Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]

Apple quietly announced that they would allow developers to point users at alternate pay systems. They're previously announced some lower rates for some types of apps or services.

I think that was maybe one of the things Epic was looking for in the case?

But Apple's position in the case was thought to be strong so this is more for US and EU politicians, who are all looking for ways to regulate app stores.

South Korea for instance was going to impose some restrictions but they've supposedly been heavily lobbied by Apple and Google. But since Samsung is based there, Apple and Google better be prepared to deal with it.

Vergecast guys referred to some evidence that Google spent tons of money, maybe tens of millions, when there were potential bundling deals like Samsung preinstalling other app stores or something like that. In Apple's case, they have a lot of emails of executives talking about things like not porting iMessage to other platforms including Android because it would give people reasons to buy other devices. But those emails don't directly pertain to App Store policies or are specifically illegal whereas the Google emails may show that they were taking some extraordinary measures to prevent other app stores from getting a foothold on Android.
 
wco81 said:
Apple quietly announced that they would allow developers to point users at alternate pay systems. They're previously announced some lower rates for some types of apps or services.

I think that was maybe one of the things Epic was looking for in the case?
Click to expand...
No I dont think so, this is such a pissport attempt as concessions thats its frankly embarassing, You do realize even with this minor change they can't do this in the apps right.
eg even with this policy change you can't say in your app, 'you can also purchase X at this other place'
What apple is allowing is, you can email the ppl that have have your app to tell them 'you can purchase X at this other place' or allow that to be written on your website etc

I know what you're thinking, Surely thats not right, Surely Apple didn't censor whats on your own website or what you email your own customers about.
Yep thats exactly what apple did not allow before.

No wonder the Chinese Communist Party and Apple work so well together
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-data-china-censors-apps-nyt-2021-5
https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...f-terms-censored-in-china-to-taiwan-hong-kong

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...l-users-about-non-app-store-purchase-options/
 
Hmm Epic doesn’t like it but the developer plaintiffs agreed to this settlement.

Are more developers like Epic, wanting their own App Store, or are they like the plaintiffs, who don’t have a mega hit like Fortnight and thus have more modest demands?
 
wco81 said:
South Korea for instance was going to impose some restrictions but they've supposedly been heavily lobbied by Apple and Google. But since Samsung is based there, Apple and Google better be prepared to deal with it.
Click to expand...
The law has been passed ...

In South Korea, a new bill has passed to prevent platform holders, like Apple and Google, from locking developers into their own payment systems. This means developers should be allowed to implement their own payment systems of choice, which in turn could mean fairer revenue splits for sales made within apps.
...
Currently, both Apple and Google take a 30 percent cut of App Store and Play Store transactions made using their own first-party payment systems. This is something that has been repeatedly challenged and has become the core focus of a lawsuit brought on by Epic Games.
Click to expand...
South Korea passes law to force Apple and Google to allow third-party app payment systems | KitGuru
 
Turns out Apple used to handle things like international taxes for App Store transactions.

Speculation is that Apple and Google will send developers bills for hosting and fulfillment fees.

So those developers who opt for other payment systems may have to be careful what they wish for. Most of them stay with the App Store and Google Play Store because they were making money, in some cases lots of it.

Some company may offer alternate payment schemes. But will users want to give their credit card billing info to another entity? Maybe if the developers offer big enough discounts to make it worthwhile for users to use say EpicPay rather than ApplePay or GooglePay. Otherwise, what would be ones incentive to turn one of your credit cards to Epic when Apple or Google, with whom you already have a billing history?

And there will be hell to pay if one of these third-party pay systems are hacked. Most users might trust Apple or a Google to avoid being hacked.
 
wco81: I think that is one of the most condescending things I have ever read. Software publishers have handled these things since there have been software publishers. And if users/consumers want to pay more they can always buy from the Apple/Google store.
 
wco81 said:
Turns out Apple used to handle things like international taxes for App Store transactions.

Speculation is that Apple and Google will send developers bills for hosting and fulfillment fees.

So those developers who opt for other payment systems may have to be careful what they wish for. Most of them stay with the App Store and Google Play Store because they were making money, in some cases lots of it.

Some company may offer alternate payment schemes. But will users want to give their credit card billing info to another entity? Maybe if the developers offer big enough discounts to make it worthwhile for users to use say EpicPay rather than ApplePay or GooglePay. Otherwise, what would be ones incentive to turn one of your credit cards to Epic when Apple or Google, with whom you already have a billing history?

And there will be hell to pay if one of these third-party pay systems are hacked. Most users might trust Apple or a Google to avoid being hacked.
Click to expand...

Uh what? You mean like Paypal having my billing info? Or Amazon? Or NewEgg? Or Walmart? Or Dominoes? Or PizzaHut? Or McDonalds? Or UPS? Or FedEx? Or Steam? Or Square Enix? Or Blizzard (when I still played Blizzard games)? Or ... the list goes on.

Somehow Apple and Google are the only companies that can be trusted with that information?

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Uh what? You mean like Paypal having my billing info? Or Amazon? Or NewEgg? Or Walmart? Or Dominoes? Or PizzaHut? Or McDonalds? Or UPS? Or FedEx? Or Steam? Or Square Enix? Or Blizzard (when I still played Blizzard games)? Or ... the list goes on.

Somehow Apple and Google are the only companies that can be trusted with that information?

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...


No but they already have the billing info of users on their mobile platforms.

and sure they could be hacked.

does that mean you should hand over your personal data to some third party, again to process App Store or Google Play Store transactions?

maybe. But what’s in it for the users, other than giving hackers another vector, possibly a weaker target?

developers who want to push users towards other payment systems really need to make their case for why users should use these other payments, which requires entrusting their data with yet another company, which may be better or worse at data protection but gives hackers another target.

so one way would be to offer users lower prices or maybe bonus content. Another way might be by asking them to use this other payment but still pay the same prices because they want to net more per transaction, maybe plead poverty.

otherwise why would users change the set up for a system which works well for them, as evidenced by the huge number of current transactions?
 
wco81 said:
No but they already have the billing info of users on their mobile platforms.

and sure they could be hacked.

does that mean you should hand over your personal data to some third party, again to process App Store or Google Play Store transactions?

maybe. But what’s in it for the users, other than giving hackers another vector, possibly a weaker target?

developers who want to push users towards other payment systems really need to make their case for why users should use these other payments, which requires entrusting their data with yet another company, which may be better or worse at data protection but gives hackers another target.

so one way would be to offer users lower prices or maybe bonus content. Another way might be by asking them to use this other payment but still pay the same prices because they want to net more per transaction, maybe plead poverty.

otherwise why would users change the set up for a system which works well for them, as evidenced by the huge number of current transactions?
Click to expand...

Users that don't want to change, obviously don't have to. Users that currently would like to change ... have no options. Developers who want to sell apps on the platform but can't because it competes with an Apple App. and thus gets denied would have an option. Thus users get an option other than having to use the Apple developed App. Developer's could also choose to offer the apps for a lower price if they aren't paying 30% to Apple. They may not do that, but they would have the option to do that.

The developer that Zed linked to above that provided a needed, good quality, and highly rated keyboard for blind people would still be able to do so if developers had an option. Blind users would certainly benefit here rather than Apple saying F-U to blind users.

It's weird that having options or having choice is considered a bad thing by some people. I hate the Epic Game Store with a passion because of their anti-competitive efforts of trying to lock people to their storefront by paying for exclusivity rather than making a storefront that people would actually want to use, but I still think it's great that it offers another option for people to buy their games on PC. Choice is almost always a good thing.

BTW - I also believe that consoles should have alternative storefronts. But at least for Sony and MS consoles, they don't make much if any profit off the hardware, so at least they have an excuse. Apple doesn't even have that. It's not like they are offering their hardware at a discount and using their App. store in order to generate a profit for the company. Their hardware comes at a high premium with highly profitable margins.

Allow alternate storefronts and let the users decide if they want to use them or not. Most users would probably stick with the Apple Store just like most users on PC stick with Steam. But for people that don't want to use Steam, there's other options. On iPhones? Nope.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
digitalwanderer said:
This CNN story seems to indicate Apple lost: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/tech/apple-epic-games-fortnite-decision/index.html
Click to expand...

For the in-app payment thing, one can say Apple lost, but Apple "won" against Epic Games (though that's probably not that important, but it could be much worse, as the judge might decide that Apple must allow 3rd party app stores).
I think there will be bigger impact on how both Google and Apple handles "free" apps. If Apple can't force "free" apps to use their own payment processors (thus Apple can't take the 30% cut), will Apple keep "free" apps free? After all, Apple has to pay for the servers and bandwidth for those free apps. Will Apple start asking for "download fees" for free apps with more than, say, 1 million downloads? There could be serious implications for small developers.
 
If Apple is not in violation of antitrust laws and Apple's contract with Epic was valid and binding, then what is the cited reason for allowing alternate payment systems?


So what's going to happen to apps which use their own payment systems? Apple is going to ask for other payments to cover the hosting fees?

Will they be as discoverable or featured in the curated/editorial App of the Day or Week?
 
pcchen said:
For the in-app payment thing, one can say Apple lost, but Apple "won" against Epic Games
Click to expand...

From the judges concluding remarks it almost seems like she went out of her way to call a plague on both their houses. IANAL, but there seems to be some high quality technical legal straddling involved in ordering Apple to allow exactly what Epic did for everyone else (in the US) going forward, while still deciding that Epic has to pay and that it is at Apples sole discretion to allow Epic back or not.
As a major player in the wider video gaming industry, Epic Games brought this lawsuit to challenge Apple’s control over access to a considerable portion of this submarket for mobile gaming transactions.

Ultimately, Epic Games overreached. As a consequence, the trial record was not as fulsome with respect to antitrust conduct in the relevant market as it could have been.

Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions. However, it does find that Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive. A remedy to eliminate those provisions is appropriate. This measured remedy will increase competition, increase transparency, increase consumer choice and information while preserving Apple’s iOS ecosystem which has procompetitive justifications. Moreover, it does not require the Court to micromanage business operations which courts are not well-suited to do as the Supreme Court has appropriately recognized.
Click to expand...
 
wco81 said:
So what's going to happen to apps which use their own payment systems? Apple is going to ask for other payments to cover the hosting fees?
Will they be as discoverable or featured in the curated/editorial App of the Day or Week?
Click to expand...
However she also issued a permanent injunction, stating that Apple could no longer prohibit developers linking to their own purchasing mechanisms.
For example, a movie-streaming service will now be able to tell customers to subscribe via its own website, without using Apple's in-app purchasing mechanism.
...
The ruling effectively states that Apple cannot ban developers from communicating with customers. Often there are cheaper options for consumers away from the App Store, however Apple did not allow companies to tell consumers this.
...
Music streaming site Spotify said: "We are pleased with [the decision that] Apple engaged in anti-competitive conduct and has permanently prohibited their anti-steering provisions."
The ruling also revealed that gaming apps account for 70% of App Store revenue.
Click to expand...
Apple dealt major blow in Epic Games trial - BBC News
 
Let’s predict.

Two years from now, say the end of 2023, will the Services division revenues be greater, lesser or about the same as currently? That’s barring any other major legal or regulatory changes.

I don’t know if they specifically break out App Store revenues but certainly they do break out services.


Will also be interesting to see how many users use external payments instead of IAP, though Apple is probably unlikely to release this data? Or I guess only the developers will know what percentage of their IAP revenues came through external links.


My guess is higher Services Revenues in 2 years. Now it may not be as high as if this judgement didn’t come along. Though given a choice, unless the developer is offering a big enough discount, most iOS users won’t want to register new accounts and give over their billing info to several developers for each app subscription or IAP they may be interested in.
 
pcchen said:
For the in-app payment thing, one can say Apple lost, but Apple "won" against Epic Games (though that's probably not that important, but it could be much worse, as the judge might decide that Apple must allow 3rd party app stores).
Click to expand...

Yup, given the possible other outcomes this seems like as good an outcome for Apple as possible. Particularly, the conclusion that the iOS App Store is not a monopoly. Which means Apple can can your app and you have little legal recourse.

I don't it's great for consumers but but Epic's 'sacrifice' (they may now not be allowed back on the iOS App Store) has at least resulted in Apple being forced to allow payment options other than Applepay - not necessarily in-app- has got to be a positively move.
 
Based on apples share price the market concluded apple lost

Shares of Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) fell 3.3% on Friday after a federal judge made a decision that could have wide-ranging implications for the tech industry.

Apple shares fall after new ruling in Epic Games fight

Apple Stock Fell After Judge Issues a ‘Legal Blow’ Against App Store

Apple's stock takes a dive to pace the Dow's losers after report of unfavorable court decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
B
  • Locked
Full Q/a With Tommy Tallarico Ps3 And 360
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
22K
blakjedi
B
Back
Top