That’s an interesting point I hadn’t thought of. I suspect there are a number of functions and features that are monetised through the App Store commission that will need to be separately charged for for apps that pay a commission to a different App Store. I suspect the charging structure is going to get a lot more complex (and expensive) to administer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Lets Apple Further Delay Implementing App Store Rule Changes From Ongoing Epic Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Theoretically this is correct, although the EU regulation is quite broad in the features that need to be optional and it also compels the gatekeeper to offer access to some features free of charge. That's why Apple is unlikely to be able to recoup much from a dev which decides to go third-party.
An example of that split though is the recent discussion about the Dutch dating apps, where Apple separated the payment processing fee from the "full package" fee and valued it 3%. The ruling allows devs of dating apps to use a third-party payment processing service and this means they don't have to pay Apple that 3% if they do, but the rest of the fee still stands as it covers benefits the devs still get from Apple.
It’ll be interesting to see with third party app stores what sort of commission developers will have to pay to the App Store and what sort of commission they'll need to pay Apple.
I mean “if” by when and if it is actually enforced. Do you seriously not expect legal challenges once companies have standing? Do you not believe every company impacted will not implement the barest capability that meets the letter? This will be in courts for years.
Apple and other companies reported themselves as "gatekeepers" to the authorities at the beginning of this month as the regulation required them to do.
By September their submission will be verified and once confirmed they will have 6 months to comply with the regulations, so we will see what happens pretty soon.
Well, I want them to bitch slap Panama. They just kicked our ass in soccer and I won't stand for it!@Zkldsasdlkn
I don‘t understand why some here think that paying Apple for developing an app for their platform means that they have to pay Apple. If I want to develop for Windows, Android or iOS, I accrue the skills and program the stuff.
Yes, if I use their outlets then there‘s a fee, but outside of it? Hell no.
Thankfully here in the EU there are rules and the „their store, their rules“ troll argument won‘t stick because if you go by that principle, you can just say that when a customer doesn‘t pay and steals instead, you can shoot them.
Sure you can, but not in a country with civilized laws. Same goes for any other laws.
Thank god we have them or else I would need a gun like in the US.
Yes, if I use their outlets then there‘s a fee, but outside of it? Hell no.
Thankfully here in the EU there are rules and the „their store, their rules“ troll argument won‘t stick because if you go by that principle, you can just say that when a customer doesn‘t pay and steals instead, you can shoot them.
Sure you can, but not in a country with civilized laws. Same goes for any other laws.
Thank god we have them or else I would need a gun like in the US.
False. Package deals are considered anti-competitive when in a monopoly position. There can be many ways to argue for that Apple has a monopolistic lock-in. On all iPhones that customers already fully paid for, for example.
Nope. Courts already decided Apple has not been proven to be a monopoly despite Epic's best effort to "argue for that Apple has a monopolistic lock-in".
Apple not a monopoly but must allow alternate payment methods for apps, judge rules | AppleInsider
As a result of a ruling in the Epic versus Apple legal battle, Apple must allow developers to include alternate purchase links in apps on the App Store — but Apple prevailed in most other counts.
appleinsider.com
In the phone market? In the iOS App market? Monopoly is context dependent.Courts already decided Apple has not been proven to be a monopoly.
Apple not a monopoly but must allow alternate payment methods for apps, judge rules | AppleInsider
As a result of a ruling in the Epic versus Apple legal battle, Apple must allow developers to include alternate purchase links in apps on the App Store — but Apple prevailed in most other counts.
why would it be the phone market? android is a viable alternative so iOS is not a monopoly.
iOS App market? that's like saying McDonald's is a monopoly in the McDonald's burger market. ridiculous question.
Yes. And in 6 months and one day Apple will file suit. Or a few weeks after that the EU will. Either way, this will end up in court.
From the ruling:
The ruling is not too surprising to be honest: US antitrust basically requires a full monopoly whereas e.g. in the EU merely having a "position of strength in the market" would be enough. The judge acknowledges Apple enjoys the latter but not the former and in the US that's not enough.
Last edited:
Yeah this could have implications beyond just the AppStore.
This is about devices to do everything on ranging from emails, surfing, working etc., not about consoles which only serve one purpose which is gaming.
Or else you could just request nonsense for your smart refrigerator.
But why is there a need to carve out exceptions? Either the behaviour should be permitted, or not, regardless of what the device is used for.
It‘s also about capabilities. Try to use your console for browsing. This is hardly doable.
The key point here is that platforms like iOS already are capable of sideloading and allow it, but only when the money flows through Apple, as in Enterprise accounts etc.
Since the capability has been here since the start, the part of allowing or disallowing it is no longer in Apple‘s hands if the user chooses not to follow suit.
A console might only not be suitable for browsing because the manufacturer chooses to make it that way. But what we are arguing is that for any specific use, the device manufacturer can’t decide to not support something by denying it in software, if the device would otherwise be capable.