Top
340°

Apple dealt major blow in Epic Games trial

A judge in the Apple vs Epic trial says Apple must give app developers alternative payment options.

The story is too old to be commented.
Atom66636d ago

Well, I still think Sweeney is a disingenuous ass, but he accomplished more than many thought. But it's not like Apple is much better.

If the injunction holds, apps like Fortnite, Spotify, Game Pass, etc. can offer direct payment options rather than going through Apple. It won't matter for big guys like that, but hopefully some smaller companies will be able to get some profits out of it.

Look forward to another year of appeals.

jukins35d ago

Ive said alot this is gonna change things for everyone. If apple has to do it wont be too long before everyone else does. This could be game changing. Any game that has microtransactions can now skirt around platform holder fees. And thats a ton of money for ppl like ms and sony and when they mose money it gets passed onto the consumer. Microsoft maybe better equipped to absorb the blow but still gonna hurt

CrimsonIdol35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Yep. This is a huge deal for products that work around transactions outside of Apples ecosystem. Not being able to sell anything without Apple taking their 30% and it running through their system AND not being allowed to link to alternate systems impacts a lot of things that people aren't considering here. For example I work for a company that produces free visitor engagement apps (apps for zoos, amusements, museums etc) and Apple will not allow linking out to the sale of tickets to see experiences at the zoos etc without taking their 30% and running it through their system, which when you're talking experiences that sometimes cost upwards of $100 having another 40-something bucks on top of that is just nonsense, but not allowing even a link to the sale of these products outside of their system puts these apps in a tough spot. We are not able to provide functionality a basic website can, purely because of Apple's greed. I fully expect Apple to continue its anti-consumer practices and block things like this anyway they can to preserve this undeserved revenue stream but at least now there is some legal precedence to point to when they do.

thecodingart35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

“ Apple will not allow linking out to the sale of tickets to see experiences at the zoos etc without taking their 30% and running it through their system”… you clearly dont work in the industry.. this is not how the “30%” cut has ever worked. Only specific things qualify for that IAP percentage cut and entertainment ticket purchases do not.. stop spreading misinformation.

To educate yourself, use the Disney or Universal applications… and note there’s no IAP UI in them from Apple. You should take the time out to read Apple’s store guidelines.

CrimsonIdol35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

I'm not spreading misinformation. I DO work in the industry, and our apps have been denied, multiple times in different situations for specifically this situation, and reinstated when those things are removed. Quit defending shitty business practices. These ARE counted as In App Purchases, despite the ridiculousness of that. It is to the point where we no longer bother, despite it measuring high on almost every clients lists.

CrimsonIdol35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

[deleted. realised this isn't relevant]

Tacoboto35d ago

I would say that you and your organization are uninformed on Apple's system.

Source: I maintain the iOS application for a major company that allows booking our in-person services in-advance through the application. Apple has only ever gotten on us for... not including a battery disclaimer on GPS usage. We don't even accept Apple Pay lol

thecodingart35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

“ I'm not spreading misinformation. I DO work in the industry, and our apps have been denied, multiple times in different situations for specifically this situation, and reinstated when those things are removed. Quit defending shitty business practices. These ARE counted as In App Purchases, despite the ridiculousness of that. It is to the point where we no longer bother, despite it measuring high on almost every clients lists.”

You’re full of it….. as someone who’s work on many high profile things including the ones I’ve already referenced. If you’re in the industry, you’re not good at your job or well informed, plain and simple.

Have yourself a read and reflect on all of the large entertainment apps out there. Heck, reach out to your business Apple rep:
https://developer.apple.com...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 35d ago
36d ago Replies(1)
thecodingart35d ago

I’d argue the reverse. Epic was self the major blow which is why they filed the appeal. Apple really one the case with a best outcome they probably expected. Epic still has a developer ban from the App Store and a 13 million dollar fee in damages towards Apple. Apple has been lawfully proven they’re not a monopoly per the verdict.

ocelot0735d ago

$13 million is noting for Epic. But now that Apple has to let developers have direct payments if they choose to have it. There goes apples 30% cut.

Imagine if Spotify or Facebook or other mobile games offer direct gaming. The amount of profit the Devs will make and apple won't see a dime of it.

n1kki635d ago

They don't have to allow the app store to allow direct payments, that it's how it works. They have to allow developers to share alternative ways to pay. In the end, they will then need to find a way to still enable the purchase through the app store, likely through a license code. It's not a huge blow.

Sephiroushin35d ago

No cut for apple hahaha... that's not how it works, if something like that really happened you as the consumer would pay it, the phone would not be 1000 but 2000 or more, maybe store would be behind paywall etc and then samsung/google android would follow... but as i said this is not how it works, read again.

porkChop35d ago

@n1kki6 and Sephiroushin

Did you guys read the article?

"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 was specifically about developers offering their own payment methods not linked to Apple. You won't need any license codes for the app store or even enable the purchases through the store. It can be done in-app or even on the devs website. Apple won't see a cent for those transactions.

Sephiroushin34d ago

@porkchop learn to read, English is not my 1st language and i can clearly see that in fact it could be more damaging, they can opt to have another way of payment but they still have to pay apple its 30%... having another option of payment id good but more damaging to dev because then they would have a middle man (bank) to pay as well as 30% off apple, geez...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 34d ago
PapaBop35d ago

It is the reverse, i'm surprised at the narrative of the media in this case. Even Sweeney admitted it wasn't a victory. Epic won just one of the complaints or whatever was in the lawsuit while Apple won everything else. Apple will have enough wiggle room to see that they are getting their share meanwhile they have no responsibility to allow Fortnite back on their app store.

Eamon35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

It sounds more like a win for the little guy dev who still has their app on the store (and can now link to alt pay options) but not so much of a win for Epic as Apple are refusing to re-admit Fortnite.

In my view, that's a win-win.

n1kki635d ago

It's absolutely NOT a MAJOR BLOW.

--Onilink--35d ago

How so? Every single developer (not just games but also apps) can now redirect people from within their applications to external payment methods and bypass Apple’s cut.

And this doesnt affect Apple only, it sets the legal precedent to be used against other companies.

This is undoubtedly a huge blow to Apple, not necessarily a massive win to Epic if they are not allowed to put Fortnite in iOS again (though again the legal precedent has been set so they can fight other appstores too), but there is no denying this is a big hit for Apple

Rachel_Alucard35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

It's not a blow if you read this section of the verdict document
https://puu.sh/IaJ9I/e9f969...
It's saying that even though alternative payment processors would exist, as long as the app is being sold on the Apple App store, Apple is still entitled to their 30% commission because you are still using their store to sell content. It may not go through Chase Bank like Apple has but you are still in their ecosystem and this is completely useless to any dev. Even if I redirected you to not only receive e-mails from a game, and you were willing to pay outside of using the store, Apple can still take 30% in commission with each fee. The only saving grace is that's impossible for Apple to track those payments unless they force devs on the store to send them accounting data if they want to remain on the store. It's just a useless gimmick and I am sick of seeing headlines write false info like "Epic wins Lawsuit Victory" or "Epic deals major blow"

--Onilink--35d ago

Isnt that part of the text just describing what is currently the policy in the iOS appstore? Not the actual part of what they need to change

Rachel_Alucard35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

No, they are describing what would happen currently if an alternative payment model were implemented without using Apple's services. It is pointing out that even if Apple allows you to have an alternative payment they are still entitled to a commission fee because you still ahve to go through their storefront to sell your game and IAP, not only from you but you also have a fee from the processor too. Which nobody would do as that's now 2 middle men you would have to pay instead of 1.

porkChop35d ago

So that says it only applies to purchases made within the app itself. If the alternative payment method was hosted on the app's/developer's website Apple would not be entitled to any commission.

All the dev has to do is redirect the user to a payment page in their browser. That's easy. Problem solved.

Rachel_Alucard35d ago

The issue is even a redirect from the app itself is still considered part of the issue because the redirect is hosted within the app. You would essentially need to pay for things on the account through the website without going into the app itself which is just a giant pain for any user to even care enough. The other issue is the fact any alternative payment processor that gets used will want fees too, which means you now have to not only pay Apple 30% but also whatever company you are using to process payments. Valve uses Ingenico ePayments for example and they have a small fee as well per transaction. This means it doesn't matter if a dev decides to add an alternative payment or not, unless that alt payment method charges no commission fee, then they will end up paying for both Apple's cut and the alt payment as well. Because we know not many people will bother with Alt payment methods if these are the hoops they have to jump through and I doubt beyond Epic any dev will ever "pass the savings on" because they won't be saving anything.

PapaBop35d ago

Shush, it seems people prefer catchy headlines to cold hard facts.

Rachel_Alucard34d ago (Edited 34d ago )

Even without reading a single line of the document. Take one glance at Tim Sweeney's Twitter and you never see him express his "win" they keep spamming over any part of the case. He even said he flat out lost the case and will continue to try to push this false agenda for app fairness, despite the fact he admitted he would've taken a special deal that only benefitted his company and nobody else. If he had any actual victory in this case like the media flaunts he would be gloating over it the second it was up. But never once has it happened.

derek35d ago

@Rachel, I agree the media like they do with almost every court ruling, never give a detailed account of what a given ruling actually states. Details matter and if you want to understand you would have to likely read the decision yourself.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 34d ago
Show all comments (34)