[HN Gopher] Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple ...
___________________________________________________________________
Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
Author : freddier
Score : 1044 points
Date : 2021-09-10 15:26 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| noxvilleza wrote:
| If someone has read the full ruling and is familiar enough with
| the case, what are the odds Apple appeals this - and if they do,
| is it likely they will win the appeal?
| gigatexal wrote:
| This has to be an insta-appeal though so much dirty laundry has
| come out in discovery maybe they won't. Then again App Store
| profit margins are so high ... maybe they will take the hit on
| the 30% and double down on App Store advertising instead since
| first party advertising is blessed now?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| 100% chance apple appeals. App store revenue is like 15 billion
| a year and margins have got to be huge.
| gpm wrote:
| (Not a lawyer, or really an expert on anti-trust law)
|
| I fully expect both sides to appeal. To much money is on the
| line to not try.
|
| Even if Apple _knew_ they would lose the appeal, I expect they
| still would, to try and get a stay on this ruling pending the
| outcome of the case.
|
| I've always been very sympathetic to Epic's side of this case,
| still am, personally I don't expect Apple to win appeal [1],
| but I also wouldn't rank the odds of that happening as
| significantly lower that I thought the odds were of them
| winning the initial case.
|
| Epic might be willing to settle without an appeal in exchange
| for the ability to continue developing unreal engine for iOS...
| but given that Apple is not likely to be willing to settle (see
| above) I doubt that will happen. Apple _might_ choose to unban
| epic anyways, since the game engine only being available for
| android hurts them, but I doubt it.
|
| [1] Though if a detail here or there changed in Apples favor
| that would not be surprising.
| microtherion wrote:
| > Epic might be willing to settle without an appeal in
| exchange for the ability to continue developing unreal engine
| for iOS
|
| I wonder which parts of the lawsuit are even amenable to a
| settlement at this point. Sure, the breach of contract claim
| is between Apple and Epic, and Epic could negotiate away
| their right to appeal.
|
| But presumably the injunction just issued is NOT negotiable,
| as this is based on behavior that Apple is alleged to have
| engaged in against _all_ developers?
|
| Would any actual lawyers care to weigh in?
| jcranmer wrote:
| Reading only a snippet of the opinion, 100% chance of appeal.
| At the very least, the court effectively says it has no
| authority as to why it can issue a nationwide (instead of
| statewide) injunction; you'd be a fool to not at least appeal
| that. The fact that the court also came to a different decision
| from both Apple and Epic as to what constitutes the appropriate
| market for determining monopoly also seems like it would be
| fruitful grounds for appeal.
|
| Will Apple win? I don't know 9th Circuit or the applicable law
| anywhere near enough to answer that question.
| paulpan wrote:
| Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this ruling only applies for
| in-app purchases correct? E.g. Apple cannot force apps to default
| to and only use to its payment infrastructure for post-sale and
| within app transactions (which comes with 30% fees).
|
| In other words if my app costs $10 and in-app transactions are $1
| apiece, Apple still gets $3 from initial purchase but instead of
| $.30 from each subsequent in-app transaction, I could potentially
| keep $.97 (assuming 3% credit card fees).
|
| If so I think the long-term impact will be most interesting in
| that will Apple raise its developer fee significantly and/or
| discourage "free" apps to cover its hosting, review, other
| overhead costs. It would also incentive app developers to become
| more like game developers: every feature becomes its own add-
| on/DLC.
| manquer wrote:
| Alternatively in a parallel universe, Apple will transparently
| price their other "services" basis the actual cost incurred
| such as number of reviews they do, number of downloads, OTAs,
| number of IAPs/ recurring subscriptions etc, and developers can
| figure out the best mechanism for their user case.
| nodamage wrote:
| It's worth noting that this ruling was not particularly great for
| Epic as their ultimate goal was to run their own app store under
| the theory that Apple was unfairly monopolizing app distribution
| on iOS devices.
|
| The court fully rejected Epic's argument that Apple held a
| monopoly over the iOS app distribution market, concluding that
| the relevant antitrust market did not consist only of iOS
| devices:
|
| > _" As demonstrated with respect to the relevant market, Apple
| does not have substantial market power equating to monopoly
| power. While considerable, Epic Games has failed to show that
| Apple's market power is durable and sustaining given the current
| state of the relevant market. For that reason, the Court finds
| that Epic Games failed to prove the first element of a Section 2
| claim: the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."_
| (Page 152)
|
| Consequently all of Epic's Sherman Act claims and California
| Cartwright Act claims were rejected by the court because Epic
| failed to prove Apple held monopoly power in the relevant market.
|
| With specific regards to Epic's specific claim that blocking
| alternative app stores was an unreasonable restraint of trade,
| the way the court analyzes these types of claims is as follows:
|
| 1. The plaintiff first has to show that the restraints have an
| anti-competitive effect.
|
| 2. The defendant is then given the opportunity to show a pro-
| competitive justification for the restraint.
|
| 3. The plaintiff then has to show that those pro-competitive
| justifications could have been achieved via less restrictive
| alternatives.
|
| In this case, the court agreed with Epic that the constraint was
| anti-competitive. However, they then accepted Apple's pro-
| competitive justification with regards to security of the
| platform:
|
| > _" Here, the Court finds Apple's security justification to be a
| valid and nonpretextual business reason for restricting app
| distribution. As previously discussed, see supra Facts SS V.A.2.,
| centralized app distribution enables Apple to conduct app review,
| which includes both technical and human components. Human review
| in particular helps protect security by preventing social
| engineering attacks, the main vector of malware distribution.
| Human review also helps protect against fraud, privacy intrusion,
| and objectionable content beyond levels achievable by purely
| technical measures. By providing these protections, Apple
| provides a safe and trusted user experience on iOS, which
| encourages both users and developers to transact freely and is
| mutually beneficial. As a result, Apple's conduct "enhance[s]
| consumer appeal." See Qualcomm, 969 F.3d at 991."_ (Page 145)
|
| They also accepted that the difference in approaches between iOS
| and Android promoted competition between the two platforms:
|
| > _" As a corollary of the security justification, the app
| distribution restrictions promote interbrand competition. The
| Supreme Court has recognized that limiting intrabrand competition
| can promote interbrand competition. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 890. For
| example, restricting price competition among retailers who sell a
| particular product can help the manufacturer of that product
| compete against other manufacturers. Id. at 890-91. It is this
| interbrand competition that "the antitrust laws are designed
| primarily to protect." Id. at 895. Here, centralized app
| distribution and the "walled garden" approach differentiates
| Apple from Google. That distinction ultimately increases consumer
| choice by allowing users who value open distribution to purchase
| Android devices, while those who value security and the
| protection of a "walled garden" to purchase iOS devices. This,
| too, is a legitimate procompetitive justification."_ (Page 146)
|
| Epic tried to argue that a less restrictive alternative was
| possible via enterprise certification or notarization, but this
| argument was rejected by the court:
|
| > _" However, missing from both the enterprise and notarization
| models is human app review which provides most of the protection
| against privacy violations, human fraud, and social engineering.
| These proposed alternatives would require Apple to either add
| human review to the notarization model or leave app review to
| third-party app stores. Apple executives suggested that the first
| option would not scale well. Under the second option, Apple could
| in theory set minimum guidelines for app stores to provide a
| "floor" for privacy, security, and quality. However, security
| could increase or decrease depending on the quality and diligence
| of the store. Evidence shows that at least on Android, the
| experiment shows less security.
|
| ...
|
| > In short, Epic Games has not met its burden to show that its
| proposed alternatives are "virtually as effective" as the current
| distribution model and can be implemented "without significantly
| increased cost."
|
| ...
|
| > Here, Apple's business choice of ensuring security and
| protecting its intellectual property rights through centralized
| app distribution is reasonable, and the Court declines to second-
| guess that judgment on an underdeveloped record.
|
| ...
|
| > Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple's app distribution
| restrictions do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act."_
| (Pages 148-149)
|
| While this decision will no doubt be appealed by both sides, it's
| not looking good for Epic's goal of forcing open alternative app
| stores on the iOS platform.
| danShumway wrote:
| This is somewhat surprising to me. I thought Epic had a
| reasonable chance of getting an eventual win on some points, or
| in getting enough attention that regulators stepped in. I also
| thought Apple had a pretty decent chance of winning.
|
| But I did not think that Epic had a particularly strong chance of
| getting an injunction like this.
|
| I hope that the takeaway people take from this is "it's tricky to
| guess what a judge will do during a contentious case", and not,
| "the judge was always obviously going to issue this injunction."
| I still personally think knowing what I know now, if I went back
| to the start of this case I still wouldn't be able to confidently
| predict this injunction.
|
| But maybe other people are better at reading court signals than I
| am.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Something that I like to do, when discussing these issues with
| people, is get the other person to commit to a position, ahead
| of time, and go back to those comments later to see who was
| right.
|
| I had multiple discussions, with many commenters on hacker
| news, where people were way too certain about the court case,
| when clearly it could have gone many different ways (Thus, I
| agree with you that "it's tricky to guess what a judge will do
| during a contentious case" ).
| dannyw wrote:
| The judge literally hinted at this exact outcome during the
| hearings, back in May:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-
| appl....
|
| It's not a surprising outcome whatsoever if you followed the
| trial.
|
| Apple's recent concession on this was reading the room and
| realising this is the likely outcome.
| danShumway wrote:
| I did follow the trial, and actually probably commented on
| that exact compromise hint at the time (although I'd need to
| look over my comment history to know for sure).
|
| I didn't read a "compromise" as indicating that an injunction
| was particularly likely, and most of the commentary I read on
| HN at that time didn't read it that way either.
|
| I think people are looking back with the benefit of hindsight
| at something that was not by any means a generally assumed
| outcome, even from people who were covering and talking about
| the trial on HN itself or on other social media sites I
| followed.
|
| A _hint_ that the judge is curious about finding middle
| grounds in a lawsuit is definitely not a promise of a
| permanent injunction.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| Is Apple surprised?
|
| It seems to me that the current model for tech companies is..
|
| . Do something clearly sketchy to build your market. It might be
| copyright violations, it might be lock-in.
|
| . Grow/profit until someone cares.
|
| . Hold off the court cases for as long possible
|
| . When they finally go against you, it's probably too late since
| the new thing has come along.
|
| . Wash rinse repeat.
| lacker wrote:
| Great news for mobile developers (and for Stripe). Everyone doing
| in-app purchases has a huge incentive to quickly find some drop-
| in replacement that charges 3% instead of 30%.
|
| I would be surprised if Apple ends up keeping the fee at 30%. If
| this injunction holds up, I think they will drop it within the
| year.
| skizm wrote:
| I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain
| directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app
| may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by
| the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own
| discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to
| this non-Apple payment method."
| cblconfederate wrote:
| who says they won't review the payment processors? they
| obviously won't allow apps that they consider scams
| Razengan wrote:
| That seems to be the best way to reduce the number of users
| pestering Apple for refunds for shitty apps.
| frumper wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised to see a pop up warning when leaving
| the app to the browser that gives a warning like this on all
| external links.
| anilr wrote:
| If an app has been blocked from the app store because it doesn't
| have In-App purchases (it has its own credit card form), do we
| know how this judgement affects things?
|
| It sounds like the app would be allowed to link to an external
| payment system, but it's not clear if a non-Apple in app payment
| system would be allowed.
|
| It's also not clear to me if In-App purchases (through Apple)
| could be required for approval into the store? I assume Apple
| would still have the power to require use of their payment
| system.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| It still costs Apple money to run the App Store.
|
| Since many developers will now be able to opt out of payments
| through Apple and Apple will lose that revenue, I foresee Apple
| changing the terms of service for developers so they can get
| revenue by some other means not affected by this ruling.
|
| Would Apple charge developers based on the number of downloads /
| installs of the developers' apps?
|
| What other ways might Apple make up for the lost revenue?
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Will Epic's developer account be reinstated?
| cletus wrote:
| I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've
| ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves
| because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a
| legislature was ultimately going to do it for them.
|
| And you're almost always better off making that change yourself.
|
| Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines.
| Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO)
| can see a lot of benefit from Apple's 30% cut. It's those large
| publishers who are most likely to challenge your rules in court
| or lobby against you.
|
| If the very largest publishers were paying 10% as a Preferred
| Partner instead of 30%, they would be a lot less willing to
| challenge the status quo when they might lose that privilege.
|
| We've already have ridiculous workarounds for Apple's policies
| here like how you can bypass it to buy directly from Amazon
| through the app for physical goods. The carve out for digital
| goods is and was always a tortured post facto justification.
|
| Where once the 30% cut funded the App Store (when it was small).
| It's clearly transitioned to being a massive profit center and
| Apple executives couldn't see past the short term revenue to see
| the writing on the wall. Woops.
| tyingq wrote:
| They sort of tried, under duress, but too little, too late:
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a...
| majani wrote:
| When you consider the Pareto nature of app store earnings,
| Apple's best move was to wait and be forced to make the change.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| I agree. It also allows the judge to slap them without
| agreeing with the other side. Epic didn't get anything they
| really wanted. This change will not make much difference. No
| change to single app store model. As far as I can tell, Apple
| will have to allow communication in the app about payment
| through other means. That's it. I think it is likely that
| Apple will require apps to offer Apple payment as an option
| alongside the new communication about an external payment
| system. That is just a guess on my part, but it wouldn't be
| surprising.
|
| If I guessed right, Apple's income probably won't go down
| much. I would rather use Apple payment system. Lots of other
| people will also. It is simple and allows me one-stop
| management of subscriptions and purchases. Some folks won't
| of course, but it is the easiest choice.
| woko wrote:
| > I would rather use Apple payment system.
|
| The price would be higher if you used Apple payment system.
| That is how companies would get consumers to be enticed to
| use other payment systems.
|
| That is what Epic did with their V-bucks: either use Apple
| system at the usual cost, or use Epic payment system at a
| permanently decreased cost (20% cheaper in August 2020).
| dwaite wrote:
| But once the regulatory option is looming overhead, don't you
| risk having your changes conflict with what the ultimate
| regulatory judgement would be?
| lostcolony wrote:
| Sure; you also "risk" the regulating authority deciding it's
| no longer an issue. Best case, you get to frame the solution;
| worst case you get the same outcome, the regulator deciding,
| BUT with you having demonstrated willingness to address the
| issue.
|
| The only reason to defend yourself is if you legitimately
| think what you're doing is defensible.
| [deleted]
| threatofrain wrote:
| That Apple collects high fees ought to be considered separately
| from whether Apple mandates at least the use of Apple Pay. As a
| user, I love Sign in with Apple + Apple Pay. It allows my family
| members to give over very little information over to app
| companies.
|
| This is a level of consumer privacy that's not found anywhere
| else.
| gigel82 wrote:
| This would be very good news if it sticks!
|
| But since Apple is known to refuse store submissions for opaque
| reasons, what would stop them from retaliating against apps that
| provide links to external payment processors with vague unrelated
| reasons? I would not put that past them.
|
| Also, I hope the anti-monopoly part gets picked up at the federal
| level; no one can deny Apple & Google are de-facto duopoly.
| belltaco wrote:
| It's possible but it will be hard to get away. If there's an
| official policy to do it, there might be whistleblowers or
| people might notice patterns. If that happens, courts tend to
| take a very dim view of what they see as intentional
| retaliation or creative workarounds to not follow the court
| orders. The court might first tell Tim Cook to appear in court
| to answer what exactly happened and who decided to do it.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Apple Pay is a separate system than the normal IAP system, but I
| expect there are going to be tons of apps with tiny web views
| hosting nothing but the web Apple Pay button. This would cut down
| on some of the friction of having the user re-enter their credit
| card info for every app while still cutting out Apple's 30% cut.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > "The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a
| monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws," she
| writes in the ruling. "Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple
| is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California's
| competition laws."
|
| It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be
| legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts
| a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or
| another whether Apple is a monopoly.
| echelon wrote:
| It's a new game, and we need new definitions.
|
| Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're
| every bit, if not more, dangerous.
|
| They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter
| new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents.
| It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies
| enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole.
|
| Their objective: capturing attention and keeping their users on
| their platforms longer. They use their platform bubbles to
| capture a large group of users that will never leave their
| services. Like Apple users. They're all in a bubble, and if you
| want access, you have to pay a steep tax and jump to the beat
| of the their whims.
|
| And this isn't a new kind of monopoly? It's a monopolization in
| a new sense: they wrap their shroud over individuals and
| companies and keep them attached at the hip. Switching costs
| become incredible.
|
| Apple, Google, and Amazon are turning us into serfs. They have
| a quasi republic going on that they tax and control. You can't
| start new businesses. You can't escape. If they target your
| small market, you're screwed.
|
| The DOJ needs to break these companies up into twenty or so
| smaller ones that don't form a cobweb of entrapment.
|
| Apple/Google/etc fans and shareholders will disagree, but these
| companies are hurting our industry and soaking up all the
| innovation.
|
| [1] FAAMG companies with supremely anticompetitive behavior
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I don't think we need a new word for this. What you've
| described is a cartel [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel].
| To the extent that they restrain trade, prohibit competition,
| or artificially increase costs on consumers, cartels are
| already illegal in the US.
| echelon wrote:
| Is "cartel" fitting? These companies aren't always
| associated. (Though recent leaks do seem to indicate
| behind-doors conversations are taking place.)
|
| Some of the prevailing themes:
|
| - These companies are after _attention_ across any vertical
| a person may touch
|
| - These companies build platforms that scope creep into
| other platforms and verticals. They connect and entrench
| them.
|
| - They make it impossible to access consumers without them,
| and then they tax the entry points
|
| - They make switching costs high
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What you're describing looks more like the supermarket
| shelves. Some 80% of products in the cereal aisle are
| owned by three companies. Nobody really cares, but the
| switching costs to get a cereal outside that controlled
| space turn out to be pretty high (just try it with a
| family with kids).
|
| If you want to make your own cereal, good luck; the
| supermarkets trust the Big Three and are pretty
| uninterested in flighting something new; shelf space is
| finite and people don't trust off-brand cereals.
|
| The cereals care more about attention than price-
| competition. They know it's all the same crap; they want
| you to care more about whether there's a bear or a frog
| on the box.
|
| And the same companies that make the cereals make several
| other verticals too, all carved similarly.
|
| This configuration has not, generally, been considered
| illegal in terms of market regulation in the US. The
| standard is harm to consumers, not harm to non-incumbent
| manufacturers. Your battle to show _why_ either of these
| spaces should be regulated more stringently is uphill
| against the default in the US to take a hands-off
| approach to market activity unless necessary to cure an
| obvious ill (and the ills here are non-obvious; how do we
| show the cereal market, or the software-services market,
| don 't look the way they do because the incumbent players
| have hit on a locally-optimal approach to give value to
| customers, while customers are satisfied? Amazon, for
| example, are bastards, but they're bastards that have
| managed to unlock such efficient distribution and value-
| satisfaction for their customers that they rendered an
| entire ecosystem of competitors as obsolete as the buggy-
| whip manufacturer).
| echelon wrote:
| I think you have that analogy backwards. Google, Apple,
| and Amazon are the supermarkets. But they're also filling
| the shelves with their own products. It might not be too
| different from Walmart, save for a few points:
|
| - They make it hard for consumers to shop at other
| stores. Or repair their devices (bad analogy).
|
| - They're doing all kinds of things a supermarket would
| never do. Like turning into music and movie studios.
|
| - The really sad thing is that before the giants sprang
| into existence, you could distribute your software and
| services without the need for a supermarket. Famgopolies
| created an artificial warehousing system and forced us
| all into it.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| - They make it hard for consumers to shop at other
| stores.
|
| As a user of Apple, Google, and Amazon tech for decades,
| I simply disagree on the other two. You'll have to
| clarify in what way Google and Amazon make it hard to
| shop at other stores. Google, in particular, enables
| side-loading on every Android device. Of the three you've
| named, Apple is the biggest offender, and it appears they
| _have_ touched the hot stove, unless this Court 's ruling
| becomes reversed. But they touched it in a way that
| Google and Amazon do not, unless I'm missing something.
|
| I don't think a world where F-droid continues to exist is
| one where we can claim Google, in particular, is a
| supermarket that makes it hard to shop at other stores.
|
| - They're doing all kinds of things a supermarket would
| never do
|
| That's not by itself illegal, or discouraged.
| Traditionally, companies have considered such expansion a
| bad idea because they expose themselves to outsized risk
| in a market downturn. But there are examples of other
| companies doing that. Sony is a hardware manufacturer and
| a movie producer. Disney owns theme parks and movie
| production. Proctor & Gamble make some 90% of what goes
| in, on, or around the American body and home that you can
| buy off a store shelf (including many apparently-
| competing products). ViacomCBS owns theme parks,
| television studios, book publishing, heavy-industry
| machinery, and nuclear technology.
|
| - The really sad thing is that before the giants sprang
| into existence, you could distribute your software and
| services without the need for a supermarket
|
| I remember, and what I remember is, I think, one of the
| reasons American law tends to take a relatively hands-off
| approach in this space.
|
| The user experience from the era you're describing, to be
| blunt, sucked. Mobile devices, when apps could be loaded
| on them at all, where hard-to-manage, the apps were
| buggy, and they were hard to find. Lack of standards,
| lack of oversight, no trust that any given app wasn't a
| security mess (or just a Trojan) without something like
| brand recognition to rely upon. It wasn't just Apple and
| Google who changed that; we saw Steam come along and
| regularize the games-on-PCs space, we saw package
| management get more robust in the Linux ecosystem...
| People weren't _forced_ into software catalog ecosystems,
| they _ran_ to them and brain-drained alternatives because
| most of the alternatives were actively painful.
|
| The government wants to avoid stepping on the neck of a
| better customer experience inadvertently via over-
| regulation.
|
| And perhaps most importantly: you can still do that. You
| can still write an Android app and put it on F-droid, or
| self-sign it and give users instructions for enabling
| side-loading. But you won't see the adoption you will in
| using the big app stores, because the big app stores are
| a _way_ better experience for most users. Outside of
| those app stores, discovery, reputation-tracking,
| consumer communication, anti-Trojan safeguards, etc. are
| '90s era.
| Nevermark wrote:
| > >The really sad thing is that before the giants sprang
| into existence, you could distribute your software and
| services without the need for a supermarket
|
| > I remember, and what I remember is, I think, one of the
| reasons American law tends to take a relatively hands-off
| approach in this space.
|
| It is a false dilemma that you either have vetted apps
| with Apple, or unvetted apps.
|
| You could still have other app stores reviewing apps.
| That would increase competition but still let users
| choose safety over a Wild West.
|
| And brands who have gone to great efforts to obtain user
| trust can sell directly.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| How does this differ from traditional brick and mortar
| retail? The retailers posed a barrier to selling to consumers
| at scale and wholesale prices, I think, were closer to 50% of
| retail markup.
|
| Sure, manufactures could find small retailers and build a
| following from there, or find ways to market direct to
| consumers. But it seems like that is still true, if not even
| easier in the modern age. So what is different. I ask this
| not rhetorically, clearly there are differences. Is the scale
| the difference? Was it always wrong and we just didn't see it
| a clearly? Is the smaller number retailer the major factor?
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| No brick and mortar store has anywhere close to Apple's
| dominance on mobile apps and the retail industry is not a
| defacto duopoly. Apple and Google control 95% of the global
| app market. Apple alone was 65% last year.
|
| For reference, Walmart and Amazon have about 14% and 10%
| market share respectively. Numbers differ from report to
| report, but the scale of difference is pretty clear.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > It's a new game, and we need new definitions. [..]
| Famgopolies (FAAMG companies with supremely anticompetitive
| behavior) behave different than monopolies.
|
| There are many authors that have been exploring the economic
| aspect of platforms. As such nowadays that phenomenon is know
| as "platform capitalism" in literature due to Nick Srnicek's
| 2016 Polity book of the same name. [1]
|
| [1]: https://theceme.org/richard-godden-platform-capitalism-
| nick-...
| hospadar wrote:
| I'm sure it won't put a stop to it, I love to read discussions
| about "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and
| are they a big enough player that it's a problem". That seems
| to be a much more useful discussion (i.e. it gets at "do they
| need to be reigned in by We The People") than "are they a
| monopoly" which is just bickering over what words mean (with
| some shades of "if they _were_ a monopoly, then We The People
| should do something about it).
|
| At the end of the day, who cares if they are a monopoly or not
| - you don't have to be a monopoly to be in a position to do Bad
| Stuff to The Market.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| We should care if they are a monopoly, because if they're a
| monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist.
|
| Even if they aren't a monopoly, they shouldn't be allowed to
| engage in anti-competitive behavior.
| blackoil wrote:
| > if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be
| allowed to exist.
|
| Market driven de-facto monopoly are allowed. If you own
| >90% search engine marketshare it is fine as you have
| earned it. If you abuse the marketshare to enter shopping,
| travel market it is monopoly-*abuse* and it should be
| blocked/fined.
| smolder wrote:
| Abuse would include if you were charging ridiculous
| amounts of money for your monopoly service, like Ma Bell
| did, right? What about deterring competition with
| portfolios full of braindead patents? Buying legislation
| that puts high barriers around the market? I think the
| separation between government and big business is a
| farce, today, and in combination they're way more
| oppressive than high priced telephone service was way
| back when.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are
| they a big enough player that it's a problem"
|
| Seems like that just makes "it's a problem" do all the work.
| smarx007 wrote:
| Well, if we are taking quotes out of a serious 185-page
| document, we are bound to lose some context. How about this
| counter-quote:
|
| "The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic
| Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
| monopolist."
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN
| arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.
|
| Unlikely. While there may now be a legal decision in place it
| will still be argued whether or not it was the correct one.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
|
| The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If
| we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?
| dannyw wrote:
| There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in
| California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of
| monopoly status.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| Yes, those laws in California are not uniform among
| states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal
| Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case
| is more likely to reversed.
|
| Since other states do not have the same laws of
| California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal
| Law, not California law, on appeal.
|
| Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will
| fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California
| law only applies to transactions in California.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Ok? That doesnt explain what the phrase :
|
| > (the judgement) then leaves a bigger argument for
| reversal on appeal.
|
| is supposed to mean by "bigger argument".
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| no, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this
| kodah wrote:
| From my perspective folks are arguing two things:
|
| The current definition of a monopoly.
|
| Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change.
|
| If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere
| because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The
| current definition of a monopoly _needs to change_ , imo, then
| we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly.
|
| I'm also interested in discussing conglomerates and whether
| they are _good_ or _bad_ , and how to control them similar to
| monopolies, but that discourse can't be had until we can agree
| on something like the definition of a monopoly.
| philip1209 wrote:
| The issue is more that they are conglomerates - they control
| the device, the discovery mechanism, the payment mechanism,
| and the identity mechanism. In each of those areas, they may
| or may not be a monopoly - but together their broad control
| creates an anti-competitive environment.
|
| I wrote more about that here: https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-
| up-tech-conglomerates/
| tshaddox wrote:
| The problem is that the proposed new definition of "monopoly"
| generally goes something like "any company who has a product
| that I like and does anything at all with that product that I
| don't like." Like, regardless of what the iPhone's market
| share is, if I like to use my iPhone, but I don't like one
| aspect of the iPhone, that means that Apple is acting like a
| monopoly because they're not completely honoring my personal
| preferences and the only option I have is to switch to
| another smartphone which I don't want to do.
| oblio wrote:
| In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of
| monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more
| into anti-competitive practice discourse.
|
| Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too.
| They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and
| then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch
| direct competitors (<<super>> shady).
|
| That's the root of the problem in many cases.
|
| Of course, this needs to be coupled with stronger anti-cartel
| enforcement. Because tech is rarely a pure monopoly, but
| extremely often is ends up under the control of a cartel.
| sulam wrote:
| Honestly the shadiest practitioner here is Amazon. Google
| and Facebook are possibly second and third. I think Apple
| is a pretty distant one, maybe behind folks like Netflix.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Most of the apps that Apple sells are already in highly
| competitive markets like music, video streaming, cloud
| storage, etc.
|
| I really don't feel bad if some developer selling a leveler
| app for 99C/ goes out of business because Apple pre-
| installs a free leveling app on the iPhone.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Yeah man, fuck that guy and the kids he's trying to feed.
| Tim Apple needs another boat, baby!
| lostmsu wrote:
| If Apple only pre-installed a free leveling app on
| iPhones. What happened to time tracking is they also
| banned existing tools and APIs they used.
| rofrol wrote:
| You mean this https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-
| puts-third-party-scr... ?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Exactly. Plus a relatively small percentage of HN (or
| anywhere) knows the current legal tests of a monopoly.
|
| But everyone always becomes substantially less interested in
| topics once it becomes hashing out legal language. Which is
| why we pay lawyers well.
| np_tedious wrote:
| Some good faith changes to the definition of monopoly could
| certainly be valuable.
|
| However, I fear most efforts would start with "Companies X,
| Y, and Z need to be categorized as monopolies. Let's write
| rules to fit"
| kodah wrote:
| Agreed. Lina Khan is one of my favorite voices on this
| matter for that reason.
|
| Edit:
|
| Stating my opinion without why isn't very HN-ly of me, eh?
|
| She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where
| they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them
| justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a
| chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of).
|
| If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://
| www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...
|
| In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-
| trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we convinced
| ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled a lot of
| innovation, which led to some reforms later and the anti-
| trust we have today which are demonstrably too permissive.
| She has picked on Amazon (as a wider corporation) quite a
| bit, but a lot of it has to do with the practices of their
| ecommerce division and the extent to which Amazon can
| compete with it's vendors. Basically, she believes there's
| a middleground to be found between the two anti-trust time
| periods and that it's important to be concise in how we do
| that. You can see some of her specific criticisms in the
| article above.
|
| A more full bibliography can be found here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan
|
| I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce"
| as that's the one that resonated with me, having worked in
| the startup world.
| torstenvl wrote:
| I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to
| ask for the information I think would make your comment
| more helpful.
|
| Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order
| to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does
| she say it? Why does that appeal to you?
| kodah wrote:
| She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where
| they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do
| them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now
| a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of).
|
| If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https:
| //www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...
|
| In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of
| anti-trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we
| convinced ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled
| a lot of innovation, which led to some reforms later and
| the anti-trust we have today which are demonstrably too
| permissive. She has picked on Amazon (as a wider
| corporation) quite a bit, but a lot of it has to do with
| the practices of their ecommerce division and the extent
| to which Amazon can compete with it's vendors. Basically,
| she believes there's a middleground to be found between
| the two anti-trust time periods and that it's important
| to be concise in how we do that. You can see some of her
| specific criticisms in the article above.
|
| A more full bibliography can be found here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan
|
| I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and
| Commerce" as that's the one that resonated with me,
| having worked in the startup world.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| I highly recommend people read the law review article,
| it's extremely non-lawyer friendly.
| StevePerkins wrote:
| To be fair, when Hacker News publishes "____ Has Died"
| posts and makes the title bar black, 99% of the time I
| have absolutely zero idea who "____" was. So I don't
| think it's _terribly_ over-burdensome to expect the
| curious to highlight a name, right-click, and select
| "Search".
|
| In this case, the opening of the person's Wikipedia page
| probably sums it up right away:
|
| > _In the article, Khan argued that the current American
| antitrust law framework, which focuses on keeping
| consumer prices down, cannot account for the
| anticompetitive effects of platform-based business models
| such as that of Amazon. She proposed alternative
| approaches for doing so, including "restoring traditional
| antitrust and competition policy principles or applying
| common carrier obligations and duties."_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan
| simonh wrote:
| How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or
| to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a
| definition text, how would you like it to change and to what
| objective?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and
| move towards "excessively large market entity."
|
| The problems now have more to do with market capitalization
| / revenue than they do with physical control.
|
| Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad
| tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores
| aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all
| the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then
| leverage those into extracting higher than free market
| rents.
|
| Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for
| monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should
| instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by
| their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places
| where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque
| advantage.
|
| Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting
| acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to
| buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp
| should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and
| stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank
| deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to
| poison the well and capture market share).
| adam_arthur wrote:
| I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org
| itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create.
|
| When a platform or market is created by an entity, and
| that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow
| free competition within that market.
|
| Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line
| Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes
| the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of
| interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear
| the scale and extent to which this platform impacts
| people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically
| would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual
| world and compete to drive prices towards a free market
| equilibrium.
|
| Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition
| outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the
| walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that
| these companies have large control over our lives.
|
| Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important
| thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and
| enforce that competition be allowed.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It's a good point. To quantify it, I guess you'd look at
| total user count and percent of all users on the
| platform?
|
| Most of the ills we're trying to avoid don't seem to
| easily slip around, if there's a law that says "If you
| control more than 25% of a market of more than 1M
| users..."
|
| I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't be
| allowed to create an iEcosystem.
|
| But what we all want is a future where Apple's ownership
| of the iEcosystem can't be used in such a way, and
| generate enough profit, that no one can ever overturn
| Apple's position.
| Retric wrote:
| > 99%
|
| Your describing a monopoly. IMO the real question is what
| actually harms consumers.
|
| Requiring companies to open their platforms is one option
| for regulation, but perhaps not ideal. Great for tech
| companies sure, but possibly a huge opportunity for
| scammers. Consumers and companies are often at odds,
| banning app coins for example is great for gamers and the
| opposite of an open platform.
|
| A flat regulation that all software platforms are limited
| to X% fees might be a better option.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| You're right that the analogy was not quite right.
|
| Here's a better one. Facebook creates a virtual world
| where 50% of the population choose. Apple creates a
| different virtual world which the other 50% choose.
|
| If you simply look at the boundary/entrance you can say
| there's freedom of choice. But whether you choose apple
| or Facebook, there's 0 competition once you're inside
| that world.
|
| Further, once you've established a home and connections
| within one world, switching to the other becomes quite
| expensive.
|
| Competition at the gates, monopoly within.
|
| I might add that this is very similar to the concept of
| company scrip whereby the local coal mine had a monopoly
| over local jobs and gouged workers for basic necessities.
| Absolutely you could have moved a town over, but the cost
| to do so was deemed too high in many cases.
|
| When cost of switching is high, monopolistic power can be
| enforced upon customers. It's a similar situation with a
| lot of SaaS who have pricing power to strong arm their
| customers into high margins due to the cost of switching
| to alternative technologies. In a truly competitive
| market, SaaS margins should be close to 0. Obviously
| that's not the case today.
|
| Regulation will catch up to all of these tricks, just a
| question of the timeline. Capitalism only works well when
| there's an environment of competition, and leveraging
| high costs of switching or large gated systems to enable
| profit margins well beyond what a competitive market
| would bear is antithetical to this concept.
|
| That's why antitrust law is so important, and needs to
| evolve to handle modern business structures.
| asdff wrote:
| What probably harms consumers the most is that companies
| with large purses have an outsized influence on policy
| and typically write their own regulations that serve to
| generate additional profit and make it difficult for new
| entrants to the market to emerge. You don't need to have
| a monopoly for that, just a good old fasioned colluding
| industry and a politician who cares more about their
| individual wealth than the collective good of their
| electorate that they represent.
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| I just want take the time to compliment this question. I
| find it difficult to articulate exactly what you've done
| here, but I wish I saw it more often.
| DannyBee wrote:
| You are _very_ confused. Courts don 't make calls as to whether
| companies are monopolist in general. The judge doesn't even try
| to do that (though someone is trying to make it seem like they
| have).
|
| They make a call about whether a company has monopoly power in
| a specific market defined in a specific case.
|
| In this case, the court does not believe Apple is a monopolist
| in a specifically defined digital gaming market.
|
| That has no bearing or relevance on whether they are a
| monopolist in some other defined market (or even on a different
| day in the same market!)
| ecf wrote:
| > It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be
| legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour
|
| Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive
| for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in
| creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they
| alone created?
|
| If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense
| they abide by the rules enforced by the company that allows the
| whole ecosystem to exist. If they don't like it, they can go
| and create their own phone hardware and app ecosystem.
|
| Maybe I'm just naive.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Apple goes beyond not facilitating other businesses; they
| actively ban other app stores (because the only legit way to
| get an app store on an iPhone is to install it from their app
| store).
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-
| competitive for not dedicating resources to _assisting_
| another business
|
| (emphasis mine)
|
| Nobody said anything about Apple assisting other businesses.
| They could easily just let everything be, but instead, Apple
| is _going out of their way_ to prevent competition.
|
| Imagine if your favorite Linux distro only allowed you to
| install software from their package repos, and you had to
| jump through tons of hoops to install software from outside
| their repos, and adding other repos was impossible.
|
| I know you'd say "I'd just switch distros!", but in the
| mobile world, you effectively only have two choices.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Because it's vertical integration and refusal to deal. To me,
| it's very similar to the Hollywood anti-trust case, when
| movie studios used to own movie theaters. By your reasoning,
| those theaters should have just made their own movies?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-
| trust_Case_of_1...
| colechristensen wrote:
| Apple is in several markets in the same time and using its
| position in one to control the competition in another.
|
| There are limits to what you can do in a vertically
| integrated business stack, especially when you invite third
| parties to participate in pieces of that stack.
|
| As a consumer, I can't have a phone for every software vendor
| I want to purchase from, that's obviously ridiculous. If
| Apple wants to create a marketplace, it has to allow certain
| things to happen in that marketplace. If the App Store was an
| entirely separate business not tied to hardware, the
| restrictions would be significantly less.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Because end-users own their phones, and Apple restricting the
| ways software can be loaded onto the phone is robbing those
| users of their rights. The same applies to game consoles and
| other similarly locked-down devices.
|
| If I buy a table, I can choose to stain it a different color,
| or put a tablecloth over it, or cut the legs off, or burn it
| for firewood. I have the right to use it however I want for
| whatever purpose I want, because I own it. For some insane
| reason bootlickers are willing to throw such rights out the
| window the moment you try to apply them to computer hardware
| and software.
| qwytw wrote:
| Well the table manufacturer is not obliged to make it
| possible or easy for you to use the table as a chair, a bed
| or an airplane. I'm not really a fan of Apple but it's not
| that they are hiding the fact that you can only install
| software on the iPhone via the app store. It's the way they
| choose to design their product and it's an inherent feature
| of it (and part of their business model). Should all
| companies which build devices which include general purpose
| computers internally be legally obliged to make it possible
| (and easy) for users to install arbitrary software on them?
| boolemancer wrote:
| Because those rules are anti-competitive.
|
| I don't think anyone is saying that they need to provide
| support for third-party payment processors themselves, but
| their rules can't restrict someone else from supporting them.
|
| I don't know why that would be controversial.
|
| Imagine a world where Google required a 30% cut of everything
| bought through Chrome. How is what Apple's doing any
| different from that?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > . If they don't like it, they can go and create their own
| phone hardware and app ecosystem.
|
| What do you even think a monopoly or anti-competetive
| behavior is?
|
| During the standard oil trials, would you support the
| argument of "If people don't like it, they can go build their
| own railroad!"?
|
| Do you simply not believe in any forms of monopoly law?
| Because your argument could be used in literally any monopoly
| trial, if you actually believe it.
| simion314 wrote:
| >If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense
| they abide by the rules enforced by the company that allows
| the whole ecosystem
|
| What about the sucker that bought the phone? why the company
| that created the device should decide what the owner can do?
|
| Isn't ironic Apple prevents someone showing you a link to the
| product webpage and the explanation is that you are too
| stupid to be let opening a webpage from the app = will they
| remove the web-browser ?
| oblio wrote:
| Well, it is kind of a naive perspective. You can't expect
| every competitor to reinvent the universe in order to be able
| to compete.
| ProAm wrote:
| Who's phone is it?
| Andrex wrote:
| All it says to me is federal antitrust guidelines are outdated
| and California's are not.
|
| We need strong federal antitrust enforcement. This only worked
| because Apple is based in California, which has stricter rules.
| bialpio wrote:
| > I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN
| arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.
|
| Why would it? The court basically dodged the question, so we
| still don't have an answer provided by the court system. Until
| that happens, we can discuss it to death if we want!
|
| Edit: excerpt from the ruling is: "Given the trial record, the
| Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist
| under either federal or state antitrust laws. (...) The Court
| does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games
| failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
| monopolist."
| madeofpalk wrote:
| What does an answer actually look like?
| bialpio wrote:
| I'd expect one of the 2 phrasings to be present:
|
| "the Court concludes that Apple is a monopolist under
| federal / state antitrust laws"
|
| "the Court concludes that Apple is not a monopolist under
| neither federal nor state antitrust laws"
|
| Instead, the court went with the third, which to me means
| "we have not ruled on whether Apple is a monopolist or not,
| lawsuits welcome". Is that not the right way to look at it?
| dannyw wrote:
| The court said Epic failed to prove it in the relevant
| market to this case (digital mobile gaming).
|
| Leaves the door open for Spotify to sue.
| radley wrote:
| The injunction clearly states Apple is anti-competitive, but
| not a monopoly.
| bialpio wrote:
| Hmm. I'm reading "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that
| Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state
| antitrust laws" as "we cannot decide on this matter". Is
| this not the right interpretation?
| borski wrote:
| That is not the right interpretation. They didn't say
| they cannot conclude one way or the other - they said
| they cannot conclude that Apple is a monopolist, period -
| meaning that they have concluded Apple is not a
| monopolist (under current state and federal laws).
|
| They did not say "we cannot ultimately conclude _whether_
| Apple is a monopolist" which would be your
| interpretation.
|
| [edit] Given the downvotes (really?) I suppose I should
| add the nuance that all of this is based on this specific
| case and evidence presented; the case did not conclude
| that Apple can never be a monopoly (in another case, with
| other evidence) but that in this case, it isn't.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Why twist the words straight from the ruling ? If they
| "concluded Apple is not a monopolist" they would have
| said so. They deliberately choose a different turn of
| phrase for these words, let's respect the nuance they
| cared to put there.
| gpm wrote:
| They literally did, at the bottom of page 1 of the ruling
|
| > Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately
| conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal
| or state antitrust laws. [snip explanation] The Court
| does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games
| failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
| monopolist.
| bialpio wrote:
| Thanks, I haven't skimmed that far!
| nescioquid wrote:
| The judge found that Apple is not a monopoly _in the
| market for payment processors for mobile games_, not that
| Apple is categorically not a monopoly.
|
| > "The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming
| transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own
| internal operating systems related to the App Store,"
| Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.
|
| > Under that market definition, "the court cannot
| ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under
| either federal or state antitrust laws," she continued.
|
| My main point of surprise is that anti-trust was even
| relevant in a lawsuit between two private parties. I
| thought this would only be relevant if the state were
| trying an anti-trust case.
| canjobear wrote:
| "We cannot conclude that X" does not imply "We conclude
| that not-X".
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Bialpio has a reasonable interpretation for court-speak.
| The fuller relevant quote is this:
|
| "Having defined the relevant market as digital global
| gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple's
| conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court
| cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist
| under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the
| Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share
| of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins,
| these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct.
| Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not
| include evidence of other critical factors, such as
| barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or
| decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court
| does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games
| failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
| monopolist."
|
| Borski's interpretation is right under the "innocent
| until proven guilty" burden-of-proof in criminal cases.
| Bialpo's interpretation is correct in that this Court has
| not made, as a finding of fact, that Apple is _not_ a
| monopoly, only that the evidence brought by Epic to
| _this_ trial does not prove Apple is a monopoly (i.e.
| another case on this topic may be brought if more
| compelling evidence is available).
| cush wrote:
| Dodging the question would be a non-ruling. The judge issued
| an injunction. It's in the title of the post.
| gpm wrote:
| The judge issued a injunction based on another law that
| didn't require Apple be a monopoly, found that the record
| did not prove that Apple was a monopoly (and thus against
| Epic on that theory), but took the time to clarify that
| Apple might be a monopoly, it just wasn't proved.
| bialpio wrote:
| I seem to recall reporting around some Supreme Court ruling
| that was phrased as "there is a ruling but the question is
| still undecided". It may have been Google v. Oracle, where
| it didn't say APIs are copyrightable or not, but Google's
| use fell under fair use irrespective of that. So just the
| existence of a ruling doesn't mean there is an answer to
| the question that was asked.
| mbell wrote:
| That quote is a bit of a cherry pick resulting a wide
| interpretation that isn't supported.
|
| The actual ruling is something more like "Epic failed to prove
| that Apple is a monopoly in the market the judge decided is the
| relevant market: digital mobile gaming transactions".
|
| Here are the relevant sections of the ruling:
|
| > The Court disagrees with both parties' definition of the
| relevant market.
|
| > Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court
| finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming
| transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal
| operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming
| market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this
| market explains Epic Games' motive in bringing this action.
| Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile
| gaming market was Epic Games' next target and it views Apple as
| an impediment.
|
| > Further, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store
| revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps. Thus,
| defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate.
| Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for
| approximately 70% of all App Store revenues. This 70% of
| revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store
| consumers. These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-
| app purchases which is the focus of Epic Games' claims. By
| contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually
| no revenue, as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free.
|
| > Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming
| transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple's conduct in that
| market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately
| conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or
| state antitrust laws. the trial record, the Court cannot
| ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either
| federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that
| Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and
| extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not
| show antitrustconduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial
| record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such
| as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or
| decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does
| not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in
| its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. Case
| Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games
| failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
| monopolist.
|
| > Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in
| anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws.
| The Court concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions hide
| critical information from consumers and illegally stifle
| consumer choice. When coupled with Apple's incipient antitrust
| violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive
| and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is
| warranted.
| dannyw wrote:
| Sounds like if Spotify sued, they'd have a better chance.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN
| arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.
|
| Are those threads arguing about a legal definition, because if
| not then this would have little impact on them. Even if they
| are arguing form a legal perspective, it would have to be
| within the same legal system as this court and thus could be
| argued for other legal systems. And even then one can argue the
| judge is wrong, look at how many judges end up being wrong
| based on appeal results. Technically you can't be sure which
| judge is actually wrong, you know which one is in the court
| that overrules the other, but you can still point out that the
| disagreement means one of them is wrong even if you can't say
| definitely which one is.
| dataflow wrote:
| Wow, how did this ruling come so quickly when court cases are so
| slow to play out normally?
|
| Is this something that can get appealed?
| jcranmer wrote:
| It took over a year for this ruling to come out. Also, this was
| a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, which also makes it
| faster.
|
| Of course, what really makes court cases take very long is when
| they get appealed to hell and back -- see Google v Oracle for
| an example of such a case.
|
| (And this is a final order, so it can get appealed).
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Online court systems are here to stay. They're much more
| efficient than traditional in-person court, both in terms of
| overall time spent and in manpower.
|
| There are still a lot of kinks to work out, such as how to
| handle court decorum & technological disparities such as low
| availability of high speed internet and good quality camera
| systems/lighting/privacy.
|
| Personally I think the federal government should contract for
| an app other than Zoom because if I had to go to trial I
| wouldn't feel very comfortable knowing it was all being hosted
| by a private company, but that's a minor gripe.
| jffry wrote:
| The lawsuit was filed in August of last year, and arguments in
| court spanned most of May (and were conducted in-person, not
| virtually), and then the judge issued her decision today.
| That's not exactly lightning quick.
|
| The rate at which court cases proceed really depends a lot on
| the complexity of the case, the length of the discovery phase,
| etc. Both Apple and Epic didn't want to have a jury trial, so
| there also wasn't the matter of empaneling a jury.
| gok wrote:
| Seems like this essentially kills the game console business. If
| 3rd party Xbox and Playstation games are allowed to sell content
| with their own payment system, why would anyone buy games through
| Microsoft/Sony?
| junipertea wrote:
| Convenience, existing game libraries, the pain of setting up
| another payment system using 12 buttons, price..
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Great article in The Verge about what the meaning of a "button"
| is:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667161/app-store-epic-r...
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I'm going to put this comment on every Apple vs Epic thread from
| now on, regardless of how many internet points I lose.
|
| Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and
| develop their own.
|
| If Valve can make the Steam Deck, Epic can make a Fortnite Phone.
|
| Epic could then choose to make the phone as open or locked down
| as they like. They could have their own app store policies, and
| they could allow any payment platforms they like.
|
| It could be an Android fork, or they could have a look at what is
| going on in the Linux phone community.
|
| Would it be a success in the market place? I just think that
| depends on Epics choices it makes along the way. But I do know
| that millions of kids would rather have a cool gaming phone
| rather than an old fashioned iPhone.
| kaishiro wrote:
| Surely they could do both?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try
| and develop their own.
|
| So instead of 2 silos, you now have 3. How does that improve
| anything?
|
| The whole point is to move away from this idea that developers
| are apple's "ecosystem", like cows in a cow farm. They are not
| cattle, but independent people with the right to compete in a
| fair market, much like how apple is competing in a fair market,
| which is provided by general market state regulations.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| We might find that Epic chooses an open platform like Valve
| chose with the Steam Deck.
|
| But developer are free to just not develop apps for Apple. Or
| just run their app as a web page like I do.
| mbreese wrote:
| IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to
| allow alternative in-app purchasing.
|
| _> ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from
| prohibiting 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 ..._
|
| To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able to link
| out to an external purchasing mechanism. So, for example a link
| to the Epic Store web page must be allowed, but a different in-
| app purchasing mechanism could still be limited. Which, I think
| that was the main complaint for many other developers -- you
| couldn't accept payments outside of the App Store (like on your
| website).
|
| So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but
| that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves.
| This seems to be a pretty common-sense written injunction,
| meaning that developers are allowed to communicate with users and
| accept payment outside of the Apple garden. This seems pretty
| straightforward and would cover many (most?) of the developer
| complaints for dealing with their customers.
|
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i...
| cptskippy wrote:
| This is how I read it: permanently restrained
| and enjoined from 1) prohibiting developers from
| a) including in their apps and their metadata:
| i) buttons, ii) external links, or
| iii) other calls to action that direct
| customers to purchasing mechanisms, b) in
| addition to In-App Purchasing and c)
| communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
| voluntarily from customers through account registration within
| the app.
| mbreese wrote:
| But that's not how the clauses are written grammatically,
| which is why I'm unsure. There are two clauses: one about
| purchases and the second about communication.
|
| The second clause is easiest to deal with. It is:
|
| _communicating with customers through points of contact
| obtained voluntarily from customers through account
| registration within the app_
|
| This means that the developer can communicate with the user
| -- using information the user gave them, not information that
| Apple has to give them. I think we can agree on that one.
|
| The first clause is tougher, and I think there are multiple
| ways to read it (at least for a non-lawyer... lawyers might
| read this only one way).
|
| _prohibiting 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_
|
| The way that I read it is: developers can include links,
| buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing
| mechanisms, in addition to the existing Apple In-App
| purchasing.
|
| The other way to read that is (which is how I assume you read
| it): developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a
| user to external purchasing mechanisms, as well as allowing
| non-Apple mechanisms for purchasing inside the app.
|
| Without knowing how the judge has defined In-App purchasing,
| I'm not sure you can tell which is the right interpretation.
| The capitalization of it is curious to me, but maybe that's
| just how they referred to all purchases that happen inside an
| App, or maybe that's how the Apple App Store managed
| purchases were referred to.
|
| I'm sure there will be some kind of better legal analysis
| appearing soon enough (I hope).
| sangnoir wrote:
| > So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms,
| but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps
| themselves
|
| How do you foresee Apple disallowing that in the apps without
| violating the injunction? The injunction gives apps free-reign
| on UI elements that direct customers to non-Apple payment
| systems.
| mbreese wrote:
| The way I read it (which might be wrong) was that the
| developers could put links to external websites in the app,
| but not necessarily require that the transaction be allowed
| to occur in the app itself.
|
| In the case of Fortnite, Epic could include a link to their
| online store where you could buy V-Bucks that would be linked
| to your Fortnite account. This link would open in Safari, but
| could also be done on any other computer.
|
| Under the old rules, Epic couldn't do this. Nor could Netflix
| send you a link to their webpage, or Kindle a link to the
| Amazon web site to buy a book.
|
| Maybe it's the legalese, but the phase "direct customers to
| purchasing mechanisms" makes me think that the judge is
| referring to these external methods.
|
| But as I mentioned on a sibling comment, I'm really unsure as
| to what is meant by "In-App purchasing". Is this Apple's
| mechanism, or any mechanism? It isn't clear to me, without
| more context. There may be a couple of interpretations.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This is a big deal.
|
| I wonder how Apple will respond to dealing with the bandwidth
| costs of free apps with large bandwidth requirements.
|
| Hopefully they just get rid of free apps, and require customers
| to pay upfront so that they don't have to deal with as many
| advertisements.
| mhermher wrote:
| They're just gonna increase developer license fees.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Epic licensing fee $100,000,000?
| granzymes wrote:
| Epic's statement (via Tim Sweeney): Today's ruling isn't a win
| for developers or for consumers. Epic is fighting for fair
| competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a
| billion consumers. Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when
| and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with
| Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers.
|
| Apple's statement: Today the Court has affirmed what we've known
| all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As
| the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces
| rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business,
| and we believe customers and developers choose us because or
| products and services are the best in the world. We remain
| committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted
| marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more
| than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where the rules apply equally to
| everyone.
| sombremesa wrote:
| What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if
| any?
|
| In addition to whatever penalties are available in law for the
| act outside of the ruling, they would also face additional
| consequences for contempt of court. And its generally easier to
| prove a violation of the order than a violation of the law
| justifying the order.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling. And they don't need 30% fees
| for maintaining IOS ecosystem - when you buy an apple phone for
| $1000, you pay Apple enough for it to maintain its AppStore.
|
| Also they earn money from AppStore advertising (which apps out
| of the millions should the small screen show); so maintaining
| AppStore should not be a problem.
|
| I don't know about the bad-actors part though.
| sombremesa wrote:
| > they cannot ignore a ruling
|
| Why not?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Why not?
|
| That's a bizarre question.
|
| They'd be in contempt of the court.
|
| https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-contempt-of-court
|
| The judge could sent Tim Cook or any number of Apple execs
| to prison.
| indymike wrote:
| Fines now. Jail later.
| sombremesa wrote:
| Thanks. This actually comes closes to answering the
| question I was asking in the first place.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Why can't you ignore your tax bill?
| babelfish wrote:
| Because that's not how the law works. Sure, they can
| technically ignore the ruling, but they're opening
| themselves up to a whole host of lawsuits, and any judge in
| those lawsuits would not look favorably on Apple.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Uh, the state has a monopoly on violence? Apple doesn't
| have a private army to protect their executives from going
| to prison, so......
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling.
|
| They can, but it has a high probability of additional adverse
| consequences.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| By your argument, we CAN commit murder, but it has a very
| high probability of additional adverse consequences (such
| as life in prison)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > By your argument, we CAN commit murder, but it has a
| very high probability of additional adverse consequences
|
| Which...is obviously true. I mean, it would be nice if
| people could not commit murder, but they can _and do_.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| This doesn't apply in this case because Apple is not
| stupid. They are not gonna ignore a court ruling because
| it will land their execs in jail.
|
| Rather than that, they will use legal means such as
| appealing the ruling. They are a 2T$ company, and they
| will try their best to use their money to change this
| decision in their favor.
| Macha wrote:
| The law is not software.
|
| "Apple must allow the use of third party payment processors"
| does not mean "Apple cannot enforce any other rules against
| apps using third party payment processors". If they decide to
| go on a harassment campaign of petty violations against third
| party payment using apps or put undue requirements on them,
| those parties can complain to the courts and likely succeed. If
| the third party payment provider is stealing credit cards or
| obviously malicious behavior in some other area, Apple would
| likely prevail when pointing to that as the reason they banned
| them.
| nokcha wrote:
| From https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-
| apple-i... :
|
| >If any part of this Order is violated by any party named
| herein or any other person, plaintiff may, by motion with
| notice to the attorneys for defendant, apply for sanctions or
| other relief that may be appropriate.
|
| The penalty for contempt of court is often incarceration. Note
| that the order enjoins not just Apple the corporation but also
| Apple's officers. It would be highly unusual for the CEO of a
| major corporation to openly and defiantly flout a court order,
| but if it happens, he can expect to be arrested for contempt.
| jjordan wrote:
| Hopefully this will eventually lead to a day where users once
| again have full control over their devices. Android is a bit
| better, even if alternate app stores don't have the same system
| privileges as Google Play, but Apple devices are wholly
| authoritarian in what you can run on a device you supposedly own.
| gchokov wrote:
| Google Devices are anything but owned by customers. You don't
| have anything yours there, not even your data, location..
| anything. Wake up.
| ssaturn wrote:
| Freedom is not a boolean, it is a scale and google offers
| more than apple at the moment. Ironically the pixel devices
| are one of the few where bootloaders are unlocked in the US
| and you can flash a customer google free rom. Assuming there
| is no hardware based surveillance this is as close to free as
| we can get at the moment.
| marricks wrote:
| It's a case of choosing how you lose. Android certainly is more
| open and free in terms of what you can do with it, but you
| become Google's product and they will mine all meaningful data
| from your interactions.
|
| What would be swell is an open device you fully control which
| doesn't spy on you. Turns out that cuts off most of the ways to
| make big bucks.
| arsome wrote:
| You can basically have this today - you might have to give up
| a few niceties, but if you don't rely on anything too fancy,
| Lineage + F-Droid, with optional MicroG will generally do the
| trick for most apps.
|
| Gotta be a bit of tinkerer to set that one up though, not
| something for grandma.
| zuhayeer wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/93990
|
| Wonder no more lad, you can use Stripe as IAP soon
| Rels wrote:
| I don't understand the logic behind this ruling.
|
| So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their
| payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30%
| now), and they have to change that.
|
| But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this
| rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made
| after their update in which they used direct payment?
|
| But if Epic didn't try to go around the rule and loudly complain,
| there would be no judicial case, and no ruling forcing Apple to
| change?
|
| This is weird to me.
| kkcorps wrote:
| Taking one for the team.
| [deleted]
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Epic only has to pay out ~$4 million for their "damages" so
| it's largely moot and ceremonial for them. Nevertheless, I
| agree with you that it seems contradictory.
| modeless wrote:
| I guess the judge's logic is that Epic could have sued without
| breaching the contract first, even if the contract was actually
| illegal. I don't agree that it should work that way, but the
| damages are immaterial. The bigger issue is: can/will Apple
| permanently terminate Epic's developer account for breach of
| contract and prevent them from releasing Fortnite despite this
| ruling, and possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? It
| seems to me that they can.
| Macha wrote:
| > possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac?
|
| I think this is unlikely. Mac gamers need Unreal more than
| games developed using Unreal need Mac users. Mac is an
| incredibly niche market for games - they're not going to
| rewrite their game using a different engine to run on Mac,
| and Apple knows that.
|
| Of course, Apple could decide they don't give a shit about
| native Mac games, why don't you play our iOS games, but that
| just seems petty.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Apple is an incredibly spiteful company. They will happily
| cut off Unreal Engine to spite Epic even if it fucks over
| their users and developers. They did exactly the same to
| Nvidia and to Khronos group, and they will do it to Epic
| too.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| > Apple could decide they don't give a shit about native
| Mac games
|
| I think it's possible to make persuasive argument that this
| already took place around the time that they killed OpenGL
| support and/or refused to allow Vulkan support. Requiring a
| proprietary API that only works on a _tiny_ subset of
| gaming devices* seems like they 've already made their
| position on this topic very clear.
|
| * I'm excluding mobile devices here since mobile games were
| called out as a different market in the parent comment.
| modeless wrote:
| Apple already terminated Epic's Mac developer account for
| Unreal, and refused to reinstate it until the judge forced
| them to with a restraining order earlier in the trial. So
| they've demonstrated willingness to retaliate in this way.
| And now that the trial is over I think they are not bound
| by the restraining order anymore.
| kemayo wrote:
| The ruling explains the logic near the last page of the
| decision -- it's basically "Epic didn't _have_ to break their
| contract in order to sue ". I think it's the judge slapping
| Epic on the wrist for grandstanding, even though they
| basically-won.
| NohatCoder wrote:
| It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can
| write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still
| enforce it.
|
| The logical ruling would be to force Apple to pay reparations
| to all the app developers that they have illegally forced to
| pay for the app store.
| legohead wrote:
| I wonder if there is a "secret reason" of not ruling in favor
| of Epic closes the door on a ton of other lawsuits popping up.
| dundarious wrote:
| They seem to have ruled only that you can't prohibit links to
| alternative payment methods (which would not be IAPs). You can
| still prohibit alternative actually IAPs, so Epic's alternative
| IAPs must pay the fee.
|
| Edit: Note that this a descriptive statement regarding the
| ruling, not a normative statement of my opinion.
| modeless wrote:
| I am unclear about this actually. I think the actual
| injunction will be a separate document released soon. But
| here's the judge's description in the ruling:
|
| > a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from
| prohibiting developers to include in their Apps and their
| metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action
| that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition
| to IAP
|
| Obviously this would seem to _imply_ that developers are
| allowed to _accept_ payment from alternative systems to
| unlock digital content in apps. But it doesn 't _explicitly_
| say that. All it explicitly says is that developers can
| _link_ to alternative payment systems. I hope the actual
| injunction is more explicit.
| dundarious wrote:
| I doubt they're saying you can link to methods of payment
| but can't provide goods or services in return for that
| payment, even in app.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I think the question is "can I have an in-app flow for
| purchases outside of IAP, or do i need to redirect people
| to my safari site to purchase?"
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Note that Epic also has to pay 30% damages.
|
| > n the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for
| breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount
| equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games
| collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic
| Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of
| any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020
| through the date of judgment, and interest according to law.
| [deleted]
| schappim wrote:
| This news is a huge opportunity for Stripe, who can quite easily
| deploy a nice cross platform payments solution.
| plandis wrote:
| As a consumer I trust how Apple payments work and like the fact
| that everyone was using it on iOS. Now I will need to cut back on
| apps and do more due diligence to avoid scams and other issues.
|
| Hard to see how this is a win for consumers in addition to
| developers.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple will stop finding ways to squeeze indie developers and
| spend more time making iphone great again
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| You can still use Apple payments.
| plandis wrote:
| What do you mean? If purchases are directed to a developers
| own payment system I don't have a choice, I cannot force that
| developer to use Apples payment system can I?
| fabianhjr wrote:
| You have the same choice developers had: their way or the
| highway.
|
| Though, developers would be likely to:
|
| - choose established and trusted payment processors (like
| PayPal or Stripe) rather than rolling their own solution or
| a small unknown payment processor, and
|
| - offer many processors and let the user choose
| cynix wrote:
| The ruling is that Apple cannot forbid linking to other
| payment methods _in addition to_ IAP, not _instead of_.
| Apple can still require that IAP must be one of the
| options.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I don't see anything to suggest apple cannot force apps to
| offer apple pay as an option. Only that they cannot force
| apps to make apple pay the only option.
| [deleted]
| jsmith45 wrote:
| Nothing in this injunction prevents Apple from requiring that
| if apps offer purchase options they must also offer IAP as an
| option.
|
| I'm certain that even if the injunction were to go into force,
| Apple would continue to require that.
|
| Apple could probably even mandate that the other purchase
| options not be cheaper than IAP pricing by more than apple's
| 30%, preventing developers from putting absurd prices on the
| IAP option, and only put real prices on their alternative
| methods. from the wording of the injunction itself is not even
| actually clear that apple cannot mandate the IAP and non IAP
| prices must be the same (the dicta might provide more clarity
| on if that would be permissible).
|
| Then it becomes up to you if whatever discount is offered for
| non IAP purchases is worth the extra risks, or if you would
| rather use IAP.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| That sounds like it would be going too far and almost show
| contempt. But perhaps they can reject apps that use scammy
| payments
| hrbf wrote:
| On the one hand this great for consumer choice, on the other, it
| will undoubtedly lead to a loss in purchasing confidence of
| regular users and a flood of scams or scam-like apps. Especially
| with regard to subscriptions, we've seen this play out via SMS-
| based ringtone subscriptions of days past.
|
| Personally, I will never subscribe to anything on my iOS devices
| if I cannot view and cancel it via the built-in subscription
| management. Here's to hoping that Apple is going to make
| integration with it mandatory.
| echelon wrote:
| We don't need a corporate nanny state. Society has thrived
| without Apple putting its mittens on everything and everybody.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple is probably going to make a list of "allowed" payment
| partners. This decision doesn't seem to disallow them to have a
| say in that.
| latexr wrote:
| > it will undoubtedly lead to (...) a flood of scams or scam-
| like apps.
|
| Scams are alive and well on the App Store, they don't need this
| ruling to thrive:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
| hrbf wrote:
| Way to cherry-pick and dismiss. I would argue the possible
| long-term loss in purchasing confidence by the customers who
| were burned by a bad experience weighs a lot heavier overall.
|
| Regarding scams, keep in mind that the ones I mentioned will
| come in addition to the existing ones, not displacing them,
| making an already non-ideal situation potentially way worse.
| To stem this, the app approval process could get even slower
| than it currently is.
|
| A better solution would have been to somehow force Apple to
| lower its fee structure. This however is incompatible with
| certain economic liberties we take for granted and would set
| a worrying precedent, so the current outcome is probably the
| only pragmatic one.
| fotta wrote:
| > permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers
| from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external
| links, or other calls to action that direct customers to
| purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii)
| communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
| voluntarily from customers through account registration within
| the app.
|
| This sounds like the same agreement Apple came to a few weeks ago
| [0]. They can't bar developers from linking to external payment
| methods, but doesn't require them to allow other forms of in app
| payment.
|
| [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-
| developers-a...
| baldajan wrote:
| "purchasing mechanisms" is what's interesting... it's not just
| information.
| fotta wrote:
| But it doesn't force them to allow other purchasing
| mechanisms, just that they cannot bar "calls to action that
| direct customers to purchasing mechanisms". My read on that
| is that Apple is still allowed to force Apple-only IAP, but
| they cannot bar CTAs to external purchasing mechanisms.
| knubie wrote:
| From the text of the injunction:
|
| > [Apple] are hereby permanently restrained [..] from
| prohibiting developers from including in their apps [..]
| buttons [,..] that direct customers to purchasing
| mechanisms [..]
|
| I'm not sure how exactly to interpret that but it seems
| reasonable to interpret that has being able to put a button
| in your app that takes someone to a checkout page.
| shkkmo wrote:
| It explicitly prohibits Apple from prohibiting any form of In-
| App purchasing, not merely links to external payments methods.
| fotta wrote:
| I disagree here. My read on it is that Apple is prohibited
| from prohibiting "calls to action that direct customers to
| purchasing mechanisms", not "purchasing mechanisms"
| themselves. So Apple can still say App Store IAP is the only
| allowed form of IAP, but they have to allow CTAs to other
| mechanisms.
| dannyw wrote:
| Apple's concession didn't apply to games; only "reader apps".
|
| Apple's concession also limited to one link, whereas this
| refers to links in the plural, and also metadata (eg app store
| descriptions).
| fotta wrote:
| Ah I didn't know of those stipulations in the original
| concession.
| knubie wrote:
| You're thinking of a different concession they made a few
| years ago. This one is specifically about developers reaching
| out to their customers _outside_ of the app, for example via
| email (which they may have obtained from the app).
| testfrequency wrote:
| I believe people are over conflating the "friction" involved with
| using an outside payment system (such as Stripe or PayPal). Apple
| ID's already allow you to attach your PayPal account as primary
| funding...this is just giving developers that direct choice now.
|
| PayPal, you confirm checkout total, login to paypal, confirm
| subscription or price. Done.
|
| Stripe, you can use their standard checkout page, autofill your
| card info, or just use Apple Pay to confirm the
| subscription/item, pay. Done.
|
| What's changed is just giving developers that flexibility.
| Ultimately saving them money, they can hire more devs, and make
| their products hopefully cheaper (and better).
|
| Most consumers will still have no idea that their checkout is not
| happening with Apple, and it's happening elsewhere (aside from
| PayPal Checkout being obvious with their checkout/login flow).
|
| Apple could absolutely adapt their native subscriptions SDK to
| support the status of a third-party app, though I doubt they ever
| would. They tried to do this with streaming services (HBO,
| Netflix, etc.), but they shut this down recently
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Apps based around "physical goods" (read: food ordering) have
| been able to do this for ages, and if the trend I see there
| expands into "normal" apps, about 50% will support Apple Pay,
| 25% will support PayPal without AP, 10% will support card
| scanning, and the rest will make you manually enter your card
| number, billing address, name, email, firstborn child, etc.
|
| So no, I don't think the flow will remain nearly as seamless as
| it is today, and that's disappointing to me. I don't pay for
| much IAP-wise (though I do order plenty of DoorDash), but I
| guess this will give me even less motivation to buy crap I
| don't need.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| As an Apple user I feel like I have lost the most here. Sad day
| for users, great day for dodgy cunts like Epic.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| From Epic CEO Tim Sweeney from NYT article[1]:
|
| Tim Sweeney, Epic's chief executive, said on Twitter that he was
| not satisfied with the ruling because it did not go far enough in
| allowing companies to complete in-app transactions with their own
| payment systems, versus having to direct customers to outside
| websites. He said Fortnite would not return to the App Store
| until such rules were in place.
|
| "Today's ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers," he
| said. "We will fight on."
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/technology/epic-apple-
| app...
| shrimpx wrote:
| Apple's reaction to Sweeney's statement: "See ya!!!"
| pier25 wrote:
| Wait... what?
|
| So apps will be able to redirect you to a website but users
| won't be able to make the payment in the app itself?
| archon810 wrote:
| That's right and it's exactly what he's unhappy with.
| slinkyblack wrote:
| Epic has decided to appeal https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-
| games-to-appeal-decision...
| yurishimo wrote:
| I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the
| potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to
| immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my
| life harder compared to Apple Pay.
|
| I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will
| develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible.
| Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does
| not sound appealing to me, despite the win for consumers and
| developers.
|
| I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's unfortunate we have
| to make a tradeoff at all.
|
| Hopefully, this move will put downward pressure on Apple's
| payment infrastructure that incentivizes devs to keep using Apple
| payments because it's the same fee structure as whatever 3rd
| party they might move towards.
| superkuh wrote:
| When Apple announced it was introducing intentional security
| vulnerabilities to their Apple Pay platforms last month that
| was the signal that they were done trying to be a bank. I
| wonder if that decision was made knowing the likely outcome and
| downstream results of this case.
| aeontech wrote:
| Wait, what intentional security vulnerabilities?
| superkuh wrote:
| The backdoor.
| mrtksn wrote:
| As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50
| frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and
| every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for
| export compliance and taxes.
|
| When you sell something through Apple, depending on the
| location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a
| Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo
| developer. Sold an in-game coins in France? Apple collected the
| money, paid the VAT to the French government. If you do this
| through your own means, you will need to establish a
| relationship with the French government so that you can pay
| them the VAT that you have to collect from your users.
|
| This will ultimately benefit large companies who can jump
| through the hops of managing all this, putting the independent
| developers in a disadvantaged position due to the high barrier
| of entry into improved margin(compared to Apple Store where
| everyone gets the same cut) payments. In some places you can be
| required to send a printed receipt to the user.
|
| It would not be fun to watch, let's say Zynga, collecting their
| low cost payments across all their portfolio by making users
| sign up once and having indie games instantly losing a payment
| or falling back to high commission options because users are
| tired of entering payment info for each game.
|
| Sad day for the little guy. Do you see independent Devs
| cheering for the %2-%3 commission or is it Epic, Netflix,
| Spotify who will benefit from this? Unless you do low margin
| commission work (like platform where you take a cut, i.e.
| online tutoring) the %30 commission is a non issue.
|
| Game crystals don't really have a cost, so %5 cut or %30 cut
| doesn't really matter that much. However, one company having
| access to the %5 and other not having access to it will change
| the landscape because the large company will be able to
| advertise more thanks to its better margins, wiping out the
| rest.
| donmcronald wrote:
| I'd be stunned if everyone starts using niche payment
| providers. I think it's more likely the larger providers will
| step up. It'll be more along the lines of:
| Pay With --- Apple IAP ($1.43) - Stripe IAP ($1.06) - Paypal
| IAP ($1.06)
|
| That's also why Epic is disappointed. If Apple were forced to
| allow competing app stores, Epic is in a perfect position.
| They have app store tech with payments, commissions, etc.
| built in. If Apple's only forced to allow competing payment
| providers to become more prevalent, everyone thinks of
| Stripe, Paypal, etc. first. Epic probably has their own
| payment processing fees to cover, so they'll never be able to
| compete on price and that's where things are heading IMO.
| bink wrote:
| Is there anything in the ruling that prevents Apple from
| requiring all prices be the same or preventing companies
| from providing extra "value" if their payment processor is
| utilized?
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think it would be more like Apple IAP($1.43), Your Local
| payment($1.43), Paypal($1.43).
|
| They will add something like a bonus if you choose the
| alternative ones. I'm baffled why people expect that the
| margin will go to the user. Do you think that Epic sued
| Apple because altruism? To help users save money? They are
| are after the margins.
|
| Because of the "Your Local payment" option, binary sizes
| will grow(Uber has this problem, they need to ship the
| framework of numerous payment providers on every market) or
| you will start maintaining different binaries for each
| country.
|
| Also, each payment provider will come with its own rules.
| One will say "this is too close to gambling, no unless put
| this text next to the price to clarify" the other will be
| like "is this related to crypto, you can't do that", the
| next one will be "I think you must provide 3 months refund
| guarantee. Also, coins allowed boxes not allowed".
|
| Then you will have to do the legal work for each country
| separately or work with publishers who do that for you for
| a hefty cut.
|
| The business side of things is a full time job. That's why
| when you publish a book or release a song you tend to get
| tiny amount of the price payed.
|
| I am afraid, this fragmentation has the potential to turn
| the App&Game business into Books&Music business where you
| don't make money unless you are superstar.
| woko wrote:
| For the record, when Epic did their stunt on August 13,
| 2020, the margin went to the user.
|
| > Today, we're also introducing a new way to pay on iOS
| and Android: Epic direct payment.
|
| > When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save
| up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings
| to you.
|
| https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/news/the-fortnite-
| mega-dr...
| mrtksn wrote:
| They must be non-profit and doing it as charity. Totally
| not as a PR stunt for the upcoming Apple vs Epic thingy.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Their costs are lower, so they offer it at a lower price
| to encourage more people to buy it. While still having a
| higher profit per unit!
|
| That's normal business behavior. Why would it have to be
| "charity" or some kind of fake "PR stunt"?
| mrtksn wrote:
| Right, companies have fixed profit rate and they lower
| the price when the costs go down. Got it, thanks. Great
| business tip!
| Why_O_My wrote:
| You make It sound like apple's service will disappear over
| night. If you're fine with them taking 30% then that's your
| choice. And if your app does become big enough to reap the
| benefits of implementing mutiple payment providers then thats
| even better.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues,
| large companies can remove friction by having their
| portfolio of users with credit cards collected. Small devs
| cannot do that because the user will need to enter payment
| details each time. The best chance would be to use
| something like Paypal, which is again a huge friction since
| the user will need to switch apps or enter login
| information.
|
| As a result, unless you are a huge publisher you don't
| actually have a realistic chance to sell over alternate
| low-cost methods. This is not because you can't put the
| code there but because it will make the user experience so
| bad that a fraction of your users will proceed.
|
| It's not about being technically possible but it's about
| being feasible. It doesn't matter that you can technically
| do it if not enough people want to play along and deal with
| it.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues
|
| Then don't add the friction! Just continue to use Apple's
| payment system.
|
| Nobody is forcing app developers to use different payment
| processors.
|
| > but because it will make the user experience so bad
| that a fraction of your users will proceed.
|
| Then don't use it! Just use Apple.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is that smaller
| developers will not have access to the same frictionless
| services anymore. 180 million people have an account with
| Epic, who knows how many of them have already provided
| the CC.
|
| If you are an indie, you don't have access to the 180
| million people, which creates uneven competition.
|
| When the only payment in town is Apple IAP, you and Epic
| have the same margin. Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin
| with at about the same level of friction. If you need to
| match Epic's margin, you need to introduce friction.
|
| Are there App devs on this site anymore? It feels like
| arguing with people who have no idea.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > will not have access to the same frictionless services
| anymore.
|
| Yes they will... They will have access to same exact
| Apple In App Purchases feature that they had before.
|
| > Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin
|
| Ok, so then it is _not_ about you having access to the
| exact same thing that you had before.
|
| Instead, it is that other developers, have more money,
| and don't have to pay an Apple fee.
|
| Thats pretty different.
|
| You are not complaining about losing something. Instead,
| you are complaining that other developers, have to pay a
| lower fee than they had before. But you still have
| exactly the same thing as you had before.
|
| Generally speaking, lowering costs are not something to
| complain about.
|
| Lower costs are good.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Duh. You are going to find me complaining about large
| corporations not paying taxes as much as me due to their
| access to creative accounting too.
|
| It's simply not good for the smaller developers. How more
| clear I can be? Tough luck, go be a large corp then you
| say?
| tveita wrote:
| > As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating
| 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each
| and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries
| for export compliance and taxes.
|
| It sounds like you should be using some kind of service that
| does that for you, maybe even provided by Apple?
|
| > Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3
| commission
|
| Independent devs seemed pretty happy overall with the 15%
| concession they already got as a result of the legal scrutiny
| on Apple. No doubt they'll enjoy further improvements to the
| terms once there is an actual threat of switching.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The point is not that smaller devs like to pay more, the
| point is that smaller devs would like to compete on even
| playing field.
|
| The lower the commission, the better. That should be
| obvious, but it is not better if it comes at cost that is
| potentially much higher than the reduction of commission.
| cma wrote:
| If there is competition allowed, maybe Apple lowers price and
| then you don't have much change in convenience.
| lifty wrote:
| I think the judge didn't specify how equal access needs to be
| given to alternatives means of payments. It's very
| straightforward to design a payments SDK where card data gets
| stored on the phone and payment providers are forced to use
| that SDK so that all of them would absolutely the same
| experience as Apple pay. You can even force them to provide
| subscription cancellation like Apple does. But Apple wants you
| to believe that's not possible, so probably they won't do it.
| kkcorps wrote:
| I think it will ultimately boil down to 2-3 major payment
| gateways such as Stripe after initial chaotic 'every app trying
| to be force their own payment processor' phase
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| Another possibility is Apple drops its take to reflect the
| value its payment service provides (including the benefit to
| users you mention).
| coldcode wrote:
| As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment
| gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably
| trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I
| supposed to trust 50 different gateways?
|
| Also if people move away from giving Apple any money for the
| App Store, I expect the annual fee to increase to make up for
| it, and might Apple make you pay more if you don't use Apple's
| gateway? I don't see the ruling as forcing Apple to lose money.
|
| If I were Apple, I would have gone nuclear early on, and
| eliminated all % fees but made the annual fee per app of $X to
| each developer (whatever $ makes sense) and then you can
| collect money however you want. This would likely kill a lot of
| small app developers, but the big ones would not care. The
| ruling makes Epic a big winner, but everyone else loses in the
| long run, because Apple (and Google) will find a way to recover
| lost revenue.
|
| Some people also want to have 1000 app stores allowed. Good
| luck with that one... imagine having to build an app store just
| for your app, or supporting 25 different app stores.
| BackBlast wrote:
| Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple
| payment gateway? Do you love it that much?
|
| At the end of the day, services have to provide value. If
| your customers don't want to pay for your services, they do
| not value them. That's a dangerous position for any company
| to try to maintain. The mobile software industry generally
| has been chaffing at the fees for quite some time now, these
| are the warning signs that all is not well.
| falcolas wrote:
| > Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything
|
| This makes what is, IMO, an unjustified assumption: that
| competition in the payment scene will drive prices down
| _for the same item based on payment method_.
|
| Instead, I think we'll see the same thing we see with the
| cash/credit card split: The same price regardless of your
| payment method, with price differences lining the
| publisher's pockets.
| webmobdev wrote:
| True that cheaper payment methods may not drive down the
| price of an app or in-app transactions. But as a user,
| you would be more satisfied knowing that that the $10 you
| are paying for an app (or for some transaction within it)
| is going to the creator of the app, rather than some
| arbitrary percentage (decided by Apple) of your money. As
| a user, you would even feel worse knowing that Apple
| simply pockets the remaining amount.
| coldpie wrote:
| > Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use
| Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much?
|
| Honestly, yeah. I'm way more likely to click "subscribe at
| $5/mo using your normal payment flow" than go through a
| whole new account creation flow and wonder how cancellation
| will work somehow down the line or how trustworthy this
| vendor is with my data.
| ghosty141 wrote:
| >Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use
| Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much?
|
| Most in-App purchases are in the range of 1-5$. If I pay a
| couple of cents more to have a unified experience, yeah
| sure.
|
| It'd be interesting to see how much users spend on in-App
| purchases. For me it's almost nothing, maybe 1 purchase a
| year? The big money is probably in the free2play market
| where players spend a lot to buy booster packs or "gold".
| dubcanada wrote:
| Yes, if it saves me from having to call to cancel my
| subscription or going through a bunch of weird "are you
| sure", "how about 2% off", "how about 5% off", "how about
| we bill you $5 less", "why do you not like us? Fill out
| this 75 question survey to cancel". Yes it does.
| selykg wrote:
| I would. I'm very careful about what I pay for anyway. If
| you want me to pay for your product it needs to be
| something that brings me real value. Even then I limit
| myself, as I only have a certain amount to spend anyway, so
| you're competing with other products for my limited amount
| of budget.
|
| Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel service.
| It's consistent as well, which means I don't have to keep
| hunting through your site to find it because you hid the
| location of canceling behind "Please contact us to cancel"
| type crap.
|
| Do I think Apple is charging too much for their cut? Yea, I
| do. But as a consumer, the benefits outweigh it. As a
| potential business owner, yea... I would be upset too.
| jerrycruncher wrote:
| The ability to simply cancel any subscription without
| clicking through increasingly desperate "Don't go!!!" nag
| screens is easily worth an extra 30% for me, too.
| selykg wrote:
| Yup. As a consumer, Apple's IAP and Apple Pay driven
| experience is pretty darn good. I wish their business
| didn't revolve around subscriptions as much, but at the
| very least it does make purchasing really easy as a
| consumer.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel
| service.
|
| This doesn't require Apple's payment monopoly. IAP would
| just need to make an API call to some 3rd party API.
| Besides did everyone forget they can call their credit
| card issuer and suspend payment?
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| > Besides did everyone forget they can call their credit
| card issuer and suspend payment?
|
| This does not get you out of your contractual obligation
| to pay, if you have one. You could end up getting an
| annoying surprise from a debt collection agency a few
| years down the road. An important thing that Apple was
| able to provide that a credit card processor suspending
| payment can't is to force the vendor to let you _actually
| cancel the subscription_ , not just the payment.
| zachlatta wrote:
| Honestly in some cases, yes. Subscription in-app purchases
| are the only subscriptions I have ever signed up for that
| are easy to cancel.
|
| I prefer to subscribe to services through in-app purchases
| over the service's website itself because it's always easy
| to cancel subscriptions made through Apple, and I never
| forget I'm getting charged because I get payment receipts.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| > Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use
| Apple payment gateway?
|
| This is the argument Epic's tried to make, and it isn't
| particularly convincing. The iOS App Store is filled with
| cheap apps, to the point where many people react to a one-
| time price of $9.99 as disturbingly expensive. Apps and
| games that are literally identical on iOS to other
| platforms are frequently cheaper in their iOS releases
| because that's what the market expects. So in practice, the
| 30% cost is usually being eaten by developers, _not_ passed
| on to consumers. There 's a lot of good arguments to be
| made for cutting that 30% share down to 15% for everyone
| across the board, but "now you'll only be charged $4.99
| instead of $5.99 for this game you would have paid $14.99
| for on the Switch version" just isn't one of them.
| BackBlast wrote:
| > This is the argument Epic's tried to make, and it isn't
| particularly convincing.
|
| It's not an argument, it's a question. Some people have
| clearly answered it as yes, yes they would. This shows
| some distinct value provided to them by Apple. Value
| that's worth something, though perhaps not 30%.
|
| Apple's next step is to provide a compelling enough
| offering that developers and consumers alike pick it over
| the soon-to-be competing offerings. Wouldn't that be
| awesome if they pull it off?
| bayindirh wrote:
| Some of the services I pay via Apple's subscription
| workflow is _cheaper_. Unbelievable, but true. Pocket is
| one, Evernote is other. However, they later synchronized
| their pricing to be cheaper everywhere, but it doesn 't
| matter. It makes my life easier.
|
| If I'm paying for a cross-platform service, I can happily
| use their own methods, but if I'm paying for an app-store
| only application which either runs only on iOS or macOS,
| good luck to them. I won't subscribe via their methods,
| because it makes my life more complicated.
| r00fus wrote:
| 27% more? Are you kidding - it will be 12% more, if Apple
| doesn't reduce their rates at all for most developers (most
| don't make $1m revenue).
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| What portion of payments go to people not making $1m
| revenue? Hard to believe it is a large portion.
| NationalPark wrote:
| There's tons of value in a unified payment system, which is
| why it's app developers who were unhappy, not users. For
| instance, ease of cancellation of recurring fees is
| enormous. You can bet that's going to get harder as
| developers get more control. And anyway, The app developers
| have no motivation to charge you less, the market already
| bears the fees, they just want to capture that profit for
| themselves.
|
| Personally I probably just won't buy things that require me
| to sign up for a new payment system, but I don't play
| mobile games so I'm probably not representative of who this
| impacts the most.
| thebean11 wrote:
| > why it's app developers who were unhappy, not users
|
| IIRC, Epic was offering their in game currency more
| cheaply outside of the App Store, which Apple didn't
| like.
|
| I bet plenty of people would use an alternate payment
| method to save money..right now they don't have that
| choice.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| It was pretty genius from Epic, they knew they'd get
| banned, but it instantly showed how the consumer is
| harmed by this behavior (pay more, get less).
|
| Every mobile game with a cash store would instantly give
| you a discount to go through a different provider.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > which is why it's app developers who were unhappy, not
| users
|
| The judge commented on that
|
| >> "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.
|
| ---
|
| > Personally I probably just won't buy things that
| require me to sign up for a new payment system
|
| You, as a consumer, will now have a choice, which you'll
| get to exercise! You will be able to send a market signal
| for products (either the service you might subscribe to,
| and Apple) to get better and attract more
| developers/users. This sounds like a win!
| [deleted]
| coldpie wrote:
| > This sounds like a win!
|
| Not if I wasn't interested in having the choice to begin
| with. Now some apps will not be purchasable by me unless
| I go through their account flow, which I don't want to.
| It's strictly worse (for me).
| madeofpalk wrote:
| There is now a market force for Apple to make its IAP
| services better, which makes it more likely for
| developers to make apps with it (theoretically).
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| There will be larger players who won't bother with any
| cut -- they want to own the relationship with the
| customer, and view any intermediary with hostility.
| luckylion wrote:
| And before, they might not have bothered developing an
| app, or one for iOS. Now you have choice. Choice is good.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| What big names haven't developed iOS apps but may do so
| now? I'm hard pressed to think of any. They may not
| always allow in-app purchases, of course, but they
| generally exist.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Sure.
|
| They're either already not on Apple's IAP (Netflix or
| Spotify) or they are very sensitive to optimising
| conversions, and would pay a premium to give users an
| easier option (which Apple is now incentivised to lower)
| cormacrelf wrote:
| It's not guaranteed, but one realistic outcome is that
| its IAP services get worse, because e.g. automatically
| saying yes to all refund requests is less feasible when
| margins are thinner. Retailers like large supermarket
| chains are only able to have no-questions-asked refund
| policies because nobody is actually taking a bad box of
| cereal back to a store, but in digital, it might too easy
| right now for a 3% cut + absorbing chargebacks to be
| sustainable. Similarly, having cancellation be one-click
| and done is great for the consumer but if you're in the
| razor thin margins game unfortunately making
| unsubscribing difficult is a competitive edge.
|
| IAPs are only indirectly a product that app customers get
| a choice in; the primary customer is app developers who
| have vastly different interests. There may have to be a
| shift on some of these axes for Apple to compete on
| price.
| majani wrote:
| I trust Apple will force developers to provide a drop
| down menu of options for payments. I don't think they'll
| allow dodgy redirects and webviews. That's not in line
| with Apple's design principles.
| mystcb wrote:
| > As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment
| gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably
| trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I
| supposed to trust 50 different gateways?
|
| I think this is a fair argument, and I believe also shows
| that if options are available, that is where us as a consumer
| have our freedom. I also personally like the ability to
| quickly pay when needed for things using Apple, but in return
| - if I was able to pay for it because another offer, or
| option, or something was presented to me that was easier, I
| would totally take that that too. However, I can see how that
| would be a loss for the people writing and maintaining the
| app and the associated services.
|
| The problem I see is that this swinging at the moment between
| a single payment gateway and every payment gateway out there
| is a huge pendulum that is swinging to the extremes of both,
| neither side actually gets anything good out of it.
|
| It would be lovely in a world where the option was to use
| Apple + an external, and letting users decide what they feel
| safe with. Some will be happy going direct with Apple, some
| would be happier with <insert payment style here>.
|
| I think it is mentioned below, I can see larger companies
| immediately dropping the Apple method because it loses them
| the extra profit, and just making the ecosystem harder.
| People lose faith in paying for services, and then another
| service comes along, charging 30%, and we are back where we
| started.
|
| So yeah, IMHO, it is good it is being recognised, but at the
| same time, its going to be a bumpy ride.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways?
|
| Do you not buy things online currently? Do you not use
| Amazon, or Lyft, or Netflix, or Spotify?
| barkerja wrote:
| My concern is less about random one-off purchases but more
| the management of on-going subscriptions. Having Apple
| handle that, is a blessing, from a user perspective. I have
| a single place to manage all the random $1 - $10
| subscriptions that I have, making it easy to change/cancel
| at any moment's notice, and from any device.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| What is to stop you from searching for services that
| still let you use Apple Pay? No one is stopping you from
| living in your tight-knit Apple world, but you seem
| discontent with the idea that people will no longer have
| to live there and would rather find ways to force them to
| stay there with you.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| I don't think Apple Pay can do that? It's a one off
| payment thing.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I don't think there's anything in this injunction that
| stops Apple from building a mandatory subscription-
| cancelling API, which I wouldn't be surprised if they're
| actually already working on due to earlier rulings this
| month. In other words, you might be able to subscribe to
| FooCalendar using their Stripe API system, but FooCo has
| to make sure that your FooCalendar subscription shows up
| in your list of subscriptions, maybe under a "Non-Apple
| Subscriptions" list, that still lets you cancel with one
| tap -- or at least one tap to take you to that app's
| subscription management page.
|
| (I'm sure there will be some people upset at that kind of
| interfering overreach, but it's the kind of interfering
| overreach most of us would actually like.)
| gigatexal wrote:
| I'd trust them a lot more if they used Apple Pay. Just
| saying.
| webmobdev wrote:
| > how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways?
|
| It's your government's job to make sure that you have faith
| in financial institutions and trust the infrastructure
| through which financial transactions happen.
|
| If not, corporates like Apple will continue to exploit your
| misplaced trust by charging you 30% - 50% on every
| transaction. The solution isn't Apple or Google or some other
| corporate, but your government and better regulations.
| atishay811 wrote:
| I think what it will eventually turn out to be is - Apple
| will require IAP/Storekit but will be forced to allow others.
| And you will see something like this - $10 - Pay by Apple, $8
| Pay via Amazon/Google/Whoever big name enters this business,
| $7 pay by credit card directly. And you can chose if you need
| Apple's unsubscribe, want to trust Amazon for $2 discount, or
| want to get a further $1 discount by entering your credit
| card number and risking doing a chargeback in the future if
| the developer is really crappy.
|
| Eventually Apple will get down to make the Amazon not turn
| profit out of iOS IAP and then you will be left with two
| choices.
| cush wrote:
| I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App
| developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%
| solarmist wrote:
| No, and it wasn't meant to. It was meant to let companies
| keep more and give Apple less. That's all.
|
| In all likely hood things will get worse for consumers. I
| will definite not buy apps requiring custom payment
| platforms. Hopefully it'll settle on stripe companies will
| offer multiple payment methods rather than trying to force
| their own.
|
| I look forward to it making Apple lower its IAP fees for
| everyone. I'd still like to use their infrastructure, but
| without the enormous fees (15% for small devs is still huge).
| cush wrote:
| Right. I bet this will be huge for companies like Stripe,
| Square, and Shopify.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| The win would be that you're actually able to sign up for
| more things in the iOS ecosystem that you previously weren't
| able to, like Netflix or Spotify.
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| Not financially (we wouldn't lower prices), but I would
| immediately start to hire 4 more developers if they went from
| 30% down to 5%.
|
| Lowering prices increases the number of jobs available, and
| the only cost is that Apple loses some amount of it's
| astronomical profits.
| mcphage wrote:
| How many developers do you have already, that 35% more
| money would let you hire 4 more? Back-of-the-envelope
| calculation says you've got 7, does that match up?
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| It's more about what our annual app fees to Apple are,
| 1.2mm. We have diverse revenue streams so the correlation
| between Apple revenue and salaries isn't apparent.
| Osiris wrote:
| That's a big assumption.
| cush wrote:
| Assuming a company will maximize profits is a big
| assumption to you?
| christopherwxyz wrote:
| Apple Pay has no bearing on IAP. You can use Apple Pay with
| Epic's IAP implementation.
| dannyw wrote:
| apple pay expressly forbids being used for digital content
| delivered within apps.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| If they want to keep this rule, they can- but they're just
| losing out.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Right, but the only reason for that is it prevents
| circumvention. I would assume after this injunction they
| will allow using apple pay in order to re-capture some of
| that revenue.
| maccard wrote:
| Will I be able to use it with King's implementation, or my
| local pizza place's outsourced app?
|
| edit: I was instantly downvoted without any discussion, which
| doesn't add to the conversation. The reason I ask is because
| that's what the key value add is of Apple's IAP - I know that
| my payment method is accepted on the app store.
| dannyw wrote:
| There are payment aggregators that charge about 30c and 3%:
| PayPal, Shop Pay, Google Pay, etc. And Apple Pay.
|
| There are also standards like Web Payments.
| MAGZine wrote:
| On Android, I use Google Pay all of the time for in-app
| purchases, and it doesn't require Google to take 30%.
|
| It's just another payment processor. It often shows up beside
| "add a credit card" in apps. I use it to order food, pay for
| rideshare, buy tickets, etc.
| simonh wrote:
| According to google, that is not correct. They levy a 30% fee
| on all Play Store transactions for apps and IAP. I've seen
| articles that say they are cutting the fee to 15% for
| businesses with under $1m revenue, but that's not what the
| support page says.
|
| https://support.google.com/paymentscenter/answer/7159343?hl=.
| ..
|
| Buying physical goods and services may not count, in the same
| way that they don't count on the Apple App Store.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| It's a 30% fee if you use Play Store's IAP system. It's not
| a 30% fee to use Google Pay as a payment provider ( https:/
| /support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6288971?hl=e... )
|
| Same distinction exists on Apple's side with IAP vs. Apple
| Pay. For example Apple Pay on the Web ( https://developer.a
| pple.com/documentation/apple_pay_on_the_w... ) doesn't take
| anywhere close to a 30% cut. In fact it, like Google Pay,
| is also free for merchants, who just have to pay the normal
| payment processor fees.
| https://squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/apple-pay-for-small-
| bu...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract
| from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In
| App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could
| still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on
| their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a
| very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank,
| compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the developer.
|
| Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Apple IAP are
| still easier, and probably will convert at a higher rate than
| pushing a user outside the app to do the payment on a website,
| so there's still incentives for developers to use them. If Apps
| switch away from IAP, then Apple is incentivised to actually
| compete (imagine that!!) and make something better that
| developers actively want to use.
|
| It says something about the state of competition where Netflix
| can just say "no, we no longer want people to sign up on an
| iPhone and give us money". That says they don't think IAP is
| good, and Apple should actually work on building something that
| companies want to use.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Apple would also likely drop their cut from 30% overnight.
| Maybe not to 3% like Paypal, but low enough where companies
| would have to think.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| For context, Netflix was getting 15% in some markets and
| that was not enough to keep them on IAP.
| ghosty141 wrote:
| >isn't the competition here what we want?
|
| In my opinion not in this specific case. As an iOS user I
| WANT a system where everything conforms to certain
| guidelines. I do NOT want to fiddle with some weird custom
| in-App payment dialog which does it's own thing again.
|
| It'll be interesting to see how this court order will be
| "implemented", my guess is that not much will change for now.
| widowlark wrote:
| you will still be able to do this, at a 30% premium through
| IAP
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| Yea, but obviously no company will offer that option
| unless forced. This decision undeniably benefits app
| developers, but the benefit to customers is murkier.
|
| Apple couldn't previously _require_ payment flow through
| Apple's payment systems, as evidenced by apps like
| Audible where you have no purchasing in the app and just
| have access to the content that you purchased through
| their website. Since Apple couldn't outright _force_ app
| vendors to monetize through Apple payment channels, their
| cudgel has been to ensure that app vendors have no way to
| link to external purchase options in the app, and hope
| that this was inconvenient enough for app vendors that
| they would choose to integrate with Apple's payment
| channels. And it worked for most, but not all of them.
| Some apps, like Audible, just chose to live with having
| no way to sell anything from the app.
|
| If Apple can't even do that, they lose the ability to
| provide for their customers a consistent payment
| experience across apps.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| They did try to force companies to monetize through them.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-
| in-...
| majani wrote:
| My guess is Apple will force developers to provide a drop
| down of payment options with Apple Pay as the default
| draw_down wrote:
| Who is we? I imagine app makers want this, but as a user I do
| not care to enter my credit card details just so they can
| save on their cut to Apple. It's understandable from their
| POV, but not my problem.
| maccard wrote:
| > and it could still be used
|
| But it's not guaranteed to be, which is a huge loss for the
| app store IMO.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Agreed. I think a fair plan would be
|
| * lower IAP to 15% with an option to pay a higher dev
| license fee to lower it to maybe 7-10%.
|
| * require that any IAP has an _option_ to use Apple's IAP
| system within day 20% of the offsite price
|
| * physical goods stay on the same system, but potentially
| offer some kind of carrot to implement Apple Pay
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Besides, isn't the competition here what we want?
|
| Depends what you mean. The subtlety that is always lost in
| these conversation on HN is _how deep does the competition
| have to go?_ I don 't think anyone seriously argues that
| iPhones do not have viable competition in the smartphone
| market. And yet, if I as a consumer want to use a smartphone
| which places strong restrictions on third-party developers
| (which is one of the most significant reason I use iPhones
| and recommend them to friends and family), somehow those
| restrictions are considered "anti-competitive." If these
| restrictions are lifted or prohibited, that clearly removes
| one of the key _differences_ between iPhones and their
| competitors (mostly Android phones), and it baffles me that
| this could be construed as a _more_ competitive smartphone
| market for consumers.
| radley wrote:
| > Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets
| does not sound appealing to me, despite the win for consumers
| and developers.
|
| Apple will probably pivot quickly to allowing you to use Apple
| Pay for this. A small commission and metadata is better than
| nothing at all.
| sabellito wrote:
| Apple Pay charges the banks a _percentage_ per transaction on
| the credit card, despite not taking absolutely any of the risk
| in that operation. Plus a quarterly fee per card.
|
| Do you think the banks are going to foot that bill? Of course
| not: it's us, the consumers.
|
| Are you willing to have everything be a bit more expensive, for
| everyone, so that you, apple users, can have something a tiny
| bit more convenient?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Correct- it is 0.15% on credit card transactions, or a flat
| $0.005 per debit card transaction.
|
| Stripe (which charges 2.9% + $0.30) is willing to eat this
| fee, presumably because of the benefits of vastly lower
| fraudulent transactions and chargebacks.
| falcolas wrote:
| Isn't that how any convenience works? Credit cards already
| increased the price of everything for the convenience of
| using credit cards, as an example. I'm old enough to remember
| there was once one price for cash, and another for credit
| cards.
| josefresco wrote:
| > I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for
| cash, and another for credit cards.
|
| Some businesses in my town still do this. When I see it,
| the only thing I think is "they must be committing light
| tax fraud". Maybe it's wrong, but I know what merchants pay
| for CC transactions and it doesn't justify the whining from
| business owners who have been accepting cards for decades
| and suddenly decided CC transactions were unprofitable
| because business is slumping /rant.
| manquer wrote:
| It is not tax fraud [1]. Merchants are violating the
| terms of CC provider. The merchant agreement explicitly
| forbids merchants to have different cash price from what
| is charge with the card.
|
| It is fairly common in geographies where CC providers
| can't litigate/enforce easily . It is not a penal crime,
| only a contract violation between two private parties and
| settled in arbitration/civil courts .
|
| [1] Such Merchants also may commit tax fraud if they
| don't declare the cash income for tax purposes, that
| however is not directly related to Credit Cards or
| payment medium and usually even if they do commit tax
| fraud, they don't pass on their tax benefits for GST/VAT
| or Income Tax (10+% in most countries) to the customer.
| commoner wrote:
| Not sure about other countries, but in the US, the Dodd-
| Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
| (2011) ensures that merchants are allowed to offer cash
| discounts.
|
| > A PCN cannot stop you from offering your customers a
| discount or another incentive for using a certain method
| of payment, as long as you offer it to all your customers
| and disclose the offer clearly and conspicuously. For
| example, you can offer your customers a discount or a
| coupon if they pay with cash or a debit card rather than
| a credit card.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
| center/guidance/new...
| majani wrote:
| The most likely move here is that Apple forces developers to
| put a drop down of payment options, with Apple Pay being the
| default. Same way Google did when Android was forced to offer a
| choice of default search engines
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It would be hilarious if the end result was iOS users no longer
| being as valuable to app developers, if the ecosystem just
| starts to feel sketchy and people stop spending as freely on
| it. I don't think it's _likely,_ but it feels plausible enough
| to lol at the idea.
| gumby wrote:
| This doesn't stop Apple from controlling which apps can be
| installed. It stops them from using a link to external
| payment as a criterion.
|
| I do think this will have _some_ effect that you describe
| (e.g. perhaps Epic suffers a breach in their payment system)
| on the end user side but it's not as bad as the android store
| situation. if anything it will make iOS users more attractive
| to devs as they can now keep a larger percentage of IAP
| sales.
|
| But when IAP costs less than 30% I expect all paid apps to go
| the IAP route.
| perfectstorm wrote:
| > Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets
| does not sound appealing to me, despite the win for consumers
| and developers.
|
| this is not an unresolvable issue though. Apple could force
| developers to make their payment option as the default payment
| option similar to how they forced devs to use Sign in with
| Apple (when they have third party login). Big companies like
| PayPal could provide an SDK which can be used by devs to
| complete trasaction similar to web. I could think of many more
| ways to solve this issue.
| WA wrote:
| Apple could start to compete on price for IAPs, so that devs
| favor Apple's solution out of free choice, not because they
| have to.
| 41209 wrote:
| Vote with your dollars.
|
| If App A requires you to use their payment gateway and App B
| uses apple pay, use App B.
|
| I imagine this will cause a sort of race to the bottom where
| apple will lower its own fees to match.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It feels ironic to ask customers to bear the burden to make
| big companies behave, in a thread about a court ruling
| regulating anti-competitive behavior.
| summerlight wrote:
| https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blu...
|
| Should Apple appeal? I don't think so; they now have much bigger
| thing to worry about. If they decide to appeal, it'll generate
| even more publicity and congress and public are going to be more
| engaged. Apple desperately wants to get it over with as silent as
| possible.
| xvector wrote:
| Apple WILL appeal. This is 25% of their yearly revenue at risk.
| I think many people don't realize just how critical this case
| is to Apple.
| sangnoir wrote:
| If they appeal, they'll be on the line to lose even more (and
| Epic is itching for this fight to continue, so _Epic_ might
| appeal). Apple can cut its losses and be happy with the
| current, quantified ruling, or roll the dice and possibly run
| into a terrible precedent for other jurisdictions that have
| been rattling their sabers at Apple.
| dannyw wrote:
| I expect both Apple and Epic to appeal.
| manquer wrote:
| Epic will _need_ to appeal, they are still not allowed in
| the App store for breaching contract, this ruling did not
| change that.
|
| They need get favorable ruling on appeal taking the view
| the contract was not valid and had illegal terms therefore
| Epic was not in breach.
|
| Without that Fortnite is still not returning to the App
| Store.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Note Epic also has to pay 30% damages.
|
| > On the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for
| breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount
| equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games
| collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic
| Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of
| any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020
| through the date of judgment, and interest according to law.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| In what upside-down world is that justified? It seems like the
| judge is talking out of both sides of her mouth.
| wincy wrote:
| I think they'll be happy to pay $4,000,000 for this though.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I'm sure Epic included this in the legal costs of the case. If
| they get to create their own store they can potentially make
| billions.
| stavros wrote:
| I don't understand why Epic is dissatisfied with this. Doesn't
| the injunction mean that Apple now has to allow other payment
| processors? Is it that Epic wanted third-party app stores on iOS?
| another_kel wrote:
| No. This injunction is allowing info\link to website where you
| can use other payment processor. And Epic wanted to integrate a
| different payment system directly into the app.
| stavros wrote:
| Oh hmm, that's too bad. I'd be dissatisfied too, I hope they
| win the appeal.
| Drew_ wrote:
| I believe they're disatisified that the App Store wasn't deemed
| a monopoly
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| Does this also apply (as precedent) to Epic vs Google?
| occamrazor wrote:
| Partly. Google allows sideloading, but makes it inconvenient.
| Whether it's more similar to Apple or Steam is a non-obvious
| question.
| [deleted]
| justahuman1 wrote:
| I love the cancellation experience with apple subscriptions, most
| other things are garbage / dark patterns.
| yyyk wrote:
| Judge seemed to have reached into the narrowest possible ruling,
| a reasonable decision in a case which is likely to be appealed by
| both sides.
|
| Apple learnt that the monopoly definition argument doesn't
| prevent rulings against anti-competitive practices, and Epic
| learnt that if it wants to attack App Store fees it needs to
| bring an objective criteria to the table and have it accepted.
|
| The judge skirted the App Store issue, but I never felt that was
| important: IMHO, 99.999% of iPhone users would have used Apple's
| store even if alternate stores were available; The only
| alternative store with any chance of success would have been an
| OSS store - hardly what Epic wanted.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Reading this, I cannot help but imagine someone at Apple thinking
| to themselves "I wish we had granted Epic an exemption like we
| did with Netflix".
|
| The court proceedings and the documents that they were required
| to disclose were surely bad for PR and now it looks like they
| won't even keep the monetary benefits.
| dannyw wrote:
| It would only delay things. The class action lawsuit for
| example.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Epic is interested in creating their own store and increasing
| revenue developers get because of their unreal engine fee.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Netflix did not get an exemption. They still don't link to
| Netflix.com from the app since Apple dictates that they can't
| direct people to paying for subscriptions outside the app
| store. When Netflix did do some IAP subscriptions, they costed
| more to the user and were only available for a limited time.
| fomine3 wrote:
| If Fortnite did same things like Netflix, they'll be banned.
| Why Netflix or Kindle isn't banned is because Apple arbitrary
| allowed such app for some category, but not for games. See
| Hey case.
| judge2020 wrote:
| What things? What did apple arbitrarily allow? Netflix has
| never used its own payment system within iOS.
| Factorium wrote:
| Fortnite will come and go but Unreal Engine will be generating
| revenues forever.
|
| Epic are more motivated by transferring the excess profits of
| Apple into modest profits for developers, who then redistribute
| 5% of their revenues (as part of the Unreal Engine license)
| back to Epic.
|
| I wonder if Epic will sue Steam and console developers next...
|
| Epic sells Unreal to Sony and Microsoft, so suing them is
| probably unlikely. But Valve could definitely be the next
| target.
| [deleted]
| dleslie wrote:
| > But Valve could definitely be the next target.
|
| Valve would simply refer the judge to their rather-successful
| competitors, including:
|
| - Epic Game Store
|
| - Origin
|
| - Blizzard Store
|
| - Microsoft Store
|
| - GoG
|
| - Itch.io
|
| - Ubisoft Store
|
| - Bethesda Store
|
| And to further their point, Valve would show how many games
| on Steam are found on other stores, and Valve doesn't prevent
| other companies from listing games on other stores.
|
| Valve does not have a monopoly; not by a long shot.
| progbits wrote:
| Not even a monopoly question (the ruling says it can't call
| Apple a monopoly).
|
| However Steam is not a walled garden. Feel like they charge
| too much? Go to itch.io or make your own website with
| Paypal button. It is your machine, your OS.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > I wonder if Epic will sue Steam
|
| Why would Epic sue Steam?
|
| Fornite isnt on Steam, because it doesn't need to be. It's
| the platform (Windows) working in a competitive way!
| Macha wrote:
| Console developers on the other hand, are almost certainly
| next.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I think Epic has a good relationship with console
| developers, generally, because they help each other out.
| Epic seems happy that it actually gets something back for
| giving up that 30%.
| marricks wrote:
| Uh, didn't it always seem like Epic was itching for a fight no
| matter what happened? That's the impression I got from the case
| but I also didn't follow it super closely.
| gpm wrote:
| It did, but Apple might have been able to prevent Epic from
| having standing to sue by giving them an exception.
| marricks wrote:
| I imagine that could have hurt their case if Epic was
| always going to sue anyways.
| gpm wrote:
| I imagine it would have hurt their case if someone else,
| say Unity Technologies, sued. I really do think that Epic
| would have failed on the standing argument and not have
| even gotten to the fact finding stage of the trial where
| it could hurt their case.
|
| On the claim that Epic won, the courts finding on
| standing is already "just barely"
|
| > Thus, although the question is close, the Court finds
| that Epic Games has standing to bring a UCL claim as a
| quasi-consumer, not merely as a competitor.
| [deleted]
| rocqua wrote:
| This still allows apple to mandate same price on and outside the
| platform, and still allows apple to mandate apple pay be an
| option.
|
| This is great for customer experience, because users still have
| the option to use apple their polished system. But if a (big)
| player offers a better experience, users get to pick that.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| I hope this doesn't hurt customer experience.
| parhamn wrote:
| > communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
| voluntarily from customers through account registration within
| the app.
|
| Another interesting part of this ruling.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Is this going to affect subscriptions? If so, I'm cancelling all
| of my current subscriptions through apple, they're the ONLY
| company that makes cancelling easy and that _will_ go away if
| this includes subscriptions.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| _yawn_ Apple is getting a mild slap on the wrist and the outcome
| of the case is probably the best for everyone. It did away with
| the most entirely absurd and egregious restriction but still lets
| a company like... choose how to run their business. If anything
| this is likely to drastically improve the quality of some big-
| name applications on Apple 's platforms, further increasing their
| bottom line. I would bet money technologically illiterate people
| have sworn off of Apple's platforms because they bought a device
| for a single purpose (like watching Netflix) and then couldn't
| signup for the fucking service on the device. Is that going to be
| a huge boon for Apple's bottom line? Nope. But it will likely
| make their ecosystem stickier because there's less friction for
| groups of consumers. Chances are Apple-HQ is poppin' open some
| champagne today having a laugh that they ever were allowed to
| prevent links or calls to action.
|
| The real winners here, no one seems to be talking about, are the
| console manufacturers who I'm sure had their buttholes puckering
| at nearly the speed of light waiting for the verdict. While Apple
| could surely continue on without an exclusive AppStore on its
| platform, Nintendo and Sony would begin to feel some absolutely
| critical burning. Both manufacturers have de-facto monopolies on
| their platforms, and those monopolies are at least as restrictive
| as Apple's if not more so because they act as barriers to entry
| into their markets (i.e. If Sony doesn't _like_ your game idea,
| you can just fuck off with no recourse).
|
| The one thing about this case that pisses me off is Sweeny
| running his mouth like he and Epic are really victims here. His
| refusal to put Fortnite (which I've never played) back on the app
| store is pathetic, childish, and anti-consumer. It is honestly as
| disgusting to me as Facebook trying to peddle their unwavering
| commitment to tracking their users every waking-action as "pro
| consumer." If Sweeny and Epic brought this same case against
| Nintendo and Sony, I'd maybe be more sympathetic to his bullshit
| because at least then it would be consistent. My thought is Epic
| is likely big enough to bully Sony or Nintendo into better deals
| on their platforms; while, Apple doesn't have to take it's shit
| for a single solitary second because Epic poses no threat to
| Apple's revenue. Then this inability to bully the platform owner
| threw Sweeny into an _epic_ tantrum and here we be.
|
| _shrug_ I 'll stop ranting here.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Epic tried to put Fortnite back on the app store in Korea.
| Apple refused.
| threeseed wrote:
| And now Apple is going to refuse to put them on any store
| given that courts found them to have breached their contract.
|
| Epic have screwed themselves pretty badly here.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > back on the app store is pathetic, childish, and anti-
| consumer.
|
| This makes no sense. If the price of something is too high,
| then a company is not going to purchase it.
|
| I am sure that Epic would be happy to put fortnite back on the
| app store, if Apple charged 0%.
|
| But you can't go around saying that it is "petty" for a company
| to think that the price of something is too high, and then
| refuse to pay that price.
|
| Apple doesn't own fortnite. They aren't owed anything, unless
| you are going to make some reverso uno argument, and claim that
| actually fortnite is a monopoly, but that would be silly.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| >The decision concludes the first part of the battle between the
| two companies over Apple's App Store policies and whether they
| stifle competition. Apple won on 9 of 10 counts but will be
| forced to change its App Store policies and loosen its grip over
| in-app purchases.
|
| >Rogers said that Apple was not a monopolist and "success is not
| illegal."
|
| >"Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude
| that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state
| antitrust laws," Rogers wrote.
|
| Glad to see nobody knows what a monopoly is anymore. It's like
| the Grant administration all over again...
| OisinMoran wrote:
| To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like
| this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just
| focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is
| getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right"
| thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the
| "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or
| decisions like this should include the likelihood of getting
| caught and make the expected value negative. A fine for not
| having a train ticket is not just the price of a ticket.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| Very good point. I believe that the judge just gave a slap on
| the wrist to Epic Games with that fine (that's why it was equal
| to just the "back-pay") for breaking a contract (which is
| wrong, legally speaking.)
|
| I believe the judge did this (just a slap) because Epic was
| right and Apple was anti-competitive.
|
| I could be wrong though. I have very little knowledge of anti-
| competitive laws.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I'd have to agree with you, as this lawsuit was a PR play
| more than anything, especially if it means they don't get
| their App back on the app store (yet?).
| kllrnohj wrote:
| I think it's worth stressing that _both_ sides did something
| wrong. Apple 's contract was also just ruled invalid, and they
| also aren't being forced to pay any penalties for that. They
| aren't being forced to compensate Netflix, Spotify, etc... for
| all the years those companies have been unable to link out to
| subscription signups on iOS, for example.
|
| So consider instead that Epic _and_ Apple were both penalized
| an identical amount rather than neither side being penalized at
| all.
| poniko wrote:
| Why, the curt said follow the terms of contract (Since the
| contract is valid). Why should you get a penalty because you
| legally have a chance to dispute a contract? You might need to
| pay the legal fees etc but the default must be to have the fair
| chance to challenge what you might seem unfair in said
| contract.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| His argument was that if you don't pay all the time and get
| caught some of the times, then you only have to pay some of
| the time.
|
| If fees is $100 each time and you don't pay 100 times and get
| caught only 50 times, then you only pay 50 times 100=5000
| rather than 100 times 100=10000.
|
| And we are talking in tens of millions, so legal fees are
| negligible.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Is this also true for Epic Games?
|
| Why would _anyone_ not circumvent all fees for _any_ platform?
| dannyw wrote:
| Name me another platform where you are forced into a duopoly
| with identical policies.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Gaming consoles.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| We can still buy games outside the platform at this point.
| But we're probably nearing an age of consoles without disk
| drives, then yeah.
|
| I guess there is still the in-app purchase angle.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Strictly speaking, retail games are also part of the same
| platform. Game consoles have the same lockout policies
| Apple does - in fact, they were literally invented
| decades prior to the iPhone by console manufacturers. You
| still have to pay a platform royalty on physical copies;
| except now you also have to throw margin to distributors
| and retailers, too; and the games can be resold without
| you making a penny.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| In many platforms it's not worth the effort, or the native
| payment method is actually cheaper than any potential
| competitor
| endisneigh wrote:
| Curious to know which platforms have lower fees than doing it
| yourself.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It depends on the effort needed to "do it yourself" which
| is a lot if you're accounting many many tiny transactions.
| There's definitely a market there, or at least there was
| during the FB games era.
| TillE wrote:
| Taking direct payments is absolutely insane if you're a
| small developer. I mean, have fun accounting for zillions
| of tax laws in every country in the world.
|
| 30% is a lot, but considering all the other services you
| get, it's not particularly unreasonable.
|
| For big companies, sure, you have accountants and lawyers
| and your own infrastructure, so you don't need any of that
| stuff.
| COGlory wrote:
| This is not a good enough outcome. It's never been about IAP
| methods. The problem here is that Apple is stopping you from
| using software on a physical device you own.
|
| Very disappointing ruling.
| subdane wrote:
| It'd be pretty novel and refreshing if Apple competed for
| developer buy-in for payments on features and functionality.
| [deleted]
| Factorium wrote:
| Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It's hard to draw parallels to Steam, because this case was
| about iPhone + App Store, not just the App Store itself.
|
| If you don't want to pay Steam's cut, or follow their
| restrictions you have plenty of other options. You are not
| restricted in the sense you are with iPhone + App Store.
| gnorst wrote:
| Or, more interestingly, game consoles...
| freewizard wrote:
| > Notably, the judge rejected both parties' definition of the
| marketplace at issue in the case. "The relevant market here is
| digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and
| not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App
| Store," Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.
|
| I guess the question is does Mobile gaming cover handheld game
| device like Switch? If so, it may impact Steam Deck as well.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Looks like the Steam Deck will let you install windows on it
| as well as access other game stores.
|
| https://www.polygon.com/22579033/valve-steam-deck-
| handheld-e...
|
| This has more interesting implications for Nintendo, Sony and
| Microsoft consoles.
| wormslayer666 wrote:
| Steam doesn't prevent games from linking to alternative payment
| processors in-app.
| Factorium wrote:
| It most certainly does! All payments must be within the Steam
| ecosystem when you are distributing a Steam app.
|
| Valve even prevents developers from linking to their own
| website, if said website includes ways to buy content
| independent of Steam payment.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| No it doesn't.
|
| See Rimworld.
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/294100/RimWorld/
|
| Sidebar has link to visit the website.
| https://rimworldgame.com/ You can buy directly with Credit
| Card or Paypal.
|
| Fantasy Ground is the same way: https://store.steampowered.
| com/app/1196310/Fantasy_Grounds_U...
| SXX wrote:
| Steam does have rules about it, but they are not strictly
| enforced. If your game have it's own backend / website then
| you can freely bill people there after you onboarded them
| via Steam.
|
| IAPs are different: here Valve actually require you to
| process payments through steam when game is running via
| Steam. But even in this case a lot of games can be launched
| independently after installation through Steam.
|
| Also on top of this Valve already decreased it's comission
| from 30% for large publishers.
| 8K832d7tNmiQ wrote:
| Warframe, one of the most active userbase game on Steam,
| literally has a dedicated page just to purchase a platinum
| coin in their own website [1]
|
| [1]:https://www.warframe.com/buyplatinum
| gigatexal wrote:
| That's it. The App Store is broken. Major win to Epic.
|
| I'll keep using apps and services that take funds via Apple Pay
| though. I trust Apple in this sense.
| scardycat wrote:
| More choice is always a win for the customers. Customer can get
| to decide who is providing a better quality of service and go
| with them instead of the current situation of having one choice
| forced down their throats because the vendor decides that is
| whats best for the customer.
| handrous wrote:
| > More choice is always a win for the customers.
|
| It's _sometimes_ a win for customers.
|
| [EDIT] trivial and clear illustrative case that should be
| easy to apply to murkier situations: a regulation that bans
| known poisons in food reduces choice.
|
| [EDIT EDIT] more relevantly, and a bit tangentially to the
| example above: thanks to coordination problems it's possible
| for more-desirable states to be _unmaintainable_ without
| reduction of choice--it 's possible for someone's--even
| _everyone 's_--favorite outcome to require a reduction of
| choice, and for that option to cease to be when more degrees
| of freedom are introduced.
| maccard wrote:
| > More choice is always a win for the customers.
|
| Not if it solely results in fragmentation. Having the choice
| between Ubisoft Connect, EA Origin, Steam and Battle.net
| isn't a "choice", it's just 4 different storefronts for me to
| manage credentials for.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Likewise with video streaming services: Netflix, Disney+,
| etc. It would be nice if content could be unbundled from
| distributor in this case - like what you see with music.
| ZekeSulastin wrote:
| If and when Apple is forced to allow other app stores (and
| Google is forced to give them the same abilities and
| privileges as their own), the wailing and gnashing of teeth
| when "competition" ends up like the much derided state of
| PC gaming will be _hilarious_. At least there's the login
| with google /Apple ID thing and OS level restrictions on
| program privileges?
| scardycat wrote:
| You cannot have choice without fragmentation, you cannot
| complain about lock-in without wanting choice. Choice and
| fragmentation go hand in hand, and customers get to decide
| who wins and who loses.
| wvenable wrote:
| When you get hacked and your account is destroyed, at least
| all your eggs won't be in one basket.
|
| There are always pros and cons.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| In App Payments does not equal Apple Pay
|
| tl;dr IAP DNE Pay
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >In a separate judgment, the court affirmed that Epic Games was
| in breach of its contract with Apple when it implemented the
| alternative payment system in the Fortnite app. As a result, Epic
| must pay Apple 30 percent of all revenue collected through the
| system since it was implemented -- a sum of more than $3.5
| million.
|
| Well, that seems rather BS. To even try for the antitrust case
| they were required to show how it would hurt consumers. So they
| did. Which went against Apple's rules obviously.
|
| So it's decided that Apple isn't allowed to do what they were
| doing, but, Epic has to pay out a fine anyways? Would the case
| have even made it this far if Epic hadn't done this?
|
| I'm sure Epic is happy to pay the $3.5 million in return for
| this, and other companies are surely just as pleased. But to have
| to pay it at all seems like a bit of a legal flaw here.
| threeseed wrote:
| Epic was in breach of contract.
|
| Which means not only do they have to pay the fine but Apple is
| likely to permanently ban them from the store.
| gjkngr wrote:
| here's the meat:
|
| "Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple
| from prohibiting developers to include in their:
|
| Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls
| to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in
| addition to IAP.
|
| Nor may Apple prohibit developers from:
|
| Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
| voluntarily from customers through account registration within
| the app."
|
| And it applies to all apps, not just games
| a-dub wrote:
| this seems ridiculous.
|
| does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party
| vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them
| to accept the disney payment wristband?
|
| apple is not a monopoly, nor is it anticompetitive. it is,
| however, opinionated and differentiates itself in the marketplace
| with that opinionation. there are less opinionated, yet very
| competitive alternatives and both users and developers are free
| to switch to them.
| ThatCaio wrote:
| >does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party
| vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require
| them to accept the disney payment wristband?
|
| No, this is equivalent to the vendors having the ability to
| accept other forms of payment, such as cash or other credit
| cards, if they choose alongside the wristband.
| a-dub wrote:
| but then because the wristband is more expensive, they'll
| hide or break the wristband machine and the next thing you
| know, downtown disney is now the bowery with sketchy ad men
| in pinstripe suits chasing everyone around. the whole reason
| why people pay to go to downtown disney is because they don't
| want to deal with that shit.
|
| the simple fact no one wants to admit is that the msrp for an
| iphone or an android does not even come close to the r&d
| costs for the software, hardware and backend platforms.
| android is open, but in exchange for that, users pay by
| broadcasting all their activity to creepy marketers. ios is
| closed, but rather than take money from creepazoids who are
| stalking and trying to sell to and complicate the lives of
| users, they charge a tax on all commercial activity on the
| platform... to pay for the platform.
|
| now third parties are saying "we don't want to pay the
| platform tax" but this is couched in all this bullshit about
| app store freedom or choice in payment processor or whatever.
|
| if you don't want to pay the platform tax, don't do business
| on the platform. don't try to wreck the platform's business
| model and value proposition for the users who choose it over
| the digital advertising dystopia that is the "open" internet
| in 2021.
| pupppet wrote:
| I don't see developers dropping their price now they can use
| their own payment processor. All I see is me, the user, having to
| struggle through using their janky home-made payment processors
| as I pay and/or try to end my subscriptions.
| alickz wrote:
| >All I see is me, the user, having to struggle through using
| their janky home-made payment processors as I pay and/or try to
| end my subscriptions.`
|
| You could just not use the app if you don't like their payment
| processor.
| donmcronald wrote:
| It's possible they could use the difference for promotion too.
| In the PC world there's things like nexus.gg that I've been
| seeing more of lately. It allows creators and streamers to set
| up a game store so you can buy from them and the creator gets
| the (rough) equivalent of Steam's cut.
|
| That's a much better model IMO. The creators and streamers are
| actually promoting your product to a core audience that's
| likely to buy, so they're more deserving of that big cut. For
| example, the YouTube channel where I learned about that is from
| a creator that plays the style of games I like, so their
| nexus.gg store is actually pretty good as a discovery mechanism
| (for me).
|
| So smaller developers can keep uniform pricing, but leverage
| other forms of promotion where the people that are actually
| driving sales benefit instead of some rent seeking middle man
| like Apple or Google.
|
| That's not some "janky home-made payment processor" either. I
| set up an account with the primary platform (nexus.gg) and I
| can buy from / support any creator curated game store I want
| within that platform.
| dannyw wrote:
| Developers will probably just use apple pay plus PayPal.
| unanswered wrote:
| > Dr. Hanssen's survey is also severely flawed and ultimately
| unreliable. First, he reports that 30- 43% of respondents
| "regularly" use a Microsoft Windows phone even though Microsoft
| had 0% market share in smartphones in 2018 and no longer sells
| phones.
|
| Apple with their completely truthful experts here.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I think it will be fine, but the one big worry that I have, is
| that I expect a significant percentage of these "alternatives" to
| point to scams.
|
| That will put Apple in another hot spot. If someone reports that
| an approved app has scam links in the app, will Apple be on the
| hook to block the app? If they do, will that, then open them up
| to charges? What about if they don't?
|
| I have been quite impressed with the ingenuity of scammers. The
| Apple customer base is a lucrative target. I am _constantly_
| getting hijack attempts and phishing scams, aimed at my AppleID.
| ksec wrote:
| I just want to say I follow a lot of court case within the Tech
| Industry mostly Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel. And Judge Yvonne
| Gonzalez Rogers is the only Judge that seems to have clear, well
| reasoned verdict in all of her cases. Compared to many others
| cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very
| beginning.
|
| The other thing that really irritate the heck of me from Apple's
| PR, are their insistence of mentioning how App Store has provided
| jobs in each country. Creating X amount of Jobs. Below is the
| statement from Apple on this verdict
|
| >Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App
| Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court
| recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous
| competition in every segment in which we do business, and we
| believe customers and developers choose us because our products
| and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to
| ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that
| supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million
| U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone.
| gpm wrote:
| Note that if you scroll to the bottom of the order, the judge was
| nice enough to include an outline of the order to aid in
| navigation
|
| Direct link to order:
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-j...
| [deleted]
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Should apple appeal this? Is it really worth further damage?
|
| It turns out the little guys were right all along. It's
| surprising that it took legal action for apple to realize that,
| when you invite millions of third parties in your marketplace,
| you should treat them with some respect. And when this leads to
| prices of purchases going down, how are people going to keep
| justifying apple's position.
|
| I think the biggest win is that micropayment services will grow
| which is good for all developers (not just in iOS)
| Osiris wrote:
| The ruling could cost them billions of dollars in revenue. It's
| absolutely worth appealing. Even if they lose in the long run,
| they'll make a few billion more in the mean time.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| how many billions? It seems their max app gaming revenue lost
| would be 64 * 70% * 30% = 13.4B for 2021 , but it's probably
| a lot smaller due to special deals, and also this would
| assume they would lose ALL the revenue. In reality they'd
| lose about,maybe ~$3B ?
|
| The alternative would alienate some of their best developers
| -- who knows, maybe they'd leave?
| bhelkey wrote:
| >> In short, iOS apps must be allowed to direct users to
| payment options beyond those offered by Apple.
|
| > It seems their max app gaming revenue lost would be 64 *
| 70% * 30% = 13.4B for 2021
|
| It is my understanding that the injunction is not limited
| to games. It applies to all apps.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| where will they leave? 50% of market is Apple's and
| majority of people play games on their mobile phones and
| not on dedicated setups.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| how much did fortnite lose?
| spzb wrote:
| My reading of this is that it's nowhere near the big deal people
| are making out in the comments here. According to CNBC's report
| "Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from
| providing links or other communications that direct users away
| from Apple in-app purchasing" [0]. That's a long way from forcing
| Apple to allow alternative IAP providers or installing alternate
| app stores. It suggests you'll have to step out of the app to
| make a payment (which adds friction) and it'll be up to the app
| developer to validate back in the app that the right person has
| made the right payment. This sounds similar to what Apple had
| already conceded they'd do [1]
|
| [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-
| rea...
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/27/apple-
| agr...
| dannyw wrote:
| Apple's concession was for reader apps only. This expands it to
| all apps.
| spzb wrote:
| I meant "sounds similar to". I've edited my comment for
| clarity now.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Also a "reader app" is whatever Apple felt a reader app is,
| it's not something specific that an app should be.
| socialist_coder wrote:
| This will certainly get appealed and bogged down even more in the
| legal system, right? What are the chances this actually happens?
| And when?
|
| Secondly, this is such an easy way to increase your take by 20+%
| that I would imagine almost every publisher is going to be
| offering their own payments platform, not just the biggest ones
| like Epic.
| nullspace wrote:
| Yeah, agree. I think this would kill the App Store model. It's
| surprising that the stock only dipped by 2%. What am I missing?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Why would the app store model stop working? Paying through
| the app store has a direct benefit to usability. Before in
| app purchases the app store model worked fine.
|
| Even if the Epic lawsuit goes completely off the rails and
| Apple is forced to allow external app stores on iOS, they can
| still maintain a profitable app store if they provide the
| best experience to end users. Building an app store is very
| hard, and convincing people to install an alternative store
| is even harder, so I doubt they'll lose much there.
|
| The app store is so ludicrously profitable that the
| exclusivity they enjoy can't possibly be the only reason it's
| making them money. This cut into Apple's (and Google's)
| profits, but it certainly won't mean the end of app stores as
| we know them.
| gokhan wrote:
| > if they provide the best experience to end users
|
| I don't think they can. Their DNA on this evolved as a
| monopoly. They won't be able to compete, they will be slow
| and boring while clever people will overpower them.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I think they will find a way. The Mac App Store is far
| from a monopoly yet it still remains profitable as far as
| I know.
|
| My grandma isn't going to use any alternative store, she
| probably doesn't even understand the concept of different
| app stores. I think Apple will be fine, at least until
| competitors somehow gain a MASSIVE usability advantage.
| akmarinov wrote:
| This ruling enables devs to use third party payment
| providers, it doesn't force Apple to let alternative App
| Stores on iOS.
|
| Apple can and will still reject any apps they feel like.
| shuger wrote:
| It's not going to end this quickly. Whichever side loses will
| keep going at it until they exhaust all legal paths.
| dathinab wrote:
| > I think this would kill the App Store model.
|
| It doesn't kill it much more then it killed the android store
| in the past when it wasn't (roughly, in practice) enforcing
| the same thing.
|
| It's a revenue cut, but at least for the beginning it won't
| be a problem at all for apple, this might change at some
| point, but stocks have no reason to majorly drop _now_ they
| still can do so in the future if it makes sense.
| f6v wrote:
| > What am I missing?
|
| Google drive and Dropbox didn't kill iCloud.
| dathinab wrote:
| > What are the chances this actually happens? And when?
|
| If new laws/regulations are made which are clear about this,
| then potentially very soon.
|
| For such thinks sadly "making more clear laws" is sometimes
| faster then "enforcing not fully clear laws".
| bberenberg wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how many small companies figure
| out that tax and general compliance is worth every penny that
| Apple charges them. Smart ones will opt for a seller of record
| approach, but many will get burnt.
| manquer wrote:
| Stripe provides a lot of tooling ( more than apple) for
| compliance. Apple is hardly the only payment provider which
| simplifies payment processing for small developers.
| TillE wrote:
| "Tooling for compliance" sounds a hell of a lot more
| complicated than "you sell my app and send me a check",
| which is the deal on the App Store, Steam, etc.
| manquer wrote:
| Finance and compliance is lot more complicated than send
| me a Cheque for most businesses.
|
| Stripe ( and others) have products right from
| incorporation (Atlas?), identity verification, custom
| reporting, fraud/risk, Charge backs, Tax reporting/
| filing and even PoS terminals etc.
|
| Most businesses have to deal with multiple channels
| (Android, web, iOS and others), custom reporting, and
| different risk/compliance will need solutions well beyond
| what Apple is offering
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Definitely not every penny. E.g Xsolla, a payments
| provider/merchant-of-record charges 5%
| colinmhayes wrote:
| NYT article said this goes into effect in 90 days, although I
| assume an appellate judge could change that.
| [deleted]
| leptoniscool wrote:
| This is a big money maker for AAPL, they'll probably need to
| raise the profit margins on their hardware to make up for the
| lost revenue.
| asdff wrote:
| "New" SE phone with 4 year old hardware incoming
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions
| Apple has been able to get away with over the years:
|
| Bundling the OS with hardware
|
| Enforcing an App store
|
| Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile
|
| And the list goes on.
|
| I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I
| genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has
| resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.
| tw600040 wrote:
| //Bundling the OS with hardware...
|
| What about bundling camera, speaker, screen, processors etc?
| They are selling a product. You don't complain about car
| companies bundling 4 wheels and a motor.
| belltaco wrote:
| >Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile
|
| Not just mobile, but iPad Pro and iPads too.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Wait, are you suggesting that iPads and iPads Pro are not
| mobile? In what sense are they tethered?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| The same sense as laptops. At a wild guess, I'm betting
| most people are buying ipads with wifi only, not cellular.
| belltaco wrote:
| Are ultraportable laptops tethered? Would you call them
| mobile?
|
| Anyway, "mobile" has long been used as a short form for
| "mobile phone" rather than a "mobile device". E.g. the iPod
| was not called a mobile, and AFAIK barely anyone uses that
| term for tablets.
| wvenable wrote:
| If iPads are mobile, why aren't laptops?
| toast0 wrote:
| Laptops use mobile cpus, but desktop oses and software.
|
| PC based tablets are kind of weird, but iOS/Android
| mobile OS based tablets are more or less phones with big
| screens and no/limited calling features.
| wvenable wrote:
| "Desktop OS's and software" is an arbitrary definition.
| Smartphones are just computers that make calls. Steve
| Jobs even famously said that the iPhone ran "OS X" when
| it was first launched.
| toast0 wrote:
| It is somewhat arbitrary; yeah, smart phones _can_ run
| whatever, but practically, they don 't.
|
| For many reasons, the vast majority of people stick with
| the OS a device ships with, and mobile OSes are directed
| towards app stores and limited filesystems, and desktop
| OSes are directed towards applications (with a side of
| app stores) and visible filesystems and what not.
|
| You can run Android on a desktop PC, and you can (if you
| try really hard) run desktop Windows on a phone or a game
| console, but that's not how the devices are generally
| sold, and that's not how the devices are generally used.
| Apple sometimes claims their tablets are as useful as a
| computer running a desktop OS, but they don't provide
| Xcode for the iPad, do they?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I think they mean systems with a SIM card or internet
| access without being tethered to WIFI.
| MBCook wrote:
| You can buy iPads with cellular. You've been able to
| since the iPad 1.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Yes, you can buy them, but not everyone does. Phones are
| by default portable with their own network connection,
| whereas iPads have to be specifically chosen to have
| cellular data service. It's alright to overlook them.
| yurishimo wrote:
| > Bundling the OS with hardware
|
| Is this really an issue? I agree Apple has been pretty shady
| but this is a facet of any hardware you buy today from any
| manufacturer. Now, preventing/obfuscating the install of
| _other_ OS software, I agree, total bullshit.
| skohan wrote:
| Yes exactly. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's
| preventing free use of the hardware.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Is that actually an issue though, given that Apple has
| never advertised their hardware as being "free-use"?
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's an issue given that I'd be more interested in using
| a Mac if I could choose which graphics card I get to use
| instead of perusing a pre-approved list of B-rate
| processing units.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Technically, if you've got the know-how, you could code
| your own graphics acceleration drivers for nVidia cards
| on MacOS, it'd just be extremely hard and expensive to do
| so.
| skohan wrote:
| I can't speak to where it stands in the current legal
| framework, but personally I don't think the vendor of any
| product should have any rights to determine how it's used
| once the customer has paid for it.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why not just stop buying products that can't do what you
| want?
| skohan wrote:
| Why not just have common sense property rights enforced
| by law?
| endisneigh wrote:
| What's common sense property right?
|
| Isn't it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it
| to be a server even though they both have circuit boards
| and technically can both _compute_?
|
| Still don't get why don't you just buy things that
| advertise the functionality you want.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Isn't it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it
| to be a server even though they both have circuit boards
| and technically can both compute?
|
| The key here is _control_ , not computational power. An
| ideal law, in my opinion, would be one which prohibits
| building and selling _any_ device that can run code in a
| way which allows the manufacturer to have _more_ control
| over it than the legal owner after the sale has been
| completed. I think this idea is actually great because it
| never limits how limited a device can be, it just
| prohibits it from being made in a way in which the OEM
| /maker can control it more than the end user/new owner
| could.
|
| As an example, say you make a "smart toaster" with Wi-Fi
| and all that "good stuff" in it. If you just burn the
| firmware into the sillicon and that program has no way of
| updating itself, then you're good to go because both the
| company and the end user are stuck with the same level of
| control (In this context, "control" means "ability to
| make the computer parts run the code that you wish them
| to run")
|
| If you include the firmware in a writable EEPROM, and no
| further checks for the update firmware besides checksums,
| you're also golden, because then both the new owner and
| you (OEM) can exercise the same level of control over it.
|
| If, however, you decided to include signature checking
| using a public key burned in the sillicon, _then and only
| then_ you would be violating this hypothetical law,
| because that creates a situation in which you, the OEM,
| can exercise _more_ control than the device 's legitimate
| owner after purchase.
|
| So, to summarize, from the OEM's point of view under this
| law, less control is good, equal control is good, more
| control is bad.
|
| I think _this_ is what should be proposed as a new bill
| in U.S congress, although I have to admit the Open App
| Markets Act serves a great purpose as of right now for
| some specific devices.
| skohan wrote:
| A toaster is clearly not a general purpose computer.
| Should a car manufacturer be able to dictate which
| destinations you're allowed to reach with it?
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why isn't a toaster a general purpose computer? There are
| toasters with wifi, touchscreens and other functionality.
|
| As for your car question - why not? No one would buy such
| a crippled device. The problem would resolve itself.
|
| If a car manufacturer sold a car without a steering wheel
| that self drove, perhaps people would buy the car in
| spite of the limitations. What they shouldn't do, is buy
| a car advertised without a steering wheel and then
| complain that it doesn't have one.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Cooking-R180-High-
| Speed-St...
| gpm wrote:
| In my opinion it _should_ be, it should be an abuse of
| Apple 's monopoly on the hardware (including patents
| preventing someone else from building an equivalent
| device) to create a monopoly on the software.
|
| Legally I don't think it is today though, and my
| understanding of the law is that it's precisely because
| they haven't advertised their hardware as open as you
| say.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| It is not an issue. MS is the outlier here in that they sell
| their software to anybody (Linux is given for free), like you
| said everybody else (TV manufactures, cars, etc) bundle
| theirs.
|
| You could, maybe, make the argument that what Apple does is
| anticompetitive, but in the laptop space they are the ones
| being hurt by a monopoly, not the ones who benefit.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| One fact that has emerged is that Apple is pushing lock-in as a
| strategy. So to everyone who has ever felt like they are too
| "invested" in the ecosystem to leave- that is by design. You
| are victims.
| simonh wrote:
| How dare they make their systems work so well together and
| easy to use.
| xvector wrote:
| The Google Pixel works well and is easy to use but still
| lets you install custom ROMs.
| btmiller wrote:
| Sounds to me like the invisible hand of the free market
| economy. Use that phone, then. A given company is not
| obligated to serve all of your specific needs and
| desires.
| widowlark wrote:
| but their practices might still be considered anti-
| competitive if harmful enough to end users
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Not mutually exclusive. You can build systems that work
| well together and are easy to use without lock-in. Users
| should want to use the product because it is the best, not
| because they feel trapped.
| howinteresting wrote:
| What does not allowing alternative browsers (only skins) on
| their best-selling platform have to do with that?
| danShumway wrote:
| That's not really what lock-in means.
|
| An example of lock-in is making a conscious decision not to
| port iMessage to Android, specifically because it would
| make it easier for iPhone users to move to Android[0].
|
| Making Apple products work well with other Apple products
| isn't lock-in. Purposefully making Apple products work
| worse with other systems, phrased within the company as a
| way to punish users who switch, is the kind of thing we're
| talking about when we describe lock-in.
|
| [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-never-
| made-i...
| ricardobeat wrote:
| How easy is it to migrate from Google's Messages app to
| iMessage?
| danShumway wrote:
| Is your argument that Google doesn't try to engage in
| lock-in? Or is your argument that lock-in is good for
| users?
|
| Either way, when there are literal emails in the company
| saying that the reason iMessage isn't on Android is
| because otherwise it would be too easy for Apple users to
| switch to Android -- then that's what lock-in is.
|
| I don't get the whataboutism here. It's lock-in. Google
| is also a crappy company, but that doesn't change
| anything about what Apple is doing, and it doesn't change
| anything about the fact that the court case has revealed
| enough documents to show that lock-in is a deliberate
| market strategy that Apple undertakes.
|
| Google also acting crappy in a few cases does not mean
| that the very concept of lock-in is suddenly invalid.
| People forget that Apple is not the only company being
| sued for antitrust in regards to their app stores.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I don't have time right now to expand, but the greater
| argument is that data portability is a much larger
| problem. There is nothing nefarious about Microsoft
| deciding to not support Office on Mac, just like iMessage
| on Android. It's a business decision. There are plenty of
| cross-platform alternatives. If Apple actively blocked
| messaging apps from exporting their data then we'd have a
| story.
| simonh wrote:
| >Making Apple products work well with other Apple
| products isn't lock-in.
|
| Cool. iMessage works perfectly well with SMS, which is
| the only true open messaging standard, and therefore will
| work with anything else that interoperates with SMS. Job
| done.
| danShumway wrote:
| Job done well enough that internal emails at Apple said,
| "the #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple
| universe app is iMessage"?
|
| Come on. Apple's VP of software engineering would not be
| debating Android support in internal emails if SMS worked
| "perfectly well".
| gwoplock wrote:
| I agree that Apple not bringing iMessage to Android is
| lock in and very purposeful. But I don't think (at least
| not initially) it's because it works better than plain
| old SMS. I think there is quite a bit of social pressure
| to have "the blue bubble" especially in middle/high
| school.
|
| Most of the iMessage features, text, video, pictures and
| "reactions/tap backs" work over SMS. The only real
| feature missing is delivery and read receipts but most
| people in my experience have read receipts turned off.
| Apps also don't work but I've yet to see someone actually
| use that feature.
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| Until these systems start aging and are no longer
| interoperable with more recent versions. It's not like
| Apple is giving us a bash like experience where things just
| work for decades.
| dynjo wrote:
| Yet you are ok with your Microwave/Washing Machine/Car etc
| being supplied as a software/hardware combination...
| endisneigh wrote:
| If Apple were a minor player, would the things you describe
| still be anti-competitive?
| mmastrac wrote:
| Yes, but if you're tiny it just doesn't matter, and the laws
| are explicitly written with this in mind.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Do you have examples of these laws (in the USA
| specifically)?
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| I'm not. Amazon does the same thing: produce a great end
| product, and users won't give a shit about what you did behind
| closed doors to get it that way.
| asdff wrote:
| It blows my mind how Apple can do all of this but windows got
| dinged for IE
| agilob wrote:
| >Bundling the OS with hardware
|
| Is this anticompetitive if it's a fundament of old business
| model back from 80s?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Wow this is unexpected, until now Apple had a solid case, or so I
| thought. This is welcome of course, since it means other
| developers can use that judgement AGAINST Apple. Was it worth it
| for Apple to go to court all things considered? I guess they were
| really confident the court would rule in their favor.
| dannyw wrote:
| huh? The judge pretty much told everyone the outcome in May:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-
| appl....
| xvector wrote:
| There goes all of Apple's App Store revenue, a cool 25% of
| Apple's total revenue. Should have sold my stock!
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Bravo to Epic and team, but I have to say that the web will win
| out long term. It's cross platform, "just works" everywhere, and
| developers are free to choose from any payment system. They also
| don't have to live in fear from retribution by the platform
| owner.
|
| Our startup Wonder is building a decentralized 3D platform in the
| browser for Unreal Engine 4 developers who want to ship their
| immersive applications on the web, be it games, product
| visualizations, even VR apps. We plan on extending support to
| Unity and other engines in the near future as well.
|
| The biggest innovation is that we offer the tooling to optimize,
| package, and distribute rich software online that previously
| could only run on desktop. Thanks to WebAssembly, WebGPU,
| WebTransport, and WebXR, even the most demanding applications can
| run client side in the browser.
|
| Developers are free to host their creations on their own terms,
| without a middleman saying what they can and can't do.
|
| Here's a link to our Discord if you're interested in hearing
| more:
|
| https://discord.gg/cFJV6Yu
| carlosdp wrote:
| Wow, this is huge! We'll see how this holds up, but definitely
| seems like a turning point.
|
| The effect of this order seems to be Apple can't prevent apps
| from telling customers about alternative in-app purchasing
| methods, which is a central issue of the case at hand in Epic vs
| Apple.
| post_break wrote:
| I can only assume this means epic developer account reinstated
| and fortnight is back in the app store.
| dannyw wrote:
| The injuction does not require Apple to reinstate Fortnite.
| zamadatix wrote:
| > 43 With respect to the appropriateness of Peely's "dress," the
| Court understood Apple merely to be "dressing" Peely in a tuxedo
| for federal court, as jest to reflect the general solemnity of a
| federal court proceeding. As Mr. Weissinger later remarket, and
| with which the court agrees, Peely is "just a banana man,"
| additional attire was not necessary but informative. Trial Tr.
| (Weissinger) 1443:17.
| [deleted]
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| If you were confused by this as well, here's a reference:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666922/apple-epic-peely...
| jollybean wrote:
| I think the other, possibly more meaningful issue, is Apple's
| control over who can and cannot make an app for their devices.
|
| If you put a product in BestBuy, it's understandable that BestBuy
| would not want you to offer a very cheap upfront price, and then
| to have all sorts of 'add ons' sold directly to consumer where
| BestBuy doesn't make any money.
|
| It's fair that BestBuy sets terms that they can participate in
| the follow ons.
|
| The limiting factor here, however, is competition.
|
| If anyone could make an AppStore for iOS, then the issue of
| Apple's or BestBuy's 'terms' could be side-stepped.
|
| The power imbalance is caused by a lack of competition.
|
| If there was competition, app makers would find a place where
| they were not constrained by in-app purchases, or something along
| those lines.
| thehappypm wrote:
| I've read the doc like 10 times. I think there are two key
| takeaways.
|
| First, Apple can't stop companies like Epic from including links
| to other payment tools. Practically speaking, that means things
| like Kindle can now have a "Purchase on Amazon.com" button (which
| it currently does not have in order to avoid the 30% cut).
|
| Second, the App Store itself is a-okay. Apple does not need to
| allow side loading or a second App Store.
|
| Analysis from me: it's a win for Apple. They get to keep their
| App Store, which would be tremendously bad for them if they were
| forced to allow alternatives. There will be revenue loss from in-
| app purchases that are done via external links now, but Apple's
| own mechanisms are likely to continue being the easiest and most
| seamless, so that revenue stream will hardly go to $0.
| ggoo wrote:
| Does this apply to all apps or just games?
| jhatax wrote:
| All apps; the language in the ruling against Apple is:
|
| >>
|
| permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers
| from including in their apps and their metadata buttons,
| external links, or other calls to action that direct customers
| to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and
| communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
| voluntarily from customers through account registration within
| the app.
|
| >>
| sudhirj wrote:
| Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S.
| Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the
| IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things,
| which might actually increase revenue.
|
| 1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down
| the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account,
| say at $5,000 a year.
|
| The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-assed
| bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS and macOS
| user will prefer to use the Apple system. All Apple has to do is
| to make the rates competitive enough, that after considering
| building their own purchases system, factoring in sales tax and
| VAT, most developers will happily just opt for Apple's system if
| the rates make sense. Many people are putting up with 30% already
| -- bringing the rates down to something reasonable with an
| upgrade path to put them on par with payment processors like
| Stripe (with VAT and Billing and Radar) or Paddle will just
| increase revenues for them.
|
| The moment they drop rates and ease restrictions apps that are
| not being built because of these rules will get built, and these
| apps will gladly pay the market rate of 5% to 10% for a full
| service payments system.
| MillenialMan wrote:
| Given the option, I think most customers would absolutely
| rather use the company's system, if the company offered lower
| prices for buying through them. Of course, that assumes both
| systems would be on offer - but if there's market pressure for
| companies to offer Apple as an option, that may be enough.
| xkr wrote:
| As iOS and macOS user, I always subscribe directly through the
| app developer if they allow this. I stopped trusting Apple
| subscriptions when I called them asking to reimburse the
| subscription I forgot to cancel (just a few days later) and
| they said "no". I never encountered any internet service
| declining this kind of requests.
| Razengan wrote:
| Apple has always given me a refund for shitty apps without
| question, whereas shitty apps who have their own payment
| system, like CouchSurfing, never even respond to requests for
| refunds _at all._
|
| The silent majority - the users - will always prefer to go
| through Apple. But HN seems to be full of user-hostile devs (as
| you can tell by looking at all the downvoted comments here who
| speak from a user's PoV) who only hear the companies that want
| to break down the garden's walls to prey upon users.
| yyyk wrote:
| The Apple fee model favours cheap shitty apps because that's
| the best way to not get gouged by Apple's fees.
|
| Relaxing that model will lead to better apps overall because
| finally you can invest and charge appropriately, you just
| need to trust yourself to not pay in apps you don't trust.
| collaborative wrote:
| We are not user-hostile
|
| We just don't want to be vilified and forced to bow to the
| giants because of a few bad apples
| ltbarcly3 wrote:
| People will prefer to use Apple's system if the cost is close
| enough to the same. The larger/more trusted the brand making
| the app is, or the higher the cost difference, the more likely
| the user will be to go to the trouble of going off platform to
| make the purchase.
|
| Most of the revenue Apple makes is from top apps and top
| brands, which is why they had no problem cutting the rates to
| 15% for the little guys already, the little guys are a tiny
| slice of the overall pie.
|
| There is no way this will overall increase Apple's revenue,
| especially as companies concentrate on building solid 'Apple
| fee avoidance' funnels. Not to mention that many pay-for apps
| will very likely convert to free to download and then push the
| user to pay for the app externally to the app store as a 'one
| time lifetime subscription'.
|
| This is going to cause a massive revenue loss for Apple if it
| stands.
| BackBlast wrote:
| Trying to hang onto systems where your customers resent paying
| you is not where you want to be. You bring up an interesting
| proposal, fundamentally Apple needs to create a system where
| developers WANT to pay the fees because of the value they get
| in using the system and services. And all those connected
| credit cards and customer identities definitely have value.
| laurent92 wrote:
| > All Apple has to do is to make the rates competitive enough
|
| No. All Apple has to do is amplify a few horror stories, for
| example people using [any competitor]'s renewable subscriptions
| and not being able to unsubscribe. Or amplify a story of a
| virus/malware on, hopefully, Epic or Steam.
|
| This is certainly what makes you choose a MORE expensive
| product, that's certainly why I buy my fire extinguishers $200
| instead of $50 for the same model (but a trusted source). Apple
| should be able to keep a more expensive margin based on
| reputation alone.
| [deleted]
| acdha wrote:
| > The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-
| assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS
| and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system.
|
| The first sentence is true but incomplete, making the second
| wrong. For example, the Amazon app is highly likely to have
| people using their existing Amazon payment method. Companies
| like Stripe are going to offer their own SDKs just like they do
| for web payments. Apple's offerings are quite polished so I
| don't think they'll fall out of favor but it's going to reduce
| their profit margin and I'm sure the number of people who will
| use alternatives is much greater than zero.
| naravara wrote:
| Also scammers will want to redirect people to alternate
| methods, as well as those who engage in not-quite-scam-but-
| still-unsavory-business practices. Games aimed at kids are
| the biggest offenders, possibly using this as a way to
| circumvent parental controls on purchases or just to
| introduce some additional friction to customer service
| requests or requests to terminate subscriptions.
|
| This is all stuff Apple can design around or codify into
| their approval standards, obviously. Which is why it's
| imperative they act on their own so they can dictate how it
| shakes out rather than having a poorly considered
| implementation forced on them by regulators.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| _> Apple's offerings are quite polished so I don't think
| they'll fall out of favor_
|
| Any iOS devs care to weigh in? Apple's system could just as
| easily be a godawful mess. No personal experience but I've
| seen people online complaining about how StoreKit sucks.
|
| They've had in-app purchases since 2009 and no competitive
| pressure from other SDKs, because they can block them with
| app store policy instead of needing to offer a better
| product. That sounds like an easy environment for it to
| become an afterthought; the people using it have no choice in
| the matter if they want to be on the App Store.
| jclardy wrote:
| As a dev, StoreKit sucks. StoreKit 2 basically fixes all
| the development pain points, but is iOS 15+ only so
| basically unusable for everyone until late next year.
| Payment models are limited to basically paid, free + IAP,
| free + subscription. No real trials, no paid upgrades, no
| configurable subscriptions (IE pay for 1-X seats.) That
| leads to things like Twitter's setup where every plus
| account has an individual subscription SKU.
|
| On the code side you have to run your own backend purchase
| server because there is a ton of subscription information
| that is only relayed to the server (Cancellations,
| upgrades, downgrades, cross grades, billing problems,
| etc.), as the app has no way to know directly (Until SK2.)
| Services like RevenueCat help small devs deal with this,
| but then you have another cut out of your paycheck.
|
| Things like price testing require more backend setup
| because Apple offers no way for an app to grab product
| information from themselves (You have to know every
| identifier, there is no way to just request "all available
| IAPs" via StoreKit.)
|
| So basically, there is a ton of room for improvement on the
| dev side, and a lot of easy wins for someone like Stripe to
| capitalize on.
|
| As a user, I don't have many complaints, other than not
| having an easy way to request a refund, other than finding
| the App Store email address and pleading your case. It
| should be something you can do via your purchases screen
| directly. As a dev, not being able to issue customer
| refunds sucks, as many users will think you are dismissing
| them by saying, "You've got to ask apple for a refund."
| prepend wrote:
| As a user, Apples is the best and easiest payment system.
|
| I'll frequently not buy from sites that want registration
| and card info because of the hassle.
|
| I'll probably end up using things I already have accounts
| with (amazon, Google, steam) but will never buy from apps
| that require me to sign up with them to buy stuff. I
| already hate registering with companies to play games.
| acdha wrote:
| I'm just speaking from the user experience: I know that
| there are issues with the App Store's model for upgrades,
| trials, etc. so those are valid considerations but if
| you're just using an app it is really convenient to that
| you can buy something securely with a tap and a double-
| click and have zero problems getting a refund or canceling
| a subscription.
|
| Basically I'd expect successful competitors with Apple to
| be companies which do the same. Abusive companies aren't
| going to be popular but I suspect Stripe, Shopify, Amazon,
| etc. could convince a fair number of people that they're no
| worse on that regard and better in some other way.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Yeah, I would be perfectly willing to set up
| subscriptions through Stripe if they gave me a way to
| manage all those subscriptions in one place.
|
| My worry with the "anti-steering" requirement being
| removed is that every company will redirect me back to
| their own website with their own payment system, and I'll
| have to manage all of them individually, or phone up
| their call center to try and get anything cancelled.
|
| Easy to avoid by not subscribing to anything, but every
| app seems to be trending that way.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You can already buy stuff from the Amazon app using your
| existing Amazon payment method. All of this controversy is
| about in-app purchases of digital content.
| GiorgioG wrote:
| Except you can't purchase Kindle/Audible content.
| acdha wrote:
| That's what I was referring to. Try buying a Kindle book --
| you have to wishlist it (you can't even add it to your
| cart) and switch to a browser to actually buy it.
|
| This is also why I mention Amazon a lot: while I favor
| ApplePay for purchases, there's a 0% chance that I want to
| use it for my Kindle purchases because simply owning a
| Kindle means I've already committed to use Amazon to buy
| content for it.
| pornel wrote:
| Apple likes to imply it's only about frivolous things like
| powerups in games or iTunes songs, but software is eating
| the world, so the whole economy is moving to being
| "digital".
| danudey wrote:
| Given how polished everything that Stripe makes is, I
| wouldn't be surprised if this becomes the de-facto non-Apple
| alternative. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they'd already
| built an SDK to cover this very eventuality.
| RIMR wrote:
| >the Amazon app is highly likely to have people using their
| existing Amazon payment method.
|
| Let's say you want to sell your original product on Amazon,
| but you also have your own fulfillment center and a
| storefront on your website. What if Amazon removed you from
| their store, because your instruction manual included a URL
| to your website, and it was against the rules to tell your
| customers that you accepted payment outside of Amazon's
| ecosystem in any way.
|
| That's what Apple did with software, though suspiciously they
| left the largest, most litigious companies like Amazon alone,
| because they've been free to use their own payment systems
| for in-app purchases of physical products for years now.
| shados wrote:
| I agree with this. On top of that, the experience in games is
| often downright weird. I'm no Apple user, but on Android,
| you're in the game, you try to buy something, it pops the
| Android payment UX, you pay, then you wait a sec or two, get
| your thing in the game.
|
| If its a Gacha or something, you then are getting some in-
| game currency, that you then have to redeem for the item you
| wanted. The extra steps are really annoying, and if its a
| company I trust, it would be easier to give them my info to
| smoothen things up (big if, mind you)
| isk517 wrote:
| I many would argue that making gacha game purchases harder
| is a feature.
| toseupthrow wrote:
| On the other hand, I love how apple lets me use a visa gift
| card purchased in cash at the local convenience store. When
| trying to pay for a VPN service anywhere but the app, they
| reject the card, but Apple let me use it to purchase the
| subscription.
| sneak wrote:
| How did you get the phone number you used to create the
| Apple ID? Mint?
| easton wrote:
| Unless something has changed in the past year since the
| last time I've made an Apple ID, they don't verify the
| phone number. For 2FA, you can also give it an email
| address. And I'm almost certain I've used a Google Voice
| number with an Apple ID before with no qualms.
| sneak wrote:
| For at least a year creating a new Apple ID requires
| verifying the phone number by providing Apple with an
| integer code sent to the number.
|
| Getting a Google Voice number requires a Google account.
| Creating a Google account requires a phone number (which
| you must maintain access to, because they will
| periodically reverify it).
| eropple wrote:
| Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Apple
| does a really good job of warning me, I feel, and
| centralizing subscription cancellation etc., and that's huge.
| Like, if I have to go to your app--or worse, your website--to
| cancel a subscription? I'm gonna just not use your stuff,
| because I'm going to forget about it until you whack me for
| another year or whatever.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Worse still, is having to re-install a removed application
| when the renewal hit in order to then kill your account
| that was created during first run of said app.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| Shopify's "Shop Pay" has already introduced a seamless
| payment interaction across many sites without a need for a
| separate account or to trust so many people with payment
| info - the idea that something similar wouldn't be created
| and get adoption for subscriptions on mobile seems highly
| unlikely.
|
| I have subscriptions and accounts all over the web, and I
| have never have had an issue canceling anything via a
| website - the only exception being the NYTimes and all its
| dark patterns.
|
| Out of probably 10+ subscriptions we use (Netflix, Spotify,
| HBO, Hulu, etc), I have only ever had one through the Apple
| system, and it's not even active anymore.
|
| Just using a password manager and having a separate email
| for junk/mail from various accounts keeps me in the loop on
| what accounts I still have laying around. The Apple
| subscription section is the absolute last place I look when
| I don't know where a charge came from.
| layer8 wrote:
| One drawback of the current situation is that for example
| you can't purchase ebooks through the iOS Kindle app
| (because Amazon can't/won't let Apple take their 30% cut
| there), and the app can't even link to the corresponding
| product page on Amazon. If the new ruling enables such
| purchases and linking, then as a consumer I'm very much in
| favor of it.
| mcphage wrote:
| I used to love buying comic books in Comixology--it was
| so quick and easy to try new titles. And then Amazon
| bought Comixology, and almost immediately removed in-app
| purchases. I haven't purchased many comics since.
| dylan604 wrote:
| But yet you can by directly from Amazon in their app
| without using Apple. How can Apple say that they cannot
| sell eBooks directly on Kindle app, but allow direct
| sells from the retail store?
| layer8 wrote:
| You can't buy Kindle books with the iOS Amazon app. It
| only allows to download a free sample.
|
| Amusingly, when you tap on an Amazon link to a Kindle
| book in iOS Safari, it redirects to the app (because of
| the Amazon URL), but then the app notices that it's a
| Kindle book page and redirects back to Safari.
| jclardy wrote:
| It's because then Apple Books would have to compete with
| the Kindle app on fair terms. IE Apple is being anti-
| competitive and giving their own app an advantage. This
| is basically a part of what the original lawsuit was
| about.
| djrogers wrote:
| You can buy physical goods in the Amazon app, but not
| digital books.
| bogwog wrote:
| Im sure every random app wont be rolling their own payment
| system. Paypal's transaction fees for example are
| significantly lower than Apple (less than 4% vs Apple's
| 30%), and millions of users already have a Paypal account,
| so they could buy your product without having to create an
| account or enter payment info.
|
| Idk if Paypal lets you cancel subscriptions directly
| through them, but they could certainly implement that if
| there's demand. The same goes for any other payment company
| that wants a piece of this new and enormous opportunity.
| shagie wrote:
| If you're making less than $1M/y, its 15% (
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-
| app-s... )
|
| If you're going through PayPal (
| https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees ), a
| $0.99 micro transaction is $5% + 0.09. That's $0.14 which
| is about 15%. It also means you get things like PayPal
| deciding to not release the money it holds for some
| reason.
|
| At that point, for the small developer, it appears to be
| a wash for how much you're making. Yea, this goes down if
| you've got bigger IAPs. It also goes up if its an
| international transaction.
|
| Furthermore, it means that you (the developer) needs to
| manage your own IAP system. Website with 100% uptime?
| User accounts and passwords (more friction to creating
| the account to purchase the IAP)? Network connectivity
| issues (can a solo game be played off network)?
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| paypal actually does, i used it the other day. they've
| given their web app a lot of polish recently.
| rhizome wrote:
| People/apps that use alternate payment SDKs aren't going to
| care how difficult it is to unsubscribe, and very few
| people (citation needed) care enough to look into an app's
| cancellation flow before buying in.
| webmobdev wrote:
| > _Companies will want it, but I 'm not sure users will_.
|
| Explain to the user that a $10 / month in-app transaction
| is $13 or $15 because Apple wants 30-50% of every
| transaction, and I am pretty sure most Apple users will
| recognize this as plain _extortion_ and not appreciate it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Apple does a really good job of warning me, I feel, and
| centralizing subscription cancellation etc., and that's
| huge. Like, if I have to go to your app--or worse, your
| website--to cancel a subscription? I'm gonna just not use
| your stuff, because I'm going to forget about it until you
| whack me for another year or whatever.
|
| So then we have two possibilities.
|
| One, you're an outlier and nobody else cares.
|
| Two, many users care about this enough to refuse payment
| systems that don't have it. In that case there will be a
| market for another payment system that has easy
| cancellations but charges ~5% instead of 30%.
|
| Either way nobody pays 30% anymore.
| adamlett wrote:
| * Two, many users care about this enough to refuse
| payment systems that don't have it. In that case there
| will be a market for another payment system that has easy
| cancellations but charges ~5% instead of 30%.*
|
| That line of reasoning holds when all else is equal,
| which it almost never is when it comes to apps. No matter
| how passionate anyone is about payment systems, it's
| still extremely unlikely to rise to become the
| determining factor when deciding to install an app. If a
| person wants to play Fortnite with their friends, but
| doesn't like the payment system, they don't magically get
| to choose a Fortnite clone with a payment system that's
| more to their liking.
| yyyk wrote:
| Apple doesn't need to monopolize payment to centralize
| subscription cancellation. More importantly, Apple's fee
| structure prefers cheaper trashy apps over expansive to
| produce quality apps. I hope users will feel the difference
| with an overall better app selection.
|
| Example: Apple takes a flat 30% fee while Stripe takes
| (IIRC) 0.3 + Y% (when Y much lower than 30). So a cheap app
| will pay the same or less with Apple, but an expensive one
| will lose a lot with Apple. I know not all expensive apps
| are quality ones, but at least this model will be
| economical now.
| acdha wrote:
| You'll get no argument from me that Apple's system is
| pretty good from a consumer standpoint -- that's the
| primary reason why I predicted that it'd remain popular.
| It's really nice knowing that you can nuke a subscription
| without getting some dark patterns trying to talk you out
| of it.
|
| On the other hand, it's really easy to imagine that you'd
| see something like "$9.99 IAP; $7.99 direct from
| Epic/Amazon/Google/Netflix/et al.", especially when it's a
| company they already deal with and don't have a negative
| impression of.
|
| The big question I'd have is whether that's possible or the
| other terms require price parity -- and whether they'd be
| able to do something like offer bonus content, rewards
| clubs, etc. to nudge people toward their own store. I'd be
| somewhat surprised if, for example, Epic couldn't entice a
| fair number of people with some kind of in-game skin or
| other loot which they could argue has a resale value of $0.
| yyyk wrote:
| > It's really nice knowing that you can nuke a
| subscription without getting some dark patterns trying to
| talk you out of it.
|
| Tim Cook said at the trial they could integrate a
| separate payment API into Apple's subscriptions.
| Alternatively, Apple could check the cancel method during
| app review - so that's not a reason to allow Apple's
| payment monopoly.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| The other part is, what do the Apple subscription cover
| in terms of platforms?
|
| e.g.: If I can pay for say Guardian subscription either:
|
| 1. via their website/app and use it on iPhone, android,
| PC, etc; or
|
| 2. Pay for same subscription via Apple subscription and
| ONLY have it on my iPhone
|
| - that's a HUGE diff, and one that I have been extremely
| peeved off to discover in the past :-/. It only took one
| such experience to permanently sour me on Apply
| subscriptions.
| biztos wrote:
| I ended up canceling a magazine subscription I'd done
| with Apple, because there was no way to use my Apple
| credentials on the web site. It was app-only, and the app
| was crap compared to the web version. I might resubscribe
| but... friction...
| TYPE_FASTER wrote:
| I subscribe to HBO through Apple. The platform I watch it
| on doesn't matter. We use Roku.
| bin_bash wrote:
| I would consider going through HBO directly. I used to
| subscribe through Apple but once HBO offered a promo that
| I didn't qualify for because I was billed through Apple.
| robocat wrote:
| The Guardian allows you to sign in from a browser with
| your AppleID - does that not give you access to your
| subscription? https://profile.theguardian.com/signin
| djrogers wrote:
| That's not a shortcoming of Apple's system - every
| subscription I have using IAP has a way to tie to to an
| existing or new account for use on other devices. If the
| Guardian decided not to do that, that's kinda crappy and
| 100% on them.
| baxtr wrote:
| I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn't cancel online.
| You have to call them, wait in line and then let them
| talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad
| experience.
|
| It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked.
|
| This experience was definitely more expensive than using
| Apple's services.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| They have a class action lawsuit against them.
|
| I believe it just covers automatic renewals, which are
| illegial.
|
| The WSJ needs to clean up their act. Offer better info to
| subscribers? The rest of us arn't going to pay. And I
| know it's difficult business. Figure out something
| newsboys besides trickery?
|
| Fire that MBA in charge of subscriptions.
| pstrateman wrote:
| I cancelled mine by sending them an email stating that I
| would be disputing every charge.
|
| The reply email I got was at 9:07am EST, 'dispute'
| probably automatically puts your email head of queue for
| them.
| tyingq wrote:
| "chargeback" is probably a good keyword too.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| We just got an email notice that $locl_newspaper was
| doubling its monthly subscription rate effective
| immediately. When we called to cancel they permanently us
| in at the old subscription rate.
|
| Pretty clearly a cash grab against those subscribers who
| aren't watching the notices + auto-billing closely...
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| If a smooth cancelation is so important to users that it
| justifies a 30% upcharge, other payment processors will
| compete. They can even advertise the easy cancelation
| during checkout next to the payment method ("install the
| stripe subscriptions app or go to stripe.com for one-
| click, prorated cancellations!"). I think once one of
| them does it, they all will. If the injunction goes into
| effect in 90 days, it will be a gold rush for everyone
| who gets to finally compete with Apple Pay. This will
| induce a bunch of rapid innovation in the iOS payment
| space.
| cjfd wrote:
| If not being robbed is so important that it justifies
| buying locks we might actually decide that robbing should
| be illegal and punishable by jailtime....
| svachalek wrote:
| Not when the robbers are writing the rules.
| eropple wrote:
| The thing that I think you're perhaps missing is that
| Stripe etc. will be competing with Apple _for
| developers_. Letting developers make it harder for
| consumers to cancel something is a feature, not a bug.
|
| Stripe etc. do not care about competing for consumer
| favor. Apple does. As far as any large company is on the
| consumer's side, Apple is, because they need me to buy
| another iPhone more than they need me to buy a
| subscription to somebody else's app, even at a 30% vig.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| This is a deeply threaded discussion, but if you look up
| there, you'll find that people are arguing that users
| will choose Apple Pay over other payment processors or
| refuse to use apps that don't offer Apple Pay. That's the
| context in which my comment is written. If it's true,
| then app developers and payment processors will need to
| respond to that market demand. If users don't care, then
| of course developers and payment processors don't need to
| care either (absent regulation).
| woko wrote:
| I don't understand how this works in favour of Apple.
| Imagine you had paid with any other third-party payment
| provider, e.g. Paypal. Wouldn't you have been able to
| cancel the recurring payment just as easily? Even with a
| CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel the recurring
| payment by going through the account options on your bank
| website?
| baxtr wrote:
| At least with my European CC I need to fill out a PDF,
| put a signature on it and upload. Not the level of
| convenience I am used to. Maybe it's different elsewhere.
| msbarnett wrote:
| > Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel
| the recurring payment by going through the account
| options on your bank website?
|
| No? I don't know where you're located, but I'm not aware
| of any North American banks that offer anything of the
| sort. Typically the only thing you could do through your
| bank is dispute a charge after the fact and request a
| chargeback. The end of that process may or may not see
| the company in question left unable to charge you again,
| but it's not a "cancellation of recurring payment"
| process in any normal sense, and it's going to require
| some phone calls and form-filling.
|
| Companies will famously decline to offer subscription
| cancellation options on their website, leaving consumers
| with the only option of calling them on the phone and
| facing a hard sell when attempting to cancel. Apple's
| subscription cancellation options are night-and-day
| better than the status quo.
| gambiting wrote:
| Here in UK if a company wants to charge you regularly for
| anything they have to start something called a "direct
| debit" on your bank account - then they can withdraw
| money from your account whenever they see fit. The thing
| about direct debits though is that you can cancel them
| for any reason within few clicks on your account website,
| and all charges are reversible without having to provide
| a reason - I just call my bank and say I want to reverse
| a direct debit charge X, done.
|
| I know the American system is bad, but it's not like the
| only system in the world. There are other ways of doing
| this, without going through Apple's closed ecosystem.
| darkhelmet wrote:
| Precisely this. And I realize it's not the same around
| the world, but recurring payments get really bad in large
| parts of the world.
|
| If you, the customer, want to cancel a recurring payment
| and you're using ApplePay, it's one button and done.
|
| If you're using 3rd party billing from $randomcompany, it
| usually works by you, the customer, trying to find who to
| call and spending a substantial portion of your time
| being badgered by customer retention people. They're set
| up to make it as difficult as possible because they know
| that they can make people give in if the effort is too
| high.
|
| This is a huge part of the reason why companies want the
| second option - they want to own the customer, and for
| you to have to get permission from them to stop belonging
| to them.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| >Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel
| the recurring payment by going through the account
| options on your bank website?
|
| High quality bait right here.
| rfrey wrote:
| I suppose that would only happen if Apple were very
| uncompetitive in price. In the example above, the options
| would be equivalent to the company if Apple only dropped
| their cut to 25% and the competition was free.
|
| Assume Apple dropped to 15% and the competition was 10% -
| then it would be 9.99 IAP, 9.63 on
| Amaozon/Stripe/Netflix, which probably wouldn't be worth
| the consumer confusion.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| ~USD$70 B AppStore revenue (yearly, 2020), so simplistic
| estimates:
|
| 5% price cut: -$3.5 B
|
| 15% price cut: -$10.5 B
|
| ... I think all bets are on the table as to how Apple
| will respond, given the magnitude of what we're talking
| about.
| shagie wrote:
| Doing some back of the envelope "what would it take to do
| micropayments with PayPal"
|
| https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees
|
| A micropayment is 5% + $0.09. For a $0.99 purchase, this
| is about 15%.
|
| I would expect other payment processors to be similar.
|
| This _also_ leads to the question of "how do you
| maintain the in app purchases?" Is it an account on a
| website that has 100% uptime? Does it work for solo games
| when there's no network connectivity?
|
| This works for Epic (big company, lots of payment
| processing already). It doesn't work for SmallGamerInc
| that would find that they'd need to do a bunch of _other_
| stuff to get it working that incurs more costs than what
| Apple offers.
| travoc wrote:
| You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital
| purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring
| next year? You might be an edge case.
| eropple wrote:
| Third-party payment providers who _I don 't select_, not
| being answerable to me as a platform holder, are
| incentivized to make it hard for me to cancel. Apple
| doesn't do that. I have better things to worry about than
| to track this stuff down and I desperately want to think
| about fewer stupid things in my life. Subscription
| management is solved and stupid.
|
| Perhaps look at it this way: I'm pretty OK with paying
| 30% to not pay 200% and, kinda more importantly, not to
| feel upset and angry later for forgetting a dark-
| patterned subscription dinging me again. If that's an
| edge case, _y 'all are wrong_.
|
| Maybe Apple can straitjacket them properly. "You must use
| XYZ API in iOS/MacOS and you must support one-click
| cancellation via a standard process." But I think the
| dark-pattern farmers who are angry about this would be
| angry about that, too.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Apple can still enforce in their rules the ability to
| cancel from one place
|
| If that's all they'd done from the beginning this ruling
| would not have happened.
|
| Apple wants to control the access to a very significant
| portion of the user base?
|
| Fine, but then they'll act like a lawmaker-light and in
| many (western) societies that means you get some burdens
| and responsibilities piled upon you by the original
| lawmakers.
| gwoplock wrote:
| > Maybe Apple can straitjacket them properly. "You must
| use XYZ API in iOS/MacOS and you must support one-click
| cancellation via a standard process." But I think the
| dark-pattern farmers who are angry about this would be
| angry about that, too.
|
| Im not sure Apple want's to do that. By not restricting
| the 3rd party payments there is more of a case for using
| Apple's payment processor so you can cancel easier.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >If that's an edge case, y'all are wrong.
|
| I don't want to pay an extra 30%, and have that 30% taken
| away from the devs who actually deserve the money,
| because _some_ might make it hard to cancel.
|
| Most would likely just have a Paypal button same as 90%
| of websites if that makes you feel better.
| eropple wrote:
| Devs "deserving the money" is a curious statement. I
| don't deserve dark patterns and stress in exchange for a
| subscription, do I?
|
| And it doesn't make me feel better, because that's
| exactly the hellworld we have outside of iOS, but thanks!
| roamerz wrote:
| Do you really think that the digital purchase cost would
| be 30% lower if you bought it directly through the
| vendor? The edge case would be that buying directly
| though the vendor would actually be 30% less.
| [deleted]
| danudey wrote:
| You think the people who move to their own payment
| systems are going to drop their prices by 30%, when
| instead they could keep them the same and make 30% more
| revenue?
| ahurmazda wrote:
| Another edge case here. For now I trust apple with my
| credit cards (a lot) more than a bunch of smarmy payment
| processors (somehow I magically get subscribed to a bunch
| of things when I use the latter)
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Developers can use payment methods that don't require
| credit card data to touch their servers (eg. Stripe,
| PayPal, Shopify).
| Dayshine wrote:
| Why on earth wouldn't you be able to use Apple to pay
| (with the normal 2-3% transaction fee)?
|
| Does Apple not support paying in arbitrary websites like
| Google Pay?
| hraedon wrote:
| Two separate things at play here. Parent is saying they
| trust Apple to manage their payment options, and since
| third parties have to go through Apple they don't have to
| trust a bunch of individual companies to do things right.
|
| Apple Pay is one of those payment options, but if you
| have to trust a bunch of third parties to properly manage
| your information the specific form of payment doesn't
| matter much.
| djrogers wrote:
| Yes they do support that.
| 0xf8 wrote:
| I am also more than ok to pay that premium for the
| benefit of centralized subscription management. an
| additional instance of the "edge case".
| bobthepanda wrote:
| A fair amount of companies makes their subscription
| cancellation actively hostile in an effort to not get
| people to do it. To give an example, though you can
| subscribe online, the NYT requires you to call during
| only certain hours to a customer service line where you
| get badgered and questioned like you're trying to cancel
| a cable subscription.
|
| If the US mandated that you need to provide equivalent
| means of subscription and unsubscription with equal ease
| of use that would be one thing, but we do not live in
| that world.
| supergeek133 wrote:
| This 100%. As an Android user if I have the option to pay
| for a subscription with Google Pay (even for extra) I
| will do it to avoid the dreaded "You can only call to
| cancel" interaction where someone will spend the next 10
| minutes trying to talk me out of it.
| amalcon wrote:
| It seems theoretically possible for Apple to reject an
| app with a hostile cancellation policy _without_
| requiring that they use Apple as a payment processor.
| [deleted]
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| This is exactly the example that's been on my mind. Had I
| known how horrible NYT's unsubscription process is, I
| would have never subscribed in the first place. I'm sure
| they extracted an extra month or two out of me because of
| the friction they introduce, so in management's eyes
| that's probably a win. I will never use NYT again in the
| future, but I think a big label letting users know an app
| isn't using iCloud payments could go a long way to
| cautioning users about a user-hostile experience.
|
| Even if a developer makes subscriptions easy to manage
| today, without tie-in to Apple's infrastructure, they
| could change that process on a whim.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Similar opinion for XM... Would never sign up again
| without a generated card number that is only good for a
| single charge. I only wanted to cancel one radio of 3 I
| had at the time. By the third 40+m wait after
| mysteriously "disconnected" after they couldn't talk me
| out of it, I cancelled the whole thing.
| vngzs wrote:
| Just tried this. I had to talk to a support staff on the
| website, and they made one attempt to offer me a lower
| rate for a year (which I declined).
|
| In my opinion, it should be as easy to unsubscribe as it
| is to subscribe. I interpret anything else as consumer-
| hostile. It's very strange coming from NY Times ... I
| know they find it hard to finance journalism nowadays,
| but dark patterns are never the answer.
| asdff wrote:
| It's a law in california at least. If you log onto NYT in
| california you can cancel online I believe. Outside of
| california if you have no issue burning a bridge, you can
| issue a chargeback and most services will ban your
| account.
| musesum wrote:
| This used to be the case with NYTimes, several years ago.
| But, I think it has improved. Same horrible experience, a
| few years ago. Then, I resubbed after a couple years. A
| few months ago, NYTimes ran an article on "dark
| patterns." So, I attempted to unsub -- it was much
| easier.
|
| But, that is only the NYTimes. My guess is that the
| original hypothesis holds true for others; I doubt JFax
| has improved.
| hnra wrote:
| I just checked my NYT account I can cancel from the
| website? I only have a digital subscription however.
| js2 wrote:
| Huh, I was just able to cancel my digital introductory
| subscription ($4/month) w/o talking to anyone. This must
| be a recent change. I've canceled several times in the
| past and had to talk with someone, either voice or via
| online chat.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| The exception to their statements above is if you use
| Apple Pay however
| datavirtue wrote:
| I had to cancel a debit card to get rid of WSJ.
| bink wrote:
| This might depend on the state in which you live:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-
| software/companies-mu...
|
| This makes the practice even more egregious as you know
| the website has the ability to allow cancellations they
| just choose not to enable it for people living in other
| states.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| I think it is a recent change if you are in California. I
| used to have subscriptions to Economist and NYTimes. Both
| we very hard to manage and cancel.
| [deleted]
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean everyone's assuming that non-IAP subscriptions are
| going to be 30% cheaper but I don't really buy it. If the
| market has proven that someone will pay $10 for a thing,
| suddenly offering it for $7 seems like a bad business
| move.
| jclardy wrote:
| Most likely Apple subs will increase in price. This was
| the case for Netflix/Spotify for a while until Apple
| banned the practice (7.99 direct, 9.99 via IAP.)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _If the market has proven that someone will pay $10 for
| a thing, suddenly offering it for $7 seems like a bad
| business move._
|
| The mobile app payment market hasn't been competitive for
| a decade, so Apple has never had to compete with
| companies that are more efficient than they are, and can
| offer the same or better service for less than a 30% cut.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| It's a good move if you want to get more business than
| the people still charging $10. It's very much an
| equilibrium between profit and competition.
| wvenable wrote:
| Many apps already have non-Apple-taxed pricing. So they
| can just keep price consistency without losing 30%.
| whoisburbansky wrote:
| Which apps do this?
| hoveringhen wrote:
| YouTube Music / Premium does this if I'm not wrong
| uberduper wrote:
| What makes you so sure it would be 30%? Somewhere a
| middleman gets their cut. Why wouldn't bigCorp just make
| you use their payment system at the same price without
| allowing purchases via Apple at all?
| dntrkv wrote:
| That 30% covers a lot more than just processing payments.
| weixiyen wrote:
| I assume by that you mean the developer tools to create
| apps in the first place.
|
| Apple is free to not make developer tools anymore, that's
| their choice. Nobody is forcing them to. They do it b/c
| apps make the iPhone better. In fact an iPhone without
| apps is pretty useless.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You're assuming that the Epics of the world will actually
| lower their rates the 30%. Epic could just as easily keep
| the same prices, but now make that extra. That's the
| issue I have with Epic's arguments. They might lower the
| rates by a percent to entice people over to their system,
| but over time pull the cable company routine and just up
| the rates each time it renews or new version.
| elondaits wrote:
| It's almost impossible to analyze Epic's rates
| "objectively". Fortnite is free, but you can pay for in-
| game currency (V-Bucks) with which you buy cosmetics. You
| can buy V-Bucks directly (discounted in large amounts),
| get them through a monthly subscription slightly cheaper,
| or get a limited amount by playing (more if you buy a
| season pass which also includes cosmetics). BTW:
| Cosmetics are EXTREMELY overpriced, because you pay for
| "exclusivity" (think like USD 20+ for a fully
| accessorized skin with no effects beyond cosmetic). Even
| though Epic can claim it lowered the cost of V-Bucks in
| its store, you can only used them to pay for a small
| daily selection of arbitrarily overpriced cosmetics that
| Epic puts in its in-game store... so how much is a V-Buck
| worth? Nobody knows, and Epic can tweak it by making
| skins more or less detailed, or by giving away more or
| less V-Bucks to players and subscribers.
| kbenson wrote:
| > Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will.
|
| Is Amazon was allowed to run a store on iOS, Android, and
| Fire devices, and if you bought an app you were guaranteed
| the equivalent version on other devices if it existed, I
| think there would be a lot of incentive for people to use
| it. I wouldn't necessarily prefer Amazon be the entity
| running it in the end, but they're probably best poised to
| do so with customer trust.
|
| > Apple does a really good job of warning me, I feel, and
| centralizing subscription cancellation etc., and that's
| huge.
|
| If there was actual competition between stores, this could
| be an item of competition, and a minimum acceptable level
| of support for this might emerge in the front runners.
| Amazon is already pretty good at making customers happy,
| this might be something they'd happily take on (and don't
| they already do subscriptions for magazines?).
|
| The whole problem is that people keep looking at this as
| "Apple may be bad at X, but they do Y really well and I
| don't want to lose that" when they should be looking at it
| as "Apple is bad at X, maybe if they get some competition
| they'll do better at X, and Y will _still_ be done well by
| them ".
|
| I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having
| competition on their platform would make them _worse_. They
| would actually have to address problems for once otherwise
| worry about losing people to other stores, not entire phone
| ecosystems which require multiple hundreds of dollars and
| losing access to all your purchases.
|
| If some company is really trying to get out of the Apple
| controlled system not because of costs but because they
| really want access to your personal info or to make it hard
| to stop paying them, maybe they should be allowed to leave
| and they can get less customers and hopefully change or
| die. Chances are they're trying to figure out the info
| using other methods right now anyways.
| spsful wrote:
| The issue of subscriptions gets worse --not better-- if
| there are more companies competing for subscription
| revenue. Having to use more than one service to manage
| all your subscriptions would make things even more of a
| headache, so I don't see how consumers would benefit.
|
| Ex. if a 3rd party makes their own subscription
| management that somehow allows you to cancel
| subscriptions faster than Apple does, maybe that is more
| convenient, but now you have to figure out which of your
| services work with that provider and likely would have to
| use both as neither could offer you everything you
| wanted. I understand how the idea of competition for
| revenue could incentivize better management from the
| likes of Apple and others but I just don't think the
| market for this will be competitive at all.
| eropple wrote:
| _> I can 't understand why anyone would assume Apple
| having competition on their platform would make them
| worse._
|
| Apple having competition isn't a problem. That
| competition selling _me_ to that competition 's actual
| customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that
| Apple does not--is a problem.
|
| I like Stripe as an app developer because I pick them _as
| a seller_ ; they're _not_ there to serve my customer and
| are there to serve me. I am reasonably confident that
| Apple 's there to serve me at least as much as an app
| developer because I _as a buyer_ picked Apple. For B2C
| interactions where I 'm the C, I want the platform on
| _my_ side.
|
| Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform
| on my side? Why should I want this as a consumer? The
| money's already a rounding error, the time and stress
| aren't. If the end result here is "you must use Apple's
| subscription system, must honor one-click cancellations
| through a centralized clearinghouse, and sure you can use
| your payment provider on the other hand", then that's
| great. Anything else is worse than the status quo ante.
| burlesona wrote:
| It doesn't really matter what customers want. If companies
| have an option to offer a lesser user experience but keep
| more revenue, they'll nearly always take it. The only
| exception would be if "underdog apps" start seeing "we
| still use Apple IAP" as a selling point.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| With apple I know that I can cancel easily. I am not going to
| sign up for a subscription with anybody but Apple.
|
| I am also an irrational cheap skate so if I see Apple around
| but more, I won't subscribe at all.
|
| My guess is that a lot of people see it that way.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The ability to use Apple Pay on the web more seamlessly than
| I can use Stripe on the web will probably be Apple's killer
| feature in this area. I've already noticed a change in my
| purchasing behavior because of it.
| yalogin wrote:
| This is true, and the solution for Apple is to go cross
| platform themselves with their functionality. Make IAP a
| service usable on other platforms/apps. I am not sure how
| successful they will be though if they go that route.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Oh I agree with you. I think 30% is highway robbery and that
| opinion hasn't changed since day one.
|
| But also just take a look at the number of subscriptions we
| all have these days - Entertainment stuff (Spotify/Music,
| Netflix/streaming, HBO, Xbox Live), Donations (Charity,
| Github Sponsors), Software (Password managers, backup
| solutions, Jetbrains, Adobe), Membership (Prime/equivalent,
| internet, mobile), ... yada yada yada. It's a huge unwieldy
| list.
|
| I have tried my best to keep at least all the app ones in
| iTunes/Apple (in my case - weather app, dating apps,
| productivity apps). My alternative is I just won't subscribe.
| I'm sick of the subscription economy as it is. This would be
| the last straw. If Bumble tells me I have to give them my cc
| info and have to call them to cancel (like NYT does), I just
| won't subscribe.
|
| Essentially I'm subscribed to some of these apps because I'm
| not being forced against my will to stay subscribed using
| terms and conditions that are outrageous (looking at Adobe
| with its annual contract).
| makeitdouble wrote:
| You are totally right, and I also feel we won't get out of
| this situation for a while.
|
| Let's be honest, my Amazon payments will never fit into
| Apple's bubble. The things is, I prefer to deal with Amazon
| than Apple. Same for things like Patreon, I don't think
| they do, but I can't imagine Apple getting a cut of each
| donation.
|
| So to me the status quo was just the worst outcome.
| pornel wrote:
| I would choose PayPal over Apple payments every time.
|
| It's a good way to centralize and easily cancel
| subscriptions, and it handles more than just Apple's
| overpriced ecosystem. PayPal's site is not perfect, but
| it's still much more usable than Apple's subscription
| management running on iTunes' corpse.
| smichel17 wrote:
| This wouldn't be an issue if credit card providers offered
| a standardized system for making subscription charges. When
| you sign up, you'd pre-authorize them to charge your card a
| certain amount per time period. You could revoke the
| authorization through your credit card company's website,
| along with your other subscriptions. If the service wanted
| to change the price, they'd need a you to re-authorize it.
| ziml77 wrote:
| If they were doing that, they should also overhaul the
| whole system so you're never giving your credit card
| number directly to the sites. Similar to how if I use
| OAuth to log into a site, that site never has a chance to
| see my password.
| jwlake wrote:
| Apple's system does not allow a developer to refund a purchase.
| Seems like the height of half-assed.
| shagie wrote:
| With iOS 15: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storek
| it/transacti...
|
| > Call this function from account settings or a help menu to
| enable customers to request a refund for an in-app purchase
| within your app. When you call this function, the system
| displays a refund sheet with the customer's purchase details
| and list of reason codes for the customer to choose from.
| baldajan wrote:
| I'm not sure if you ever used StoreKit or their subscription
| API... its so full of holes and poor documentation and poor
| implementation that it's a nightmare to work with (particularly
| subscriptions). Don't believe me? There's a YC startup raising
| millions of dollars dedicated to solving the subscription
| implementation problems Apple has created...
| moneywoes wrote:
| Which startup?
| kumarm wrote:
| I think OP was talking about Revenue Cat:
| https://www.revenuecat.com
| [deleted]
| criddell wrote:
| I love the Apple subscription system for things like streaming
| services simply because it makes unsubscribing a one-click
| process.
|
| I'm much more likely to subscribe to something via the Apple
| store than I am through any in-app service.
| dontblink wrote:
| Would you be willing to pay 30% more? Why not let people
| choose how they wish to pay. If you like that UX and are
| willing to pay for it, app developers should be able to offer
| it along with cheaper alternatives.
| criddell wrote:
| One of the things the App Store protects against is abusive
| practices like making it difficult to cancel a
| subscription. I wish there was some way they could protect
| their customers _and_ allow outside payment services.
|
| FWIW, the streaming services I want easy unsubscribe
| options are typicall $5-$8 / month and yes, I would pay 30%
| more for a better experience.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Tragedy of the commons.
| nutanc wrote:
| It's not just that. As a developer I wouldn't want Apple to
| know who my paying customers are. Right now, there is no
| option. With this hopefully there will be more options.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Exactly. And as a user too, I don't want Apple to have access
| to any of my financial transactions!
| cletus wrote:
| There's two sides to this actually.
|
| I, as a customer, don't want to pay many companies directly.
| The prime example is any news publication. There are many I'd
| happily pay for except (like gym memberships it seems) it can
| be incredibly difficult to cancel. I won't reward that model
| so they get none of my money.
| 8note wrote:
| I think more specifically, as a customer, I don't want to
| be locked into bad subscriptions, whether it's gym
| memberships or news publications.
|
| I'm fine paying companies directly, but I don't want them
| to manage my subscriptions
| woko wrote:
| That is why I use Paypal. As a customer, why should I be
| constrained to use Apple's payment system as my only choice
| of middle-man?
| webmobdev wrote:
| > Every iOS and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system.
|
| Speak for yourself. I am from India, and we already have much
| better payment systems then Apple's:
|
| 1. All our debit / credit card are chip-based.
|
| 2. No card transaction can happen without the PIN. Some online
| transactions require both a PIN and a password.
|
| 3. For any online transactions, the payment processors often
| support the following options to pay - using debit / credit
| card, directly from our bank account (Net Banking with 2FA),
| Unified Payments Interface (UPI) (
| https://www.npci.org.in/what-we-do/upi/product-overview ) which
| is another online digital payment mode that even allows for
| easy peer to peer payment between parties and umpteen online /
| mobile digital wallets.
|
| 4. Best of all, using any of these payment modes won't allow
| Apple any access to my financial data.
|
| (And naturally Apple supports _none_ of these popular modes in
| India because otherwise Apple would come under closer scrutiny
| from indian regulators.)
|
| As far as App Store commissions are considered, from a
| developer's perspective Apple can go screw themselves if they
| want anything more than what competing payment processors
| charge. (Like Epic, I am disappointed that consumer rights
| weren't considered at all - ultimately it is us owners / users
| of Apple devices that pay these 30%-50% or whatever
| commission!)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut
| down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business
| Account, say at $5,000 a year._
|
| Payment processors and their networks are infinitely more
| complex and resource intensive than a mobile app distribution
| store, and their commissions tend to only be between 1% and 3%
| per transaction.
| djrogers wrote:
| > Payment processors and their networks are infinitely more
| complex and resource intensive than a mobile app distribution
| store
|
| First of all - citation? Have you run a mutli-billion$$ App
| Store with hundreds of millions of individual customers, and
| the associated support channels etc?
|
| Secondly, Apple is _also_ providing those 'infinitely more
| complex' payment processing services on top of the App Store,
| so even if true, your argument is kinda moot.
| shagie wrote:
| The merchant fees for PayPal can be found at
| https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees - which
| includes micro transactions.
|
| For a US company and a US customer, that's 4.99% + $0.09 for
| each transaction. For a $0.99 transaction, that's 15% of the
| total.
| bjohnson225 wrote:
| Stripe is 2.9% + $0.30 in the US, 1.4% in Europe. Large
| merchants will also get a much more favourable deal than
| those prices.
| ElFitz wrote:
| > The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-
| assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system.
|
| And to have to just through countless hoops to unsubscribe.
|
| Looking at you, annoyingly hard to unsubscribe from, New-York
| Times.
| clairity wrote:
| > "they can / should do a couple of things, which might
| actually increase revenue."
|
| cutting prices that drastically will most certainly not
| increase revenue. in a competitive market, pricing is near/at
| the price elasticity equilibrium. in a monopoly situation,
| pricing is much beyond that point, in the company's favor.
| you're suggesting they move prices _in the opposite direction_
| , which would most certainly impact revenue negatively. note
| that these are not nascent, high growth markets where the
| growth rate can overwhelm the price elasticity dynamics.
|
| the court should be mandating broad, open, and honest
| competition, not dictating prices, which is will practically
| always get wrong in some way. price is a signal for how
| competitive a market is, not a lever to drive competition.
| mertd wrote:
| Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would
| most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web
| purchases.
| WA wrote:
| Exactly. Stripe and PayPal could be integrated easily.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh.
| Now I see what this was about.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are _only_
| payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other
| payment processors then they 're either going to charge
| fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge
| fees for the other services that people are using (OTA
| updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff
| will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue
| of whether or not these companies will have to stand up
| their own versions of this (or if they even can) and
| whether or not it'll be as seamless for the end user.
| manquer wrote:
| Sure they can and should charge for all the other
| "services" they provide transparently. Many of those
| services not dependent on my DAU, or the kind of usage
| users have via IAP.
|
| This is none of Apple's business they don't need to
| provide me any services(if i don't use their payment) if
| my user uses 5 IAP transactions a day or one.
|
| As a developer I get to choose which model makes more
| sense for me and in turn pass on benefits of that to my
| user, right now there is no choice and this ruling allows
| only for that.
| hardolaf wrote:
| Since Apple doesn't provide you any services, I guess
| you'll no longer be distributing your app updates through
| the App Store?
| summerlight wrote:
| > If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then
| they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files
| or they're going to charge fees for the other services
| that people are using (OTA updates, reviews,
| localization, etc.)
|
| Why? Apple has been arguing that iPhone, iOS, Safari and
| App stores are so tightly integrated in that they are in
| fact an essentially indivisible single business. With
| this logic, all the revenue comes from iPhone/iPad
| hardware can subsidize operation costs for App store
| right?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Why should revenue from iPhone hardware subsidize third-
| party iPhone app developers?
| stale2002 wrote:
| Subsidizing 3rd party developers, would be if Apple paid
| app developers to be on their platform, on top of a 0%
| commission.
|
| Instead, what people want, is for users who already own
| their own phone, to be able to do what they want with it,
| without an uninvolved 3rd party (Apple) getting in the
| way of transactions made between the user and the
| developer.
| easton wrote:
| Because Apple doesn't break out the money from the App
| Store from the rest of their software/services business,
| and iOS isn't free, it's licensed with the purchase of a
| iOS device. If money from every iPhone sold goes into the
| software/services budget, one could conclude there's
| enough money coming into that budget from device sales to
| pay for their CDN/developers/etc.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You answered why there might be enough money to subsidize
| developers. Apple has a lot of money, there's no question
| about that, but I was asking why they _should_ subsidize
| developers (or why we should expect them to).
| summerlight wrote:
| I think you don't understand the answer. When customers
| buy iPhone, they already paid a plenty amount of money
| for accessing third party apps via App Store since it's
| so essential and inherently indivisible value from iOS
| and iPhone, in favor of Apple's argument. Apple may not
| be obligated to subsidize developers with direct cash,
| but to pay operational expenses for App Store since there
| is no alternatives. Otherwise, it would be a textbook
| example of abusing monopolistic power.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't really see why there would be any expectation of
| that from the legal system or for ordinary people, other
| than that Apple obviously shouldn't drastically reduce
| functionality of iPhones which they have already sold.
| But again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Apple
| might stop having an App Store altogether, or that the
| outcome of any of these legal battles would be that
| iPhone users would have significantly reduced access to
| third-party software. You're just talking about who ought
| to pay for the costs of distributing third-party software
| to iPhones.
| summerlight wrote:
| Because Apple doesn't allow other form of app
| distribution? It'd be fine if they allow third party
| stores like Android.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to
| line item their charges for users, showing what each
| charge is for, the closer we get to a free market.
|
| The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of
| everything together, so that nothing can be independently
| valued.
|
| "30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide
| you", etc.
|
| _Edit_ : As an example, in the US this is mandated for
| home mortgages. "These are services you can shop for" +
| "These are charges for each service". Any platform having
| to offer the equivalent of a Closing Disclosure / HUD-1
| doesn't seem like such a bad world.
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean you also assume that it will be line-item'd
| instead of "give us 30% of your revenue made through iOS"
| in the ToS to publish an app which has any paid features
| or content.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| At least then, we'd be honest that it's extortion.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their
| charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the
| closer we get to a free market.
|
| Historically line itemization makes it harder, not
| easier, for users to understand what they're being
| charged for. Compare Verizon versus Google fi statements,
| for example. The complexity hidden in all those fees
| confuses people, and let's Verizon (and others) claim
| monthly fees are X in ads, then listing that fee as X,
| then tacking on a lot of line items that make the actual
| payment much more.
|
| Be careful what you wish for.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I'm not sure apple is interested in destroying user
| experience to spite developers. IPhone will still make
| incredible amounts of money with lower app store margins
| because it's still the best product on the market.
| Pissing off users isn't how they built the best product.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| For the money
| foolfoolz wrote:
| all you need is a number smaller than 30%. build your own
| or use someone else for 10%? easy choice
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| 10% sounds very aggressive to me still
| trollied wrote:
| Then high street margins for physical games would really
| surprise you...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| The physical game store isn't charging X% for payment
| processing. They're charging X% to get your product in
| front of customers.
| trollied wrote:
| > They're charging X% to get your product in front of
| customers.
|
| Oh, right. The app store doesn't also do that?
| chongli wrote:
| Retail stores have a finite and very small amount of
| shelf space. Publishers pay a lot for a significant
| percentage of that shelf space devoted to their product.
|
| The App Store has effectively infinite space. There are
| so many products and search is so broken that it's
| extremely difficult for users to discover your product.
|
| Rather than comparing the experience to brick and mortar
| stores a more apt comparison would be to throw your
| products in a landfill, junkyard, or extremely large flea
| market and expect your users to find them. Would you pay
| high commissions to a junkyard for tossing your product
| in a pile "somewhere in the back"?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| No not really. Can you imagine gamestop demanding a cut
| of dlc purchases because a physical game was originally
| purchased in their store?
|
| These are separate concepts.
| duskwuff wrote:
| Even if you implemented the whole checkout process
| yourself, you'd still be paying at least ~3% to your
| credit card processor -- more if you're handling small
| payments, as most processors charge a fixed fee as well.
|
| 10% to handle the entire subscription/checkout process
| isn't bad at all, especially if it means that many of
| your customers can check out without entering any billing
| details.
| lmkg wrote:
| To sell the purchase data to data brokers so they can
| aggregate purchase data across merchants by card number?
| mdoms wrote:
| > The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-
| assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system.
|
| I have been paying for things online for decades now and never
| once have I used Apple's payment system. I assure you, plenty
| of us will use payments not provided by the fruit company.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| That may be true for Apple, but most Windows users prefer Steam
| to the MS Store, for example.
| volkk wrote:
| > The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-
| assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS
| and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system.
|
| the apple developer ecosystem (with regards to subscriptions
| and app purchases) in my experience has been quite awful for a
| multi trillion dollar company. really bad API docs, really poor
| experience around understanding what is even happening in their
| black box. i'm honestly astonished at how "unfinished" the
| whole experience feels. something like Stripe is on another
| level
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Zenst wrote:
| Another option is for Apple to offer their digital store as a
| service to larger players for a lower % fee. Akin to MVNO
| (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) and equally on some levels
| comparable in a way that building that type of network in the
| first place is costly and in Apples case, it is battle proven
| software back-end as well as front.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| For the hypothetical case that there will ever be Steam on iOS
| I'd rather pay through the Steam account I had already setup on
| the PC rather than through the Apple payment system. Same for
| 'cross-platform' subscriptions like Spotify.
| [deleted]
| falafel_muncher wrote:
| > most developers will happily just opt for Apple's system if
| the rates make sense
|
| The _buyer_ experience with Apple's IAP is mostly good, but I
| would argue that the developer experience is downright
| horrible. Working with subscriptions and IAP receipts is
| clunky. You can only use one of about 100 SKUs, which makes it
| difficult to offer discounts and customized pricing at the
| higher price tiers, where the gaps between amounts are quite
| large. Until recently, it wasn't even possible for developers
| to issue refunds!
|
| Even if Stripe charged 30%, I would choose them every time over
| Apple's IAP.
| forty wrote:
| Thanks for the explanation. They must be talking about UX
| indeed.
|
| I have implemented subscription using many APIs (stripe,
| PayPal, processout, Apple, Amazon, Android...) And Apple is
| by far the shittiest.
|
| And you cannot even refund your own customers...
| shagie wrote:
| > And you cannot even refund your own customers...
|
| I was looking at StoreKit earlier today and saw https://dev
| eloper.apple.com/documentation/storekit/transacti... as
| part of it. I realize that this is new with iOS 15... but
| there's something there now.
| shagie wrote:
| > Even if Stripe charged 30%, I would choose them every time
| over Apple's IAP.
|
| Note that Apple is charging 15% for small developers (
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-
| app-s... ) - not 30%.
|
| Stripe's rates are $0.30 + 3% ( https://stripe.com/pricing ).
| Paypal is a quite a bit better at $0.09 + 5% for
| micropayments.
|
| For a $0.99 IAP through Apple (with all of the associated
| infrastructure to handle IAP) that would cost $0.15 to the
| developer.
|
| That same purchase through Stripe would cost $0.33... and the
| developer would need to provide some way to handle IAP.
| Paypal would be the same as through Apple.
|
| That "set up some way to handle IAP" is going to be
| interesting too.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| As a user my dream is that Apple actually puts in the effort
| and makes the changes to convince these companies to use IAP.
| My nightmare is that they don't and everyone drops IAP for a
| wilderness of credit card web forms.
| ibdf wrote:
| I believe this will cause managing subscriptions to be a lot
| harder and untrustworthy. I will probably have to sign up for
| different payment systems I never heard of... the store won't be
| able to track when subscriptions expire, and this will open up so
| much room for fraudulent behavior.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Why would that be the case? Can't apps still use Apple as one
| of the payment options? If subscriptions are important to you,
| keep doing it through Apple.
|
| Unless the discounts are significant I don't see myself going
| through the 3rd party payments. I already try to avoid
| subscriptions anyway. But for one off purchases, it's nice to
| have options. I think this is a modest win for consumers.
| btown wrote:
| This makes me very curious if we'll see things like the Amazon
| Kindle store coming to iOS, as well as an increased amount of
| paid Amazon Prime content. It's absurd that you can read books on
| the Kindle app but there's no CTA to buy them. Whatever ends up
| happening, this upends whatever status quo existed between the
| companies.
| arbirk wrote:
| Kids are the customers, parents have the credit card. Epic will
| have to onboard the parents to really make a dent.
|
| What Epic wanted was their own separate store, and that wish is
| clearly shut down.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Majority of parents will choose epic if epic is cheaper for the
| same thing.
| etchalon wrote:
| Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow
| other payment processors."
|
| But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e.
| Apple can't tell developers they can't link out to other payment
| options on the web.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It says they can't prohibit developers (so they must allow)
| adding links to non-IAP.
|
| OTOH it doesnt force apple to allow any link, they can still
| filter which payment providers are allowed
| dannyw wrote:
| Violating an injuction via a technicality will land you in
| court again.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Would it be a violation?
| etchalon wrote:
| Probably. "Letter of the law" vs. "the spirit". Judges
| are not fans of people trying to be "technically in
| compliance".
| cblconfederate wrote:
| i dont think the spirit is to allow developers to engage
| in scammy behavior. Apple can still refuse the app based
| on its other rules.
| dannyw wrote:
| Does the permanent injuction apply only to Epic, or does it apply
| to everyone?
| sparker72678 wrote:
| It reads like it applies to all developers.
| theginger wrote:
| This seems pretty big, like it should have an immediate
| impact with everyone who ever wanted to use alternative
| payments on any app store should be submitted an updated app
| today kind of big.
|
| Are there strings like appeal rights that means we won't see
| a change for years?
| dannyw wrote:
| the injuction only applies after 90 days. Likely both Apple
| and Epic will appeal.
| rvz wrote:
| So it is not over yet. Anything can happen until then.
| shkkmo wrote:
| This injuction only applies to Apple, as it says pretty
| clearly in the decision. That prohibition does benefit all
| developers using the App Store, not just Epic.
|
| There is a good chance that this precedent will encourage
| other lawsuits that will lead to more injuctions, such as one
| that applies to Steam.
| system2 wrote:
| In the last few years Apple really showed their real face. I am
| also surprised to see these changes even after their extreme
| lobbying work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-10 23:00 UTC)