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.
US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Apple vs. Epic Games Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess the question is why you feel it's "critical". Apple can still charge them a commission whether they link to their website or use IAP. So what does Epic gain besides the ability to track customers through their payment info?
Heck, it Apple decides to still charge their commission, Epic will probably lose money over the IAP system.
It’s like nothing compared to Apple‘s revenue which is 76x the size of Epic. Epic simply cannot win, whether their argument is right or not, and judge says their presented argument is not right.
Either way, Epic should’ve known what will happen when they decide to cut themselves off from iOS App Store however they like, and know we’ll drown out fight would hurt them much more. Huge miscalculation and in the end didn’t make much dent, a substantial loss for Epic and substantial win for Apple, which is just sad.
It’s not ”critical” because we don’t even know what the real world impact will be. You may deal in theoretical, I deal in reality. It remains to be seen if the greedy developers, who want to profit off of Apple’s platform without paying them anything, will actually offer discounts compared to the App Store price.
But more to the point, you’re all about consumer knowledge and choices, right? You just want to empower the consumer with information? So, you’ll be ok with Apple telling the consumer that they will be leaving the App Store and will be at the mercy of individual developers, right?
Tim Sweeney claimed Apple is an absolute monopoly. That has been repudiated in court. Sweeney was going for waaaaay more than anti-steering correction. Every single article you find details how embarrassing this was for Epic, and that’s impressive given how much the press love to dump on Apple. It cannot be overstated how bad Epic looks in this. And in the end, in real world terms, probably almost nothing will change because people know it’s better to trust Apple with their payment information than rogue, greedy creeps like Sweeney’s Epic. It’s glorious.
It's certainly enough to afford top tier legal representation. Your claim that Epic lost because they couldn't afford as good of a lawyer as Apple is silly.
What's sad about it? As a consumer, I prefer IAP to third-party payments and all of their pricing games.
How can Apple collect a commission when a link takes someone to the dev’s own site? Apple won’t even know if a purchase was actually made.
By requiring developers to provide detailed accounting of their sales like the do with Dutch dating apps.
Apple to charge 27% fee for Dutch dating apps using alternative payment options | TechCrunch
Following a court order, developers working on dating apps don’t have to use Apple’s in-app purchase system in the Netherlands. And because those
techcrunch.com
By requiring developers to provide detailed accounting of their sales like the do with Dutch dating apps.
Apple to charge 27% fee for Dutch dating apps using alternative payment options | TechCrunch
Following a court order, developers working on dating apps don’t have to use Apple’s in-app purchase system in the Netherlands. And because those
Seems awfully easy for a dev to fudge those numbers.
This happens all the time in IP licensing. When you license the use of a patent or copyrighted material, how do you know how many units the licensee sells and/or at what prices? If Disney lets a T-Shirt company sell shirts with images of Mickey Mouse on them, how does it know how many shirts were sold? If Apple licenses SEP patents from Qualcomm, how does Qualcomm know how many iPhones were sold?
The licensing contracts typically include accounting requirements. Sure, a licensee can cheat - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot - but that involves risks. And in this case Apple has a particularly effective non-judicial enforcement hammer: Developers still need the App Store to distribute their apps. If Apple discovers that a developer is cheating, it can terminate their developer account for breach of contract.
Fraud is certainly a choice. Not sure of your point here. As pointed out in @Carnegie post, it's a common arrangement.
It’s up to Epic’s Shareholders to bring the pressure. Definitely a big punch in the face for him.
The EU dispute is more “we want what you’ve made.” There’s nothing in this ruling that changes the fact that they want the iPhone to be the default phone tech in the EU.
I'm pretty sure Epic is a private company and Sweeney has a controlling interest.
In a capitalist society that values money only and above all, the Golden Rule applies:
"He who has the gold makes the rules!"
"He who has the gold makes the rules!"
The Apple Tax. Again?
Consumers get nothing out of this. Developers today have the option of using third-party payments. They just cannot have the payment processing within the app. The could not, previously, have presented notice that there were other ways to pay.
Most developers that I have used / seen charge the same price regardless of payment processor. I am sure a few do (or will) charge a buck less to go direct but probably not. For those developers that do offer a discount for direct purchase my guess is that most of their customers will still use Apple's payments for the convenience and perceived value.
The ruling today only means that people will either use App Store and Apple's IAP for all purchases or they will be able to be notified that they can go to the developer's site to set up an account and pay there. And, there is nothing to say that Apple is barred from dictating the language of the steering notice. They can legally limit the language.
We have yet to see if and how Apple will monetize the out-of-app transactions.
The point being that a dev can pretty easily skirt some of Apple's fees.
By committing fraud? That seems more risky that easy.
And more, as recently as 2018 SCOTUS has held that anti-steering provisions do not violate antitrust laws.
The thumbs down people apparently do not grasp that subscription prices are set to account for the hefty cuts Apple and Google take from the service.
I doubt you'll see cheaper pricing outside of the App store but def promotion offers.
I don't believe the prices are cheaper for any of my subscriptions, but I like knowing the developers get all of it.
The ruling explicitly states that third parties can direct their app users to other payment mechanisms, outside the app store, which avoids the app tax. So I can provide a free app, and then direct users to pay for additional app content by telling them to go to my website. This is a big deal, which is why Apple was spending millions to fight it.
To be fair, they don't get all of it. There are still transaction fees and other administrative costs associated with processing the transactions on their own.
Again, the ruling does not prevent Apple from still charging the same fees for purchases through your website.
Sure, developers can cheat or try to cheat. That's a problem that IP licensors have to deal with all the time. But in this case, Apple is in better position to effectively minimize such cheating than the majority of IP licensors are.
The payments for certain digital goods may take place outside the app, and thus outside Apple's view, but the use of those digital goods will typically be taking place inside the app. If, e.g., certain functionality is being turned on as a result of the out-of-app payments, that functionality is being turned on within the app. Or digital goods which are bought outside the app might be consumed within the app.
Apple can no doubt require that certain things which happen within apps be recorded in a way that provides Apple with a reliable accounting of how often they happen. Apple can certainly require developers to inform it what various digital goods are sold for. And Apple can require that developers give it audit rights. Apple has very strong pro-competitive reasons for such measures - i.e., they're needed in order for Apple to ensure it knows and can collect what developers owe it.
This issue - Apple's ability to track and collect what it's owed pursuant to sales which would happen outside apps - is briefly discussed in Judge Rogers' opinion. It's relevant because it's a legitimate business justification for Apple's policies. If the court had concluded that it would be too difficult for Apple to track and collect the commissions it was due then, even though the court found a violation of California's UCL, it likely wouldn't have imposed the remedy it did - an injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies. That's because when imposing equitable relief (such as an injunction like this, rather than monetary damages) a federal court is supposed to apply federal equitable principles even when it is imposing relief based on state laws. Those federal equitable principles include a balancing of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Anyway, yes, there could be some cheating by developers. But Apple is in pretty good position to spot such cheating when it's substantial and it's in really good position to punish it - even without having to go to court first - by way of developer account termination.