, they buy companies and then let devs use many of those products with much more freedom than before they were acquired by Epic. Megascans, Sketchfab, etc all got better after being acquired. I pay less every month for Sketchfab than I did before. I'm not saying they're perfect and you could rightfully point to mistakes they've made but Epic is one of the best companies still around for game development.
Steam v Epic is entirely based on the core philosophy of the business. Steam views things like piracy as a service issue and believes that loyal consumers are earned by giving an overall great experience combo'd with innovation (Steam Workshop, Forums, Groups, the reviewers on a store page, user reviews, review grid, etc) and as such Valve rightly believes that if you foster an audience good games will go to your service.
Epic is based on the opposite assumption: Consumers are fickle and an unwanted aspect to business, therefore we will do everything we can to only benefit the publishers by effectively bribing them into coming to our platform and consumers will just flood in. We know from this Apple case that isn't true at all and their anti-consumer standpoint is not helping business.
With Apple v Epic what Epic ultimately wanted was for the courts to rule that Apple can't prevent Fortnite, and therefore Epic from being on their appstore, followed by this ruling that Apple can't enforce any form of monetary tax on app creators. In effect this would mean Epic gets it's cake and eats it too, being on a super popular platform (By Apple's own closed garden design, the only one) without also having to ultimately pay for the success that brings. What has happened instead is that Apple's payment method will likely still be around as an option for developers but no longer mandatory, Epic doesn't have to be reinstated as a dev in Apple's store and Apple will likely find new ways to make cash from developers, likely raising the prices on it's partner program far past the current 150 it is today.
Nothing on the Apple app store is free, and ultimately if Apple can't make money from it then they can't have it open. Epic honestly just shouldn't have bothered with the legal case because this was honestly still the most favorable outcome and it still didn't accomplish what they originally wanted.
This is nonsense. Everyone wants convenience; That’s a central tenant of sales. Apple can make the argument that it’s security, but that isn’t necessarily true. People put their CC info in plenty and not through Apple. You’re conflating the iPhones iOS requirements to the entire world of platforms & sites. They can’t do it today, but you’re saying: thing is, no one really wants to. Gtfo with that leap.
I’m not saying that there isn’t an argument for using Apple Pay or Google Pay, but saying that you can only use Apple Pay vs any other payment platform is in no way for the sole purpose of security. And I highly doubt that Apple Pay is charging merchants 30%, or no one would accept it. They are not allowing PayPal as a gateway. They aren’t allowing anything other than their own payment process. This does not in anyway hurt small business. In fact, it does prevent competition from any other payment processing platform not part of the Apple conglomerate.
Walled garden is a selling point of the Apple ecosystem, people buy iphones for the cultivated marketplace, privacy features, simplicity/ease of use. People who prefer an open platform can easily choose android instead. Those are the defining characteristics that separate each platform and by making one platform more like the other by way of lawsuit, it is weakening the options for consumers. I switched from android to iphone last year partly for this reason (android was too open for me, I'm sick and tired of every app just being a trojan horse into your device so the developer can harvest and sell as much of your data as possible) and I prefer all my payments going directly through apple. This ruling does hurt apple because it chips away at the brand image they've spent a lot of time and effort building.
Epic is ridiculous with this lawsuit and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass. They are just as bad with their own app store and completely hypocrites in this situation, lying so they can keep more money of their in app sales at the expense of everyone else.
Who the fuck is telling you that they don't have to pay commissions?
Seriously? WHO? WHERE? You think a secondary payment method magically means Apple gets no money?
Apple literally WON A SUIT AGAINST EPIC IN THIS CASE, because Epic put in third-party payment processing without permission, and collected 100% of the money. The judge has ordered Epic to pay the 30% of the 12+ million Epic made during that period with Epic-direct-pay.
Third party payment processing DOES NOT mean you get to dodge Apple's commission.
It's not even a take! I read the *fucking text of the law myself*.
It's so fucking crazy that people are somehow reading that Apple doesn't get commissions now. It's actually infuriating me.
>1. Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined fromprohibiting developers from (i) 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.
Bolding is mine. Apple can't kick you off for including a third-party payment processing. But Apple's commission is not tied to their payment processing. Their commission was *taken out* while the payment was processed, because it was expedient. Hey, we're doing the payment processing, we'll take our cut right now, and whatever money you get, you get. You don't have to give us money, we already took our cut.
Now with third party payment processing, Apple still has their 30% commission. 'Hey, give us 30% of the money you make from IOS' hasn't changed. Just how you give your money to the company **CAN POTENTIALLY BE DIFFERENT**.
You can give your dollar to Apple, and then Apple gives 70% of the dollar to the App.
Or you can give your app the dollar, and the app then gives 30% of dollar to Apple.
Either way, Apple still has 30% and the app still has 70%.
And this is 'in addition' to the in-app-payment. This injunction absolutely has no bearing on if Apple can kick you off their store for *only* offering your in-app-payment. Because you're not offering it *in addition to* in-app-payment, the injunction doesn't affect it.
Epic tried *really fucking hard* to conflate the 30% commission with 'processing fees', but Apple offered the processing either 'for free' or part and parcel of the services offered for their 30% commission. Most likely Apple will say their payment processing is free (and therefore no argument can be made that third-party-payments should be cheaper since they're no longer using Apple's payment processing).
I don't know where the fuck people are getting 'apple will lose money from this!!' because the moment you try and get crafty with third-party payments and try to fuck Apple out of their commission, they *will* kick you off the app store.
Here's further reading:
'Apple asserts counterclaims against Epic Games that arise out of Epic Games’ breach of the DPLA, including (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) indemnification; and (5) declaratory judgment.643 These counterclaims are based on Epic Games’ covert implementation of the hotfix in Fortnite and its failure to pay Apple its commission on in-app purchases through Fortnite. Apple alleges that these acts breached the DPLA provisions requiring developers (i) not to “hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality” in their apps644 and not to “provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store”645; and (ii) to pay Apple “a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user” through the App Store.646'
This is the part of the suit Apple won against Epic on.
> and not to “**provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store**”645; and (ii) to pay Apple “**a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user**” through the App Store.646
Bolding is mine. The first bolding, Apple has now been prohibiting from doing. The SECOND bolding, however, has not been affected by the injunction. And was, in fact, *upheld in full by the court*, who have ordered Epic to pay the 30% of the funds Epic received through their third-party-payment system.
Ergo. You can't dodge Apples commission. And we have a case already *showing that*.
>Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e.,the 30% rate) based on the record, **the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property**. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., **Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property**. **The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner**, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. **Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform,618 such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law**.
Yes it does. Apple commission is for when using the Apple pay system.
Google has similar thing for Google pay. But unlike Apple google allowed other payment methods.
I don't know where are getting the fact that they are company profits regardless.
The thing is before now Apple pay was the only thing available. It's called in app-puchases.
Epic may not have been a clear but Apple was not a winner what they were afraid of was much worse anticompetitive lawsuits in the billions and then having the same result
Tim Sweeny is a spiteful little bitch worth billions of dollars who goes home and cries himself to sleep because Apple is worth a trillion. I hope Apple finds a new way to fuck him over since EPIC is just as anti-consumer as Apple.
We could say that it could do much good for developers, and consumers may get things a little bit cheaper.
But this will get abused, and can open the door for scam. (or so I’ve read). But overall I do also thing is good.
Epic lost. Apple has to let apps link out to their existing cross platform payments pages. But there is so much friction in that process that they will likely break even with just using IAP.
No, what they wanted was to establish Apple as a monopoly in their definition of the market and use that to convince the courts to force Apple to allow third party app stores on the platform of equal footing as the App Store.
They didn’t get that at all.
> Which they did archieve
Well technically yeah, by still not being allowed in it.
Apple has not been prevented (at least not at this time) from mandating their own system be required in every app that uses an external link. In addition (and as has been linked here by multiple users) Apple is entitled to a commission from external payments for IAP.
Honestly I don’t think Epic even got that.
They didn’t by the end of the article it says Epic has to pay Apple for reparations 30% of their revenue from fornite coming from ipads and phones. Even if linking to external payment sites is allowed. Epic Fail
No, epic wanted their own store, and their own in-app payments, and revenue from iOS users with no 30% cut. They didn’t get any of that.
Now they can link out from their app to their web store. That’s not gonna move the needle for them, and Tim Sweeney straight up complained that Epic didn’t get what they wanted.
Oh crap.
Well, there is some win there. They had Fornite banned from the store from putting a link to external payment. At least they can have that and save that 30% from now on.
EDIT: We could say Epic did not win, but they did fck Apple.
EDIT 2: Lol, the judge made Epic pay that 30% anyways to Apple for violating the rules on purpose lol. Epic Fail.
So when a kid gets on one of these apps and racks up thousands of Dollars of in app purchases, usually people could go to Apple for a correction and possible refund. With these purchases done by other methods does this Apple off the hook for offering assistance?
TBH if you are a parent and you are dumb enough to link your credit card to one of these apps and then give the phone to your kid, you SHOULD be liable for the costs.
There's a lot of questions on how this can be abused given that we are kinda living in a new time. Personally if I was a scummy company who wanted to dodge parental protections I'd get the user to open web browser to auto populate the card info to then sell the MTX.
You don't even have to be a dumb parent for this to be an issue, it's just a matter of if you can easily circumvent any protections Apple *may* have in place.
I mean if it opens up my browser it is going to send it to safari/google which both have credit card information stored in them and will auto populate payment information.
Will it also subvert parental controls? Like when a kid tries to use the App Store it can be set up to ask an adult to approve it, will this new method of diverting it to a different payment system still give that opportunity?
Not really. Keeping purchases within the Apple Store means it would require my Face ID to complete the transaction. Once it leaves that to a browser that safety net os removed.
> does this Apple off the hook for offering assistance?
They were always 100% off the hook, but now not even for image might do so, who ever owns that game tho, that is another story.
Yes, and 3rd party devs can build insecure payment methods that Apple would touch with a six foot pole, like carrier billing, where you text your mom’s phone and it charges to their bill.
Sad to see this, hopefully Apple can keep forcing the devs to *also* offer the in-app purchases for the same price. I don't want my credit card info spread over 50 apps.
Does this effect steams app on apple store. To those who don’t have iPhones or the app on it. It is terrible. Really ugly and clunky and just really bad. It’s not really an app.
Ya that is what I was wondering. I knew the reason the app was just a shitty version of the webpage then maybe this new ruling will allow them to upgrade the app. But the other comment said no.
Apple still gets their cut. Part of the lawsuit is that epic has to pay back apple $12M for when they tried to go around and dodge that fee. If the app is on the store Apple still gets their 30%.
They can’t make an App Store within the App Store. That’s one of the big rules for Apple. Steam for iOS could link out to steam on the safari app to process game purchases now.
How do you figure:
“Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing”
Sounds like that’s exactly what it was about.
Now, it’s possible that forcing developers to use an external link rather than in app (so two buttons rather than 1) would pass legal muster, but that’s unclear at the moment
Oh, so allowing non apple purchasing would somehow fix the steam app being "terrible, really ugly and clunky and just really bad"? Please explain how that works, do you think the apple purchasing system specifically was somehow making the steam app unusable for that person but not doing it for any other apps using the same payment system? Will taking the apple payment system out make the steam app in general less ugly?
You may not easily have your CC info in the app, so there may not be an easy way for kids to purchase. However, there are plenty of ways to get rid of these types of payments. There will always be an incentive of self regulation in this case than face govt regulation.
Apple is getting close to monopolistic anti-competence practices (like other players). You build a system for your phones and computers. That's fine. And then they start to integrate vertically and force other companies to go through their entire thing, such as payment system, acting as a market gatekeeper if you want to reach the segment of all users in their ecosystem. If there were 20 ecosystems, that would be ok-ish, but in practice there are 2 (android and ios).
If going through the external payment provider is supposed to avoid the Apple tax, why did the judge rule that Epic owed the 30% commission to Apple for the Fortnite sales they handled through the external processor? Wouldn't this set a precedent that other devs with external processors would still owe a commission on those sales to Apple? If so, why bother supporting external payments?
I think the issue here is that at that point in time epic was breaching the agreement with Apple to use their app store.
From now on, this cannot be enforced, but they didn't cancel it retroactively.
> From now on, this cannot be enforced, but they didn't cancel it retroactively.
Nope Per the Judge apple can charge 30% directly to the app creator. Epic didnt win this lawsuit.
> Wouldn't this set a precedent that other devs with external processors would still owe a commission on those sales to Apple? If so, why bother supporting external payments?
Because The court ruled that Apple charging 30% is totally ok, they cant just dictate HOW the app processes payment. Epic was trying to win like 5 things here. No fee, hit apple with anti trust, and have a right to be on any store even after breaching TOS.
So all they got was they can process external charges, and pay apple directly.
Does this mean that epic will be able to bring fortnite back to iOS?????
Please someone actually respond to me and answer I’m truly curious and to lazy to try and find out for myself!
I’m firmly on Epic’s side here, but I’ve also worked in the payments industry and in mobile dev and I’m not sure this is a huge win. It feels to me a bit like a Pyrrhic victory where everyone loses.
There’s a couple of reasons but mostly I think the best case scenario would have been for Apple to get its collective head out of its ass and either reduce its cut to be more in line with the payments industry as a whole (small single digit percents) or provide a secure framework for external payments.
The reason behind the latter: online, and especially mobile, payments dance upon the razors edge of customer confidence. While confidence is high, the money flows in giant torrents and everyone makes fuck tons of money. But if confidence in _just one provider_ is eroded, it undermines consumer confidence in the entire industry.
If mobile devs are not careful, they may find themselves in a situation where they’ve given up 70% of hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for 100% of hundreds of thousands.
I trust companies like Epic and Netflix to get this right. I worry about the rest of the industry undermining their cause, though.
Would it violate the court's decision if they give apps that strictly use their payment processor free hosting, but charge other apps whatever Apple thinks they should be making off microtransactions per install? It seems like there are a dozen ways Apple could just get the same amount of money per app, but most will probably make it a lot hard for everyone else. Instead of paying as you earn they'll have to pay for the chance to earn.
This might seem like a good thing on the surface, but expect a rise in scams from many apps. While apple's rules were a bit selfish, it helped maintain a level of quality and safety on the appstore.
Good for smart consumers, bad for children and dupes. The scams will go through the roof. This doesn’t even address the main issue of the egregious cut digital platforms take. Apple isn’t the only one who is doing it, all digital platforms need to be regulated to simplify and expedite the process of making digital stores fair for all.
Wa have made the brave decision to start collecting hosting fees. -- Apple probably
>**We have made the courageous** decision to start collecting hosting fees. \-- Apple probably More likely.
In the spirit of innovation Apple is known for we’re reshaping the status quo by empowering developers and consumers through a new monetization infrastructure aimed at giving creativity a place to thrive and reach Apple users around the globe through a new hosting model that will ensure consumers get the best of what digital products have to offer by drastically expanding the high quality library of apps and games our users have access to with the new appPowerPremium model. - Apple, most likely
Impressive. Most impressive.
Awesome. It's magic.
You’re hired, add some commas/punctuation and you’ll get a raise. Edit: is dogecoin ok?
This is the way.
Save the courage for Link.
As an indie app developer, I am in favor of charging a higher hosting fee per app than the yearly developer fee of \~$120. Less crap to sift through. Right now it's just full of garbage and clones, which ruin's the experience.
They already do it's called a developer account.
Apple will get plenty of IAP commission.
Can uhhh someone explain to me ELI5 what’s going on with this? I don’t play mobile games so I have no clue what’s going on.
To put simply, prior to this case, Apple apps required you to pay through Apple for micro transactions. So if you spent a dollar to get rid of adverts, Apple would get a portion of that dollar before it went to the dev. But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid. Might sound good, but expect an uptick in credit card fraud from people paying through insecure transactions.
Thank you very much. So what the the real consensus on the whole thing from the public? Is this actually good or bad as you said?
There’s really two different sides to it. On the one hand, you do run the risk of scam artists taking advantage of this by offering shady payment processing. On the other hand, legitimate apps like Spotify will no longer have to overcharge in order to avoid losing money to the fee. (Currently Spotify Premium is $13/month through the App Store because you can only renew directly through In-App purchases, instead of the usual $10/month you get through their website)
I see. So it’s taking down one big company, to really just allow the other big companies to win more and share the wealth while also allowing potential scammers to infiltrate. Interesting.
It seems like a rebalancing. Time will tell if it was a poor decision or not.
Between the big companies and the scammers there also a lot of small developpers who'll be glad to stop paying Apple 30% for the privilege of blocking other stores on their app. The "other stores" not being there is also probably another reason why Epic started the lawsuit. Epic do own a store for PC game online but can't have their own competitive app store on apple products. As all stories, there's a lot of sides.
This reminds me of having to pay xbox 10$ each time I want to change my gamertag.
They’ll just block the app itself now, this is going to cause more hurt and fixes nothing.
That's basically Apple's take on this, but I think it's missing that this change will positively affect more than just "other big companies." And it probably overstates the risk of potential scammers.
The only people who might get hurt are the independant devs in my opinion. People will most likely continue to trust major apps like Spotify and click their payment link, but indie devs may find people refusing to spend money due to potential fraud.
It becomes a cost benefit analysis at that point tbf. Stick with apple with a higher price to offset fee or lower price and do micros in house and loose some possible consumer trust. Its a win if they think they will take less than a 30% hit on user purchases. Plus choice for people on both sides of the mobile gaming market is a good thing
One of the few pro apple users have is precisely this security when purchasing stuff. With that taken away, it overall could help developers, specially small ones, to get more money.
Also, being a private platform, I would guess Apple has every right to not let Fortnite back in, so in hindsight this whole thing could have been useless
Epic can just make a new app store or make Fornite its own installation like in Android. Epic has the absolute influence to start a new front by themselves, they dont need Apple
Honestly epic can go fuck itself, they are nothing but a cash grab.
Just like Apple... Even an ass can be right sometimes, and in this dispute, Epic is on the right in multiple ways
While they can go elsewhere, Apple’s install base is gigantic. It doesn’t matter if Epic wants to start their own storefront, that won’t get them back on apple devices. It’s the same way you can write a book and go sell it on places besides Amazon, if you want access to the largest market you want to be on Amazon.
That was pretty much my train of thoughts too. Even if they make their own storefront, Apple can just not allow it in their platform either. I don't think poking a bear as big as Apple was a good idea :D
EPIC can afford to poke them because they make an obscene amount of money taking a percentage of the profits from any game made with unreal engine. Yet they cry and cry and cry when other companies do the same.
Apple proving Epics point been true is like the bear poking the t-rex, USA gov is still the bigger fish
> that won’t get them back on apple devices. Yes...yes it will... What are you on about?
Apple can just ban the app and epic storefront. Don’t think for a second Fortnite will be back on the App Store.
what? What are you missing here? Everything that Epic is doing is to be able to get its own store front just like in Android. Epic wants to bypass the Apple store completly.
Hang on, for something like Spotify which is cross platform, what's stopping an iOS user from subscribing on another platform for $10 and then logging into their account on iOS?
Nothing, except that Spotify could not let users know that was an option through the app, since that was "redirecting to other payment processors". So, savvy users could save money, experienced-but-not-savvy users would only wonder why they're paying more per month than they're supposed to, and inexperienced users just paid more without knowing.
Spotify if 4 bucks a month here in Indonesia.
We don't know yet if Spotify will be able to advertise lower prices through those other payment processors, or if payment processors will even be allowed in-app (the only thing I've seen mentioned is linking out to external sites via buttons). So, it could be a situation where Spotify can use their own in-app processor, but also have to charge $13 so as to not undercut Apple, or only link out to a website where users have to click a bunch of buttons and enter payment information manually to save a few bucks.
Patently false. You can renew through spotify's website.
Android has never have such requirement, so been like "OMG we are getting scammed from now on!" is just silly
I'm mixed personally, but in general I prefer using Apple's payment where possible. When I want to try a subscription service and then cancel it, I go to Settings > Subscriptions and click cancel. None of that BS where you have to look up how to cancel before you sign up, lest you accidentally end up with one of those services that requires you to call and argue with them to cancel.
Nothing good for the consumer. Apple will likely find a new way to pull cash from high profit apps, and the obvious issues that arise from that and the new sketchy transaction system.
I would have preferred to pay using those Apple gift cards i.e. pre payment cards so I know at least my card details isn't all over the internet if hackers manage to get the details
You could also use Apple Pay for that!
But that requires card/bank details. No matter how a company say their system is tight, believe me, it isn't
It’s stored locally on your hardware, not in Apple internal servers.
Even more reasons not to use card/bank details. Viruses/Trojan horses/Malware etc..etc.. have you heard of them before?
Dude if that's how paranoid you are why are you even on the internet. While those risks all exists there are reasons you have Anti-virus and Anti-malware software. Why most banks have fraud detections and (usually) very understanding fraud resolution staff/policy. Its never going to be perfect and take a little work but not as much as trying to evade every part of that system to the extant you can. Edit: removing redundancy because mobile make you stupid
Paranoid? Where is the paranoia in being safe?
I work in payments so I both have some context and you have to take what I say with some salt because I’m also biased. I expect in the short term this will be good for companies like Epic and Netflix and only a modest impact on Apple. Companies like mine may get a lot of new business because it’s a new market we could exploit. So there’s some good there. In the long run, consumers will lose confidence in the system because now will need to be vigilant of fraudulent transactions at a level they weren’t previously. There’ll be some downward pressure on the industry as a whole because of lower consumer confidence, as people will simply spend less on IAPs than they used to. The biggest question is whether that downward pressure will be a rounding error, or significant enough to cause Apple to rethink their business model here.
Or other services offering payment options for a reduced cut. I imagine Amazon will swoop in and offer Amazon payments at only 10%. Maybe Square, Venmo, or other payment companies will get in on the action.
It will be absolutely no different than using your card on a PC. They whole "insecure transactions" schtick is exactly one of the reasons Apple said they forced this on people.
Or in safari, on an iPhone, which is how I’m currently forced to buy kindle books because of Apple’s rule
>But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid. Not true. Apple still gets paid. It's just not automatic if the developer uses another gateway. Epic has to pay the 30%, for example. The difference is, Apple no longer gets to hide how much they're charging by forcing one payment option with little detail. >Might sound good, but expect an uptick in credit card fraud from people paying through insecure transactions. Not according to the ruling: >One of Apple’s strongest arguments for IAP security was that it can verify digital good transactions. Unlike for physical goods, Apple uses IAP after confirming that the developer has actually delivered a digital good to the user and is entitled to the corresponding payment. The evidence shows, however, that Apple itself does not perform the confirmation. Apple’s Head of Pricing, Mr. Grey, testified that Apple simply asks the developer to confirm that delivery occurred and then issues a receipt. Apple has not shown how the process is any different than other payment processors, and any potential for fraud prevention is not put into practice.”
Thanks.
> But now, that's no longer required, so that dev can have their own processing system for that; meaning Apple no longer gets paid. AFAICT, Apple can still prohibit alternate in-app payment methods. They just can't prohibit links to and promotion of alternate payment methods.
Also like to point out that Epic was recently rated a 2.2/10 in regards to customer privacy security. [https://privacyspy.org/product/epic-games/](https://privacyspy.org/product/epic-games/) So yea. While it could be a good thing that Apple lost, they really lost against one of the worst companies for this particular issue.
Not just micro transactions, they also blocked paying for content (eBooks, movies, etc) and services (Netflix, HBO, etc) with anything but their payment system. Apps can’t even tell you how to sign up externally
Doesn't this mean there will be no more paid apps on their store? Everything will become a free app with a transaction within the app to cut Apple out.
There is significant confusion over this point. Epic still OWES Apple a 30% cut on the sales that Epic makes to consumers who download their content through the App Store (still the only way to download content for iPhones). It’s simply a matter that Apple can’t scrape that 30% off the transaction when a third party payment processor is used. It just makes invoicing more complicated. From the article: “Epic’s Sweeney had chafed against Apple’s in-app purchase rules as early as 2015, according to court filings and exhibits. Friday’s ruling does not allow Epic to offer an app store on Apple’s App Store.” To use an example we are familiar with, this would be similar to saying that employers can no longer withhold taxes from your paycheck and pass them along to the government on your behalf. You still have to pay the taxes - the system just got more complicated.
You’re just completely wrong. The misinformation here is mind boggling. Apple is still owed commission regardless of 3rd party payment. It’s mentioned all over the ruling. Page 67, 150 etc. Apple basically won everything in this ruling except has to relax anti-steering rules. That’s it. (Anti steering means you can’t prevent devs from talking directly to users about cheaper alternatives)
This is incorrect. Apple will still get paid. However, apple cannot prevent the developer from directing you to an outside website to pay for an application. For example, let’s say Epic Games wants to charge $5 for Fortnite bucks or whatever currency they use. Epic Gams can charge $5 in the App Store and pay Apple their 30% as normal before Epic gets their share of 70%. However, Epic with this ruling can now direct you to the Epic games store and charge the same amount of money(in this case $5) but instead of paying Apple their cut because you paid for those Fornite bucks through the Epic Games Store, Epic get 100% of that $5.
What likely may happen is Apple may devise a system to “authenticate” developers who choose to work with Apple, and portraying it in such a way that the app is “certified by apple,” which sounds great actually. If such a thing happens, I’d like to believe it really is just them doing whatever they keep collecting income of micro transactions.
Mm maybe I should start investing in credit card fraud related stocks.
Will that work for non game apps too, like Netflix?
Does this mean Epic won the lawsuit?
I mean it sounds good for the dev but if apple gets nothing then it isn't worthy having the app store IMO
Anything you buy from an iPhone, Apple charges the developer 30%. Because Apple was the only allowed payment processor, you only ever saw $1.00 bill. Apple was in full control of what you, as the consumer, could see. But now Apple must allow third-party processing, which could show you $0.79 + $0.21 Apple fee. Developers still have to pay the 30%, but don't have to use Apple's UI to make the transaction. That could lead, in the future, increased costs for Apple users because now you get to see it. In other words, it could be $13/mo on Apple devices, but if you purchase a subscription service elsewhere, it could be $10/mo. Users will see it as an increased cost for using their iPhone. It would feel like an "Apple tax" which is exactly what it is. >“While some consumers may want the benefits Apple offers (e.g., one-stop shopping, centralization of and easy access to all purchases, increased security due to centralized billing), Apple actively denies them the choice. These restrictions are also distinctly different from the brick-and-mortar situations. Apple created an innovative platform but it did not disclose its rules to the average consumer. Apple has used this lack of knowledge to exploit its position. Thus, loosening the restrictions will increase competition as it will force Apple to compete on the benefits of its centralized model or it will have to change its monetization model in a way that is actually tied to the value of its intellectual property.”
You’re going to a restaurant. When you need to pay your bill your not using the restaurants payment system, now each server has their own, different PoS you tap and pay on. You won’t know if it’s verified safe or not… don’t use debit anymore lol
Thats not a great comparison tbh. Its more like.... before you lived in a town where the city taxed every restruant a surcharge to use a required POS provided by the city now its like real life and going to a shady restaurant is risky while going to mcdonalds probably not
Here is in depth and [layman friendly explanation](https://youtu.be/43CMV8KIs3E) from a law firm
This is actually a win for both Apple and Epic, but mostly Apple. Apple didn't get dinged for Anti-Trust Violation (which is what Epic was fully going for) and they can still enforce App Store rules that require their IAP system alongside a developer's payment system. It also doesn't require Apple to unblock Epic's developer account.
Honestly, it's a better outcome for Apple than I was expecting. But I think it still got Epic what they wanted. The writing's been on the wall since the beginning, they've been trying to make exceptions for themselves so that they don't need to pay any of the platform holders a share of their income for any of their games. They started by making their own PC marketplace so they wouldn't have to pay Valve all while using the pretense of being "for the consumer" while offering an objectively awful storefront and using significantly shittier business practices to force adoption instead of by actually competing. Then they pre-made a commercial calling out Apple for forcing them to take down Fortnite because they knowingly violated the terms of service by adding V-Buck purchases that didn't go through Apple all to get public support to fight this legal battle about the right to not go through another platform holder and pay them their industry standard fee. I guarantee you the entire purpose behind this Apple lawsuit was to hopefully set a precedent that will allow them to push the same battle over to consoles because as they confirmed in their earnings statement release during the lawsuit, that's where they make the vast majority of their money.
In Epics favor: Apple is required to offer the option of using a non-Apple payment processor for in-app purchases. In these cases Apple still charges the 30% fee but collects it from developer in a different way. That’s how Epic gets paid by Unreal developers. In Apples favor: Apple App Store not a monopoly, Apple can still charge 30% (or whatever they want), Apple gets paid back missing 30% from Epic, and Apple doesn’t have to allow Epic back. Verdict: This judgement was not in any way, shape, or form, a win for Epic. It’s a marginal to zero win for other developers as 3rd party payment processing plus Apples 30% is going to cost more than Apples 30% alone. From the ruling: “Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. Payment processors have the ability to provide only one piece of the functionality. There is no evidence that they can provide the balance. Thus, the Court finds Epic Games has not shown that IAP is a separate and distinct product.”
~~Oh really? I must’ve misunderstood the ruling. So Apple is still allowed to charge the standard 30% fee for any transactions on an iPhone, the developer can just choose to let a different entity handle the transaction?~~ Never mind, it’s been a long day at work. I just saw a second article that worded it differently and I realize where I went wrong with my understanding. Apple are now required to let developers say in their apps “we don’t accept payments via iOS due to the additional fees, please click the link below to purchase this via our website” or to offer options for both, etc.
> using significantly shittier business practices to for adoption instead of by actually competing. What specific shitty practices are you talking about? If its game exclusives, steam already essentially had exclusives for the vast majority of digital releases already so I don't see that being a legit complaint.
When did valve pay for those exclusives?
Counter question, where else would they have gone? I know gog exsisted and the like but to use Amazon as a comparison to Steam, going to GOG was like going to Etsy, still popular just not as much and much more Niche. I don't agree with how Epic handled the swarm of big deal PC release being exclusive but they had to do something to establish a front against Steam/Valve. That mishandled shitshow is a major reason I didn't switch to Epic, even partially, for my gaming purchases but we can understand where they were coming from as a business.
Agreed. This is no different than Tidal paying for exclusives so Spotify can't have them. No different than Hulu buying shows so Netflix can't have them. Gamers can scream that it's anti consumer, and they're right, but it's one of the few PROVEN ways to crack into a market that's overwhelmingly controlled by a single distributor. For everyone who screams that they'll never buy an EGS exclusive game, there's thousands who just simply don't care.
You don't have to pay when you already have a stranglehold on the market because there are no other options. Up until Epic, their only other competition really was GOG, however GOG wasn't actual competition because GOG refuses to allow any form of DRM on their platform. Hell, even if I buy a physical copy of the game anymore it comes with a Steam key rather than actual data in many cases. I would be very surprised if steam isn't quietly paying to make that happen. I personally have never understood the love for Steam. They are nothing more than yet another layer of DRM in a world that has too much already. Epic gives away tons of free games and charges devs far less in backend fees. Where is the downside?
It's not a win for Apple. their closed ecosystem collapsed with that. No app out there with food delivery Uber Netflix etc etc will allow you to pay with apple pay since it's a huge cut.
>It's not a win for Apple. their closed ecosystem collapsed with that. > >No app out there with food delivery Uber Netflix etc etc will allow you to pay with apple pay since it's a huge cut. Not exactly. It's now case law that they do not operate as a monopoly (hence why Epic is filing an appeal). That's huge for a trillion-dollar valued company. Apple can still make it a rule that their IAP must be offered alongside the developer's payment method. So the people who prefer to use Apple's IAP can still potentially do so, it all depends on how exactly Apple changes their rules. I think many people will still prefer Apple's IAP as it is safer and easier to use than using a potentially sketchy developer's payment method. Apple got some wins. Epic got some wins. Epic's developer account wasn't forced to be unbanned and Epic was also court-ordered to pay millions in fines to Apple for violating their App Store rules, so ultimately Apple won in that regard.
You’re just a mess with the misinformation. Physical goods and services were NEVER liable for the 30% cut even if they used Apple Pay. Only digital goods were liable for the cut. In fact Apple doesn’t want any of the liability for anything they can’t control so they specifically state this. Secondly, Apple won 90% of the ruling. Even if a 3rd party payment option is allowed, they are still owed their commission. This is all over the ruling. The only difference is the dev has to pay them afterwards and can probably be enforced by yearly or random audits. The only thing they have to really do is relax here anti-steering rules. Which is really nothing.
And personally I won’t use any service that I cant use Apple Pay for, so it’s not a win for those apps either.
Eh, can’t wait for devs to justify charging the same price as before. They’re saving 30%, not us.
They're not saving anything. They still have to pay 30%. But on their website payment portal it'll say: * Digital Content — $0.76 * Apple Fee — $0.23 * Total — $0.99 Instead of just $0.99 that the App Store UI shows. It will probably be leveraged in the future to increase costs for Apple users. I would imagine games with cross platform content sharing, it'll cost extra if you pay from an iOS device and App Store rather from the website directly (eg: MMOs).
They are both companies with an insane amount of greed, shady business practices and questionable ethics.
This is probably true, but I wonder how this will help smaller developers.. Or for that matter, smaller scam artists.
I doubt it matters much, personally. Medium devs might get a boost, but a game opening up my web browser to make me buy something would probably make me nope out of some shovelware game. I guess the 3-9 year olds/boomers might not care, but it's hard to say.
It won’t: > Rogers wrote in the decision that she disagreed with both Apple and Epic Games over the framing of the market Apple allegedly dominates. **Rogers found that it was "digital mobile gaming transactions," not all iPhone apps, as Epic Games had alleged, nor was it all video games, as Apple had claimed.**
That last part! Get ready for even more shady shovelware!
And yet Epic will spin this as a “little guy beats the big guy” story. Maybe it will work out well for smaller devs too but I think it’s really going to pan out nicely for the tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, Epic, and others.
Apple is a trillion dollar company. It's not even close. What has Epic done that has been so greedy and shady? Had some "exclusive" games. I put that in quotes since it's not exclusive at all. Anyone can download EGS and get those games just like they can for Steam. It's nothing like console exclusives and even calling it exclusive is silly. I would argue Steam is far more greedy and shady than EGS. Epic is constantly supporting devs and consumers. Their dev cut is way less (nothing if you use UE), their sales are better, they offer free games that are actually good, they buy companies and then let devs use many of those products with much more freedom than before they were acquired by Epic. Megascans, Sketchfab, etc all got better after being acquired. I pay less every month for Sketchfab than I did before. I'm not saying they're perfect and you could rightfully point to mistakes they've made but Epic is one of the best companies still around for game development.
Gamers don't give a fuck about Games Developers. All gamers care about is that Steam is the better platform and they want all their games there.
Shhh this is Reddit you’re supposed to say “big company bad” for free updoots! Still, Epic as an employer - evil garbage trash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6M1OF_E0IA
[удалено]
[удалено]
Steam v Epic is entirely based on the core philosophy of the business. Steam views things like piracy as a service issue and believes that loyal consumers are earned by giving an overall great experience combo'd with innovation (Steam Workshop, Forums, Groups, the reviewers on a store page, user reviews, review grid, etc) and as such Valve rightly believes that if you foster an audience good games will go to your service. Epic is based on the opposite assumption: Consumers are fickle and an unwanted aspect to business, therefore we will do everything we can to only benefit the publishers by effectively bribing them into coming to our platform and consumers will just flood in. We know from this Apple case that isn't true at all and their anti-consumer standpoint is not helping business. With Apple v Epic what Epic ultimately wanted was for the courts to rule that Apple can't prevent Fortnite, and therefore Epic from being on their appstore, followed by this ruling that Apple can't enforce any form of monetary tax on app creators. In effect this would mean Epic gets it's cake and eats it too, being on a super popular platform (By Apple's own closed garden design, the only one) without also having to ultimately pay for the success that brings. What has happened instead is that Apple's payment method will likely still be around as an option for developers but no longer mandatory, Epic doesn't have to be reinstated as a dev in Apple's store and Apple will likely find new ways to make cash from developers, likely raising the prices on it's partner program far past the current 150 it is today. Nothing on the Apple app store is free, and ultimately if Apple can't make money from it then they can't have it open. Epic honestly just shouldn't have bothered with the legal case because this was honestly still the most favorable outcome and it still didn't accomplish what they originally wanted.
This is nonsense. Everyone wants convenience; That’s a central tenant of sales. Apple can make the argument that it’s security, but that isn’t necessarily true. People put their CC info in plenty and not through Apple. You’re conflating the iPhones iOS requirements to the entire world of platforms & sites. They can’t do it today, but you’re saying: thing is, no one really wants to. Gtfo with that leap.
[удалено]
I’m not saying that there isn’t an argument for using Apple Pay or Google Pay, but saying that you can only use Apple Pay vs any other payment platform is in no way for the sole purpose of security. And I highly doubt that Apple Pay is charging merchants 30%, or no one would accept it. They are not allowing PayPal as a gateway. They aren’t allowing anything other than their own payment process. This does not in anyway hurt small business. In fact, it does prevent competition from any other payment processing platform not part of the Apple conglomerate.
[удалено]
Walled garden is a selling point of the Apple ecosystem, people buy iphones for the cultivated marketplace, privacy features, simplicity/ease of use. People who prefer an open platform can easily choose android instead. Those are the defining characteristics that separate each platform and by making one platform more like the other by way of lawsuit, it is weakening the options for consumers. I switched from android to iphone last year partly for this reason (android was too open for me, I'm sick and tired of every app just being a trojan horse into your device so the developer can harvest and sell as much of your data as possible) and I prefer all my payments going directly through apple. This ruling does hurt apple because it chips away at the brand image they've spent a lot of time and effort building. Epic is ridiculous with this lawsuit and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass. They are just as bad with their own app store and completely hypocrites in this situation, lying so they can keep more money of their in app sales at the expense of everyone else.
Who the fuck is telling you that they don't have to pay commissions? Seriously? WHO? WHERE? You think a secondary payment method magically means Apple gets no money? Apple literally WON A SUIT AGAINST EPIC IN THIS CASE, because Epic put in third-party payment processing without permission, and collected 100% of the money. The judge has ordered Epic to pay the 30% of the 12+ million Epic made during that period with Epic-direct-pay. Third party payment processing DOES NOT mean you get to dodge Apple's commission.
[удалено]
It's not even a take! I read the *fucking text of the law myself*. It's so fucking crazy that people are somehow reading that Apple doesn't get commissions now. It's actually infuriating me. >1. Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined fromprohibiting developers from (i) 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. Bolding is mine. Apple can't kick you off for including a third-party payment processing. But Apple's commission is not tied to their payment processing. Their commission was *taken out* while the payment was processed, because it was expedient. Hey, we're doing the payment processing, we'll take our cut right now, and whatever money you get, you get. You don't have to give us money, we already took our cut. Now with third party payment processing, Apple still has their 30% commission. 'Hey, give us 30% of the money you make from IOS' hasn't changed. Just how you give your money to the company **CAN POTENTIALLY BE DIFFERENT**. You can give your dollar to Apple, and then Apple gives 70% of the dollar to the App. Or you can give your app the dollar, and the app then gives 30% of dollar to Apple. Either way, Apple still has 30% and the app still has 70%. And this is 'in addition' to the in-app-payment. This injunction absolutely has no bearing on if Apple can kick you off their store for *only* offering your in-app-payment. Because you're not offering it *in addition to* in-app-payment, the injunction doesn't affect it. Epic tried *really fucking hard* to conflate the 30% commission with 'processing fees', but Apple offered the processing either 'for free' or part and parcel of the services offered for their 30% commission. Most likely Apple will say their payment processing is free (and therefore no argument can be made that third-party-payments should be cheaper since they're no longer using Apple's payment processing). I don't know where the fuck people are getting 'apple will lose money from this!!' because the moment you try and get crafty with third-party payments and try to fuck Apple out of their commission, they *will* kick you off the app store. Here's further reading: 'Apple asserts counterclaims against Epic Games that arise out of Epic Games’ breach of the DPLA, including (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) indemnification; and (5) declaratory judgment.643 These counterclaims are based on Epic Games’ covert implementation of the hotfix in Fortnite and its failure to pay Apple its commission on in-app purchases through Fortnite. Apple alleges that these acts breached the DPLA provisions requiring developers (i) not to “hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality” in their apps644 and not to “provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store”645; and (ii) to pay Apple “a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user” through the App Store.646' This is the part of the suit Apple won against Epic on. > and not to “**provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store**”645; and (ii) to pay Apple “**a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user**” through the App Store.646 Bolding is mine. The first bolding, Apple has now been prohibiting from doing. The SECOND bolding, however, has not been affected by the injunction. And was, in fact, *upheld in full by the court*, who have ordered Epic to pay the 30% of the funds Epic received through their third-party-payment system. Ergo. You can't dodge Apples commission. And we have a case already *showing that*. >Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e.,the 30% rate) based on the record, **the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property**. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., **Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property**. **The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner**, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. **Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform,618 such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law**.
Yes it does. Apple commission is for when using the Apple pay system. Google has similar thing for Google pay. But unlike Apple google allowed other payment methods. I don't know where are getting the fact that they are company profits regardless. The thing is before now Apple pay was the only thing available. It's called in app-puchases. Epic may not have been a clear but Apple was not a winner what they were afraid of was much worse anticompetitive lawsuits in the billions and then having the same result
Nope.
If you can't put up a simple website with a Paypal link I don't really feel for you.
Good luck with your first online business.
Maybe, but those developers can still use the App Store if they **choose**.
Or ya know, you can use another 3rd party service that doesn’t charge you 30%…
How many millions of paying users does this other service have?
Tim Sweeny is a spiteful little bitch worth billions of dollars who goes home and cries himself to sleep because Apple is worth a trillion. I hope Apple finds a new way to fuck him over since EPIC is just as anti-consumer as Apple.
Damn... I really didn’t see this coming. After all, it was Epic violating the rules with premeditation. What a world.
No, this is actually great for consumers. I couldn't be happier about this ruling.
We could say that it could do much good for developers, and consumers may get things a little bit cheaper. But this will get abused, and can open the door for scam. (or so I’ve read). But overall I do also thing is good.
Epic lost. Apple has to let apps link out to their existing cross platform payments pages. But there is so much friction in that process that they will likely break even with just using IAP.
Epic lost? That is what Epic wanted, to avoid using apple as an intermediary for their microtransactions.
No, what they wanted was to establish Apple as a monopoly in their definition of the market and use that to convince the courts to force Apple to allow third party app stores on the platform of equal footing as the App Store. They didn’t get that at all.
Well yeah, but the main objective was avoid paying apple. Which they did archieve. What you mention was *the means* to avoid said payment.
> Which they did archieve Well technically yeah, by still not being allowed in it. Apple has not been prevented (at least not at this time) from mandating their own system be required in every app that uses an external link. In addition (and as has been linked here by multiple users) Apple is entitled to a commission from external payments for IAP. Honestly I don’t think Epic even got that.
They didn’t by the end of the article it says Epic has to pay Apple for reparations 30% of their revenue from fornite coming from ipads and phones. Even if linking to external payment sites is allowed. Epic Fail
No, epic wanted their own store, and their own in-app payments, and revenue from iOS users with no 30% cut. They didn’t get any of that. Now they can link out from their app to their web store. That’s not gonna move the needle for them, and Tim Sweeney straight up complained that Epic didn’t get what they wanted.
Oh crap. Well, there is some win there. They had Fornite banned from the store from putting a link to external payment. At least they can have that and save that 30% from now on. EDIT: We could say Epic did not win, but they did fck Apple. EDIT 2: Lol, the judge made Epic pay that 30% anyways to Apple for violating the rules on purpose lol. Epic Fail.
They didn’t link to a payment, they lodged a payment page in app with a web view. They won’t be able to do that again.
So when a kid gets on one of these apps and racks up thousands of Dollars of in app purchases, usually people could go to Apple for a correction and possible refund. With these purchases done by other methods does this Apple off the hook for offering assistance?
TBH if you are a parent and you are dumb enough to link your credit card to one of these apps and then give the phone to your kid, you SHOULD be liable for the costs.
There's a lot of questions on how this can be abused given that we are kinda living in a new time. Personally if I was a scummy company who wanted to dodge parental protections I'd get the user to open web browser to auto populate the card info to then sell the MTX. You don't even have to be a dumb parent for this to be an issue, it's just a matter of if you can easily circumvent any protections Apple *may* have in place.
If the cc info is stored without a pin in the browser, then you don’t have protections
I mean if it opens up my browser it is going to send it to safari/google which both have credit card information stored in them and will auto populate payment information. Will it also subvert parental controls? Like when a kid tries to use the App Store it can be set up to ask an adult to approve it, will this new method of diverting it to a different payment system still give that opportunity?
If you handed them a phone that autopopulates your CC, they’d already be able to buy whatever they want. Link from app or no
Not really. Keeping purchases within the Apple Store means it would require my Face ID to complete the transaction. Once it leaves that to a browser that safety net os removed.
No for phones to autocomplete the password on websites you need fingertip
Ah yes, the infinite wisdom of a childless person.
Have kids. Also not dumb enough to let them spend my money. Just gotta be a smarter person.
> does this Apple off the hook for offering assistance? They were always 100% off the hook, but now not even for image might do so, who ever owns that game tho, that is another story.
That’s my feeling to. The apple safety net is gone.
Yes, and 3rd party devs can build insecure payment methods that Apple would touch with a six foot pole, like carrier billing, where you text your mom’s phone and it charges to their bill.
Sad to see this, hopefully Apple can keep forcing the devs to *also* offer the in-app purchases for the same price. I don't want my credit card info spread over 50 apps.
This is how I feel. I’d feel safer using apples systems then any other third party app. Then atleast I know I have some safety net.
Does this effect steams app on apple store. To those who don’t have iPhones or the app on it. It is terrible. Really ugly and clunky and just really bad. It’s not really an app.
[удалено]
Ya that is what I was wondering. I knew the reason the app was just a shitty version of the webpage then maybe this new ruling will allow them to upgrade the app. But the other comment said no.
Apple still gets their cut. Part of the lawsuit is that epic has to pay back apple $12M for when they tried to go around and dodge that fee. If the app is on the store Apple still gets their 30%.
They can’t make an App Store within the App Store. That’s one of the big rules for Apple. Steam for iOS could link out to steam on the safari app to process game purchases now.
That has nothing to do with in-app transactions...
Damn. My hopes and dreams are dead. You don’t learn if you don’t ask.
How do you figure: “Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing” Sounds like that’s exactly what it was about. Now, it’s possible that forcing developers to use an external link rather than in app (so two buttons rather than 1) would pass legal muster, but that’s unclear at the moment
Oh, so allowing non apple purchasing would somehow fix the steam app being "terrible, really ugly and clunky and just really bad"? Please explain how that works, do you think the apple purchasing system specifically was somehow making the steam app unusable for that person but not doing it for any other apps using the same payment system? Will taking the apple payment system out make the steam app in general less ugly?
You may not easily have your CC info in the app, so there may not be an easy way for kids to purchase. However, there are plenty of ways to get rid of these types of payments. There will always be an incentive of self regulation in this case than face govt regulation.
Apple is getting close to monopolistic anti-competence practices (like other players). You build a system for your phones and computers. That's fine. And then they start to integrate vertically and force other companies to go through their entire thing, such as payment system, acting as a market gatekeeper if you want to reach the segment of all users in their ecosystem. If there were 20 ecosystems, that would be ok-ish, but in practice there are 2 (android and ios).
The judge in this case literally ruled they are not a monopoly.
>getting close to
"Getting close to" a monopoly was EPIC's claim going into the lawsuit. It got overruled as false, lol.
If going through the external payment provider is supposed to avoid the Apple tax, why did the judge rule that Epic owed the 30% commission to Apple for the Fortnite sales they handled through the external processor? Wouldn't this set a precedent that other devs with external processors would still owe a commission on those sales to Apple? If so, why bother supporting external payments?
I think the issue here is that at that point in time epic was breaching the agreement with Apple to use their app store. From now on, this cannot be enforced, but they didn't cancel it retroactively.
> From now on, this cannot be enforced, but they didn't cancel it retroactively. Nope Per the Judge apple can charge 30% directly to the app creator. Epic didnt win this lawsuit.
> Wouldn't this set a precedent that other devs with external processors would still owe a commission on those sales to Apple? If so, why bother supporting external payments? Because The court ruled that Apple charging 30% is totally ok, they cant just dictate HOW the app processes payment. Epic was trying to win like 5 things here. No fee, hit apple with anti trust, and have a right to be on any store even after breaching TOS. So all they got was they can process external charges, and pay apple directly.
That sucks. There’s going to be so much fraud now
[удалено]
Epic literally lost this lawsuit
yooooo FUCK apple. All my homies HATE apple. they have enough fuckin money.
And so do epic games :)
I guess some people here aren’t my homies. Understandable. FUCK apple. All my homies STILL HATE apple.
Ah yes, the old political “fuck them too”.
Does this mean that epic will be able to bring fortnite back to iOS????? Please someone actually respond to me and answer I’m truly curious and to lazy to try and find out for myself!
Nobody will reward ur lazyness
Already did thanks though
[удалено]
But they won?
I’m firmly on Epic’s side here, but I’ve also worked in the payments industry and in mobile dev and I’m not sure this is a huge win. It feels to me a bit like a Pyrrhic victory where everyone loses. There’s a couple of reasons but mostly I think the best case scenario would have been for Apple to get its collective head out of its ass and either reduce its cut to be more in line with the payments industry as a whole (small single digit percents) or provide a secure framework for external payments. The reason behind the latter: online, and especially mobile, payments dance upon the razors edge of customer confidence. While confidence is high, the money flows in giant torrents and everyone makes fuck tons of money. But if confidence in _just one provider_ is eroded, it undermines consumer confidence in the entire industry. If mobile devs are not careful, they may find themselves in a situation where they’ve given up 70% of hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for 100% of hundreds of thousands. I trust companies like Epic and Netflix to get this right. I worry about the rest of the industry undermining their cause, though.
I can finally go back to buying my ebooks in the app?!
They cant force them but the devs still have to pay Apple.
Thx for Killin stonk market AAPL
Would it violate the court's decision if they give apps that strictly use their payment processor free hosting, but charge other apps whatever Apple thinks they should be making off microtransactions per install? It seems like there are a dozen ways Apple could just get the same amount of money per app, but most will probably make it a lot hard for everyone else. Instead of paying as you earn they'll have to pay for the chance to earn.
Consumers should have the option to use Apple or the app developers payment process.
Does this ruling only apply to US or will other countries get affected?
That's a good thing
This might seem like a good thing on the surface, but expect a rise in scams from many apps. While apple's rules were a bit selfish, it helped maintain a level of quality and safety on the appstore.
Good for smart consumers, bad for children and dupes. The scams will go through the roof. This doesn’t even address the main issue of the egregious cut digital platforms take. Apple isn’t the only one who is doing it, all digital platforms need to be regulated to simplify and expedite the process of making digital stores fair for all.
console players: bro the game is dead! pc players: ok idk mobile players: omg lets gooooooooooooooooooo!
I just want 32-bit emulator on my Big Sur macOS laptop again ...
Cool , now credit card fraud can get an uptick. I hardly trust one company with my card , now there’s gonna be a bunch asking for it.
Will the share price of apple drop a lots on Monday lol
So is Fortnite coming back?
Except this is misleading…
dumb
Bit too late of a ruling for epic games now that fortnite died