It doesn’t unless you have specifically trained the text replacement so you can laugh at your own joke…or are making it up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Has Paid Over $100 Million in Legal Fees to Fight Apple's App Store Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's scary that you think a developer has the RIGHT to put their products on Apples App Store. And apparently for free or close to free.
Keeping hundreds of millions to a billion of dollars is pretty strong motivation.
Nothing irks me more knowing lawyers might starve. Good on Apple and Epic to help clear my mind.
I said I don’t care about bandwidth buddy
There is a difference why would that be relevant to an IAP fee when it’s just processing a transaction so it’s not really relevant 👍🏻 or else we could accuse Netflix of that by using the iOS app.
Because they could easily have a figure the now that would get accepted because has this decision not been made years ago
And then put the appeal in
However they are choosing the other way because they are greedy greedy greedy
Because of how their business model is set up
Reading many of these comments reminds me of the problem with political parties and the people that vote a party line, regardless of how much worse that political party could make matters in their country.
Fans of Apple, are the same way, they refuse to see the illegal actions of Apple, and it blatant slap in the face to the Judge.
Fans of Apple, are the same way, they refuse to see the illegal actions of Apple, and it blatant slap in the face to the Judge.
So here’s the thing. The judge originally said that Apple to charge a fair commission based on reasons, needs, costs, etc., but Apple chose 27%, which would have cost devs more due to extra fees, with zero evidence to justify it. Apple could have still found this slightly profitable, but the judge ruled due to their non-compliant picking the worst solution, along with other scare tactics, that now they can’t change anything and they have no control over how the external link is presented in the app.
Apple did it to themselves by ignoring Phil Schiller’s advice.
That being said, Epic got themselves banned by breaking their dev account contract terms and sneaking an alternative payment method in a silent update. That won’t be overturned because the judge ruled it was an obvious violation.
Last edited:
Care to explain that ?
Yeah there’s loads of sharks out there I agree. And the App Store has done a great job in reining them in.
I’m not saying that the App Store is wholly bad. I’m saying that Apple’s cut became untenable - and not allowing devs to also offer other payment mechanisms.
What should’ve happened is that on balance, devs and consumers would’ve preferred to use the IAP over anything else.
But there comes a point where if you get some success you take a 30% hit plus your other outgoings. It’s a big chunk. And I’d argue it’s a drag on innovation too.
It’s like they say - with a big court case the only people that win are the lawyers.
I can only speak for myself, but I trust Apple much, much more than I trust any developer. To the point that I have a couple of subscriptions where I choose to pay more via IAP than I could if I went off store. I know what I'm getting when I go through Apple: easy cancelations, (usually) family sharing, trust that they're not going to start spamming me with emails, unlikely to get my credit card number stolen, etc.
I suspect I am an outlier though, I don't agree with the poster you're quoting about consumer disdain - I suspect most users don't know or care to have an opinion.
Again you’re missing the point I’m referring to in app purchases I do believe that Apple deserves a cut for paid Apps.
And I also believe that Apple does not deserve any cut for any amount of a purchase I make on a website on my Mac. It’s the same thing with an app. And the argument of they run the App Store they are the ones that created the only way to distribute apps on the Mac you can do it through the App Store or download from my website. Should be the same on a phone give people choice!
This is all speculation and I’m not interested in having that conversation. Glad it’s illegal now!
True, very true. But, I suspect that Epic did this with the intention of challenging Apple. I would expect that Apple took the bait, albeit knowingly, thinking they could out litigate Epic. I have no doubts that Epic sat out on this path, knowing they were going to lose money either in litigation or loss of sales, or both. Epic was willing to take that loss.
Apple should park their arrogance in the basement and let Epic back in. Litigating back and forth out of arrogance benefits no one, especially as the more Apple litigates, the more other countries are likely to take Apple to task.
I think the comments are ignoring the elephant in the room or maybe it’s just me… but I think it’s outrageous that you have to pay one hundred million dollars! to litigate a case. It doesn’t matter how big it is, no case should require you to pay $100 million imo
So ignorance - did you even read an article that covered Google's loss? The decision didn't rest upon their "ad market".
Yes, it does. Literally in the Epic v Google case and, conceptually to Google advocates / Apple critics. Seemingly you want to discuss something else - Of, which, Google was found to be just as abusive of their monopoly as in search / advertisement, as well as, in the browser space. Those cases, as far as I know haven't been appealed yet - but suffice it to say those are different cases.
Well, literally you're wrong Apple does have a monopoly of iOS. But, technically you are right - Apple has not used unreasonable methods to maintain their monopoly (i.e. not an abusive monopoly). It's only the anti-steering provision that was struckdown. That said, now things are different, as seemingly the Judge presiding over Apples case has claimed that Apple sought to unreasonably maintain the anti-steering provision (though the 27% cut of out of store sales) and hammered them.
That may or may not survive on appeal, though. Despite my criticism of what you wrote, we're closer in agreement then you think.
The following is for others to ponder over:
Think about why Apple can't achieve the same success the same success in the desktop / laptop space with their Mac's - compared to how they do with iOS devices. Why is it if Apple did the same to their Mac's that they do with their iOS devices -- no one would buy Mac's ever again? So how come Apple gets away with it on iOS devices, where, ostensibly Google offers developers and consumers the freedom to do whatever they want with their Andriods. That is, why do 3rd party App Stores (3rd party In-App payments) suck and sideloading or direct developer to consumer app sales (no app store, at all) not offer any feasible competition to Apple's very hostile iOS policies? Why doesn't the iOS market crumble like Mac sales would crumble if Mac's were sold the same as iOS devices?
You know, when I first heard about this lawsuit I really did think to myself, "more performative ********." But now, to be honest I see this as a significant bit of movement in the anti-monopoly movement. Apple has created this garden, but it has grown to the point where it controls a market that has transitioned in an almost complete fashion to their App Store marketplace. That allows them monopoly control. This lawsuit changes that in a material way. Bravo to them- they put their money where their values are.
I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining why Google lost their case by Apple won theirs, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. Here's the key point:
In other words, Google’s was trying to have its cake and eat it too. It was saying it was the "open" choice that allowed competition, but its practices, such as exclusive agreements and restrictive policies, effectively limited competition, which the jury found to be anticompetitive. In contrast, Apple’s closed ecosystem was a known characteristic that customers actively chose, and therefore did not violate antitrust laws in the same way.
Wow 100Million thats a lot of Gateway $30 fees they could have paid and lost out on revenue instead.
That 100 milllion could have made them more if they just paid the gateway fees.
That 100 milllion could have made them more if they just paid the gateway fees.
Who cares if they are Chinese? This is capitalism. It transcends borders. Alls fair in love, war, & capitalism
Someone correct me if I am wrong. AFAIK, the anti-steering law that Eoic brought into the court was a California law, yes?
The original judge is a Federal judge operating in a California district.
It has been awhile since I had a civics class but I don’t think that judge has the jurisdiction to tell a company that they have to comply to one state law in the other 49.
If there by chance a federal law that has anti-steering in it that I am not aware of?
The original judge is a Federal judge operating in a California district.
It has been awhile since I had a civics class but I don’t think that judge has the jurisdiction to tell a company that they have to comply to one state law in the other 49.
If there by chance a federal law that has anti-steering in it that I am not aware of?