4 ms·

IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case. I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their pr

by Touche 6y ago

IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case. I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices. A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%. Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
> Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30% What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
- Touche 6y ago
  Did they change this? They used to disallow charging more on iOS.
  - SXX 6y ago
    They have exceptions for few kind of products and this is exactly where Apple policy become some controversial. Since they also allow video streaming, but banned game streaming apps.
    - yokto 6y ago
      Do you have a source for this? Their guidelines don't really mention it.
- SXX 6y ago
  > What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform? As far as I understand this is something Google was specifically allowed to do because their nature as streaming service. E.g most of companies are not allowed to sell subscription or app options for 30% extra on iOS and make it possible to pay for them on their own website for normal price.