D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Shouldn't this be a relatively straight forward slam dunk given Google's situation is near identical to Apple where the judge already ruled in Apple's favour on that point?
Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
Not really. Any payment that originates from an iOS app will result in a fee to Apple, which kind of defeats the point of an alternative to Apple's IAP.
I guess it depends on the court opinion on an explicitly closed ecosystem versus a pseudo open ecosystem that uses soft competition to create am illusion of openness. Common sense says that if you allow the closed system than other should be good too. But you never know, google circumstance includes a lot of contradictions that may draw the ire of the judge.
And I've asked this before, how would they track that and who is responsible for tracking it if it's simply a link clicked to their website and they signup there?
According to the judgement: Technically yes, it could be. Still, said ruling also goes on to briefly discuss how this might be a logistical and practical nightmare, but that any such details are outside the scope of the ruling and up to Apple to figure out.
Last edited:
I imagine it would be up to the app developer to track it. And Apple will just include contract language that include how alternative IAPs function and how revenue generated through an in app clicks are recorded and reported. The judgement allowed alternative IAPs, the judgement didn't give developers cart blanche to institute them as they see fit.
Last edited:
More than likely the details of how the alternative operates will be dictated by Apple's contract and probably in a way that affects Apple very little.
How so? It would cost a lot more (almost infinitely so) money to audit revenue outside the app store.
What would be Apple's response to that? Increase their cut?
The judge also said that the 30% cut for payment processing (and "IP") might be too high, but lacking competition you couldn't tell.
Say the court order took effect someone akin to Epic had processing fees of 5% for their own systems, it would probably be ammunition for more lawsuits, to determine the value of Apple's app-review and ecosystem, if Apple tried to charge an additional 30% (or more to offset costs) regardless.
Apple wouldn't audit everyone. Contract language will probably force devs to avoid alternative IAP as all the hoop jumping will make it nightmare to implement. The only reasons to go with an alternative IAP are that you are making a point (standing on principle) or you want to jip apple. But Apple has access to tons of data produced by millions of apps. They probably can just look at the number of active players, engagement levels, retail pricing on your store and produce an educated guess of how much the app should generate for them in terms of revenue. Outliers will get audited.
Perhaps.
Personally, I think Apple would (and will) avoid any semblance of such efforts.
Their primary financial interest in the app store is a huge profit margin (for Apple) for not much effort (for Apple and anyone else in the ecosystem). What you are suggesting would entail both much more effort much higher costs and effort for everyone involved.
They probably could try to do that, but I don't think they would. Dumping all extra cost on devs would likely drive them away (especially the large ones), while having their policies be too nefariously one-sided would invite more scrutiny and legal/regulatory attention, and so on.
PS: I really do think that Apple is entitled to be compensated (somewhat) for their ecosystem, and seeing as they are at their most innovative when it comes to protecting their revenue stream; I truly believe that they would find a way. Just not the one you are suggesting.
If more proof was needed
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ineered-a-secret-275-billion-deal-with-china/
CCP: Jump!
Tim: Ni Hao, How high
edit: see some of the commentators are thinking along the same lines as me, I rate the chances >30% there is a dual invasion soon, taiwan, ukraine
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I've lost track, what is this more proof of? This link you posted is reads like China shaking down Apple.
I feel like it should come as no surprise to anybody that if you want to do big business in China, you will come under pressure to invest in China. This is not limited to China and is not even a new concept. What is sometimes referred to as 'relaxed regulation incentives' has been a thing since the 1960s. The US do it, the Europeans do, it's often an element of modern trade negotiations and big infrastructure projects. Look at the failed French submarine project for Australia; this included a bunch of requirements about using Australian contractors and suppliers. It's sometimes the cost of doing business.
And yeah.. having to comply with local laws (one of your earlier links), I'm pretty sure that's the case in every country in the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are big companies shitty? Yes. They all are. They are driven by profit, not good will or good deeds. Anybody who believes otherwise, has eaten a big slice of the PR pie.
Yes mostly true
Q/ But why is google not in China?
A/ Cause they were unwilling to censor their results amongst other things
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm
Yes they did try to return to China a couple of years ago, but there was a large uprising from google employees that they cancelled these plans, the PR was too bad.
i.e. they decided to forgo the billions for a moral reason (and bad PR)
Bing has no problems censoring things to comply with China law (*)
Im not saying google is a beacon of human rights as they're not
(*)EDIT reminds me of how google and MS dealt with similar circumstances WRT Military contracts
employees in both companies petitioned them to stop development on military stuff
Results:
MS told their employees to get fucked
google told their employees OK fair enuf and stopped
https://medium.com/s/story/an-open-...n-the-us-military-s-project-jedi-7279338b7132
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...eapons-microsoft-workers-protest-480m-n974761
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-07/news/google-renounces-ai-work-weapons
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's generally believed that Google were censoring search in China. The company have been evasive when answering specific questions on this, which should tell you all you need to know.
Last edited by a moderator:
They prolly were, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
but they got some 'courage'
and decided to do the right thing, other companies should get some courage also and not put profits first, fat chance of that though
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Oh FFS.:|
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And for his next trick, Tim Sweeney kill kick himself in the balls.Nah, they got themselves thrown off iOS Store and dev account terminated.