41 ms·

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

• gigatexal 5y ago
  That’s it. The App Store is broken. Major win to Epic. I’ll keep using apps and services that take funds via Apple Pay though. I trust Apple in this sense.
  • scardycat 5y ago
    More choice is always a win for the customers. Customer can get to decide who is providing a better quality of service and go with them instead of the current situation of having one choice forced down their throats because the vendor decides that is whats best for the customer.
    • maccard 5y ago
      > More choice is always a win for the customers. Not if it solely results in fragmentation. Having the choice between Ubisoft Connect, EA Origin, Steam and Battle.net isn't a "choice", it's just 4 different storefronts for me to manage credentials for.
      • AlexandrB 5y ago
        Likewise with video streaming services: Netflix, Disney+, etc. It would be nice if content could be unbundled from distributor in this case - like what you see with music.
      • ZekeSulastin 5y ago
        If and when Apple is forced to allow other app stores (and Google is forced to give them the same abilities and privileges as their own), the wailing and gnashing of teeth when “competition” ends up like the much derided state of PC gaming will be hilarious. At least there’s the login with google/Apple ID thing and OS level restrictions on program privileges?
      • wvenable 5y ago
        When you get hacked and your account is destroyed, at least all your eggs won't be in one basket. There are always pros and cons.
      • scardycat 5y ago
        You cannot have choice without fragmentation, you cannot complain about lock-in without wanting choice. Choice and fragmentation go hand in hand, and customers get to decide who wins and who loses.
        • maccard 5y ago
          But fragmentation doesn't guarantee a choice. Take web streaming for example. I don't have a "choice" between Netflix and Disney, the choice is made by the content they provide. Now I'm essentially required to have two accounts to access the services that could appear on just one. Music streaming is a different ball game altogether; I have an actual choice here between Spotify and other providers. Yes there are some exclusives but for the most part I'm choosing based on the features they provide, brand loyalty, price, etc. Games consoles are somewhere in between (largely due to the methods of funding video games) - you choose between Xbox or playstation (or Nintendo I guess) and get access to a wide range of games on your platform. Yes there are some exclusives (most of which are funded by the console maker and just wouldn't exist if it weren't for this), but by and large your choice is dictated "where are my friends", gamepass, price of console + services, brand loyalty. This is going to end up like origin vs uplay vs battle.net, where you don't have a "choice" on where you play because there's no overlap, you just have to have axcpunts with them all and deal with all their individual crap, and shitty practices rather than just Apples
    • handrous 5y ago
      > More choice is always a win for the customers. It's sometimes a win for customers. [EDIT] trivial and clear illustrative case that should be easy to apply to murkier situations: a regulation that bans known poisons in food reduces choice. [EDIT EDIT] more relevantly, and a bit tangentially to the example above: thanks to coordination problems it's possible for more-desirable states to be unmaintainable without reduction of choice—it's possible for someone's—even everyone's—favorite outcome to require a reduction of choice, and for that option to cease to be when more degrees of freedom are introduced.
  • mensetmanusman 5y ago
    In App Payments does not equal Apple Pay tl;dr IAP DNE Pay
• OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.
  • belltaco 5y ago
    >Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile Not just mobile, but iPad Pro and iPads too.
    • pwinnski 5y ago
      Wait, are you suggesting that iPads and iPads Pro are not mobile? In what sense are they tethered?
      • BizarroLand 5y ago
        I think they mean systems with a SIM card or internet access without being tethered to WIFI.
        • MBCook 5y ago
          You can buy iPads with cellular. You’ve been able to since the iPad 1.
          • BizarroLand 5y ago
            Yes, you can buy them, but not everyone does. Phones are by default portable with their own network connection, whereas iPads have to be specifically chosen to have cellular data service. It's alright to overlook them.
      • 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
        The same sense as laptops. At a wild guess, I’m betting most people are buying ipads with wifi only, not cellular.
• carlosdp 5y ago
  Wow, this is huge! We'll see how this holds up, but definitely seems like a turning point. The effect of this order seems to be Apple can't prevent apps from telling customers about alternative in-app purchasing methods, which is a central issue of the case at hand in Epic vs Apple.
• dannyw 5y ago
  Does the permanent injuction apply only to Epic, or does it apply to everyone?
  • sparker72678 5y ago
    It reads like it applies to all developers.
    • theginger 5y ago
      This seems pretty big, like it should have an immediate impact with everyone who ever wanted to use alternative payments on any app store should be submitted an updated app today kind of big. Are there strings like appeal rights that means we won't see a change for years?
      • dannyw 5y ago
        the injuction only applies after 90 days. Likely both Apple and Epic will appeal.
        • rvz 5y ago
          So it is not over yet. Anything can happen until then.
    • shkkmo 5y ago
      This injuction only applies to Apple, as it says pretty clearly in the decision. That prohibition does benefit all developers using the App Store, not just Epic. There is a good chance that this precedent will encourage other lawsuits that will lead to more injuctions, such as one that applies to Steam.
• noxvilleza 5y ago
  If someone has read the full ruling and is familiar enough with the case, what are the odds Apple appeals this - and if they do, is it likely they will win the appeal?
  • gigatexal 5y ago
    This has to be an insta-appeal though so much dirty laundry has come out in discovery maybe they won’t. Then again App Store profit margins are so high … maybe they will take the hit on the 30% and double down on App Store advertising instead since first party advertising is blessed now?
  • colinmhayes 5y ago
    100% chance apple appeals. App store revenue is like 15 billion a year and margins have got to be huge.
  • jcranmer 5y ago
    Reading only a snippet of the opinion, 100% chance of appeal. At the very least, the court effectively says it has no authority as to why it can issue a nationwide (instead of statewide) injunction; you'd be a fool to not at least appeal that. The fact that the court also came to a different decision from both Apple and Epic as to what constitutes the appropriate market for determining monopoly also seems like it would be fruitful grounds for appeal. Will Apple win? I don't know 9th Circuit or the applicable law anywhere near enough to answer that question.
  • gpm 5y ago
    (Not a lawyer, or really an expert on anti-trust law) I fully expect both sides to appeal. To much money is on the line to not try. Even if Apple knew they would lose the appeal, I expect they still would, to try and get a stay on this ruling pending the outcome of the case. I've always been very sympathetic to Epic's side of this case, still am, personally I don't expect Apple to win appeal [1], but I also wouldn't rank the odds of that happening as significantly lower that I thought the odds were of them winning the initial case. Epic might be willing to settle without an appeal in exchange for the ability to continue developing unreal engine for iOS... but given that Apple is not likely to be willing to settle (see above) I doubt that will happen. Apple might choose to unban epic anyways, since the game engine only being available for android hurts them, but I doubt it. [1] Though if a detail here or there changed in Apples favor that would not be surprising.
• smnrchrds 5y ago
  > “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.
  • ChrisLomont 5y ago
    It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
    • newaccount2021 5y ago
      no, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this
    • Supermancho 5y ago
      > It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?
      • dannyw 5y ago
        There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.
        • Supermancho 5y ago
          Ok? That doesnt explain what the phrase : > (the judgement) then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. is supposed to mean by "bigger argument".
        • ChrisLomont 5y ago
          Yes, those laws in California are not uniform among states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case is more likely to reversed. Since other states do not have the same laws of California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal Law, not California law, on appeal. Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California law only applies to transactions in California.
• dataflow 5y ago
  Wow, how did this ruling come so quickly when court cases are so slow to play out normally? Is this something that can get appealed?
  • BizarroLand 5y ago
    Online court systems are here to stay. They're much more efficient than traditional in-person court, both in terms of overall time spent and in manpower. There are still a lot of kinks to work out, such as how to handle court decorum & technological disparities such as low availability of high speed internet and good quality camera systems/lighting/privacy. Personally I think the federal government should contract for an app other than Zoom because if I had to go to trial I wouldn't feel very comfortable knowing it was all being hosted by a private company, but that's a minor gripe.
  • jcranmer 5y ago
    It took over a year for this ruling to come out. Also, this was a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, which also makes it faster. Of course, what really makes court cases take very long is when they get appealed to hell and back -- see Google v Oracle for an example of such a case. (And this is a final order, so it can get appealed).
  • jffry 5y ago
    The lawsuit was filed in August of last year, and arguments in court spanned most of May (and were conducted in-person, not virtually), and then the judge issued her decision today. That's not exactly lightning quick. The rate at which court cases proceed really depends a lot on the complexity of the case, the length of the discovery phase, etc. Both Apple and Epic didn't want to have a jury trial, so there also wasn't the matter of empaneling a jury.
• fotta 5y ago
  > permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. This sounds like the same agreement Apple came to a few weeks ago [0]. They can’t bar developers from linking to external payment methods, but doesn’t require them to allow other forms of in app payment. [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a...
  • shkkmo 5y ago
    It explicitly prohibits Apple from prohibiting any form of In-App purchasing, not merely links to external payments methods.
    • fotta 5y ago
      I disagree here. My read on it is that Apple is prohibited from prohibiting "calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms", not "purchasing mechanisms" themselves. So Apple can still say App Store IAP is the only allowed form of IAP, but they have to allow CTAs to other mechanisms.
      • shkkmo 5y ago
        I see nothing that limits those "purchasing mechanisms" to be outside the app.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    Apple's concession didn't apply to games; only "reader apps". Apple's concession also limited to one link, whereas this refers to links in the plural, and also metadata (eg app store descriptions).
    • fotta 5y ago
• yurishimo 5y ago
  I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my life harder compared to Apple Pay. I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible. Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appealing to me, despite the win for consumers and developers. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's unfortunate we have to make a tradeoff at all. Hopefully, this move will put downward pressure on Apple's payment infrastructure that incentivizes devs to keep using Apple payments because it's the same fee structure as whatever 3rd party they might move towards.
  • christopherwxyz 5y ago
    Apple Pay has no bearing on IAP. You can use Apple Pay with Epic's IAP implementation.
    • dannyw 5y ago
      apple pay expressly forbids being used for digital content delivered within apps.
      • JamesSwift 5y ago
        Right, but the only reason for that is it prevents circumvention. I would assume after this injunction they will allow using apple pay in order to re-capture some of that revenue.
      • diebeforei485 5y ago
        If they want to keep this rule, they can- but they're just losing out.
    • maccard 5y ago
      Will I be able to use it with King's implementation, or my local pizza place's outsourced app? edit: I was instantly downvoted without any discussion, which doesn't add to the conversation. The reason I ask is because that's what the key value add is of Apple's IAP - I know that my payment method is accepted on the app store.
• parhamn 5y ago
  > communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. Another interesting part of this ruling.
• subdane 5y ago
  It'd be pretty novel and refreshing if Apple competed for developer buy-in for payments on features and functionality.
• Factorium 5y ago
  Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?
  • gnorst 5y ago
    Or, more interestingly, game consoles...
  • freewizard 5y ago
    > Notably, the judge rejected both parties’ definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,” Gonzalez-Rogers wrote. I guess the question is does Mobile gaming cover handheld game device like Switch? If so, it may impact Steam Deck as well.
    • themaninthedark 5y ago
      Looks like the Steam Deck will let you install windows on it as well as access other game stores. https://www.polygon.com/22579033/valve-steam-deck-handheld-epic-games-store-windows-os https://www.polygon.com/22579033/valve-steam-deck-handheld-e... This has more interesting implications for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft consoles.
  • wormslayer666 5y ago
    Steam doesn't prevent games from linking to alternative payment processors in-app.
    • Factorium 5y ago
      It most certainly does! All payments must be within the Steam ecosystem when you are distributing a Steam app. Valve even prevents developers from linking to their own website, if said website includes ways to buy content independent of Steam payment.
      • themaninthedark 5y ago
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  Should apple appeal this? Is it really worth further damage? It turns out the little guys were right all along. It's surprising that it took legal action for apple to realize that, when you invite millions of third parties in your marketplace, you should treat them with some respect. And when this leads to prices of purchases going down, how are people going to keep justifying apple's position. I think the biggest win is that micropayment services will grow which is good for all developers (not just in iOS)
  • Osiris 5y ago
    The ruling could cost them billions of dollars in revenue. It's absolutely worth appealing. Even if they lose in the long run, they'll make a few billion more in the mean time.
    • cblconfederate 5y ago
      how many billions? It seems their max app gaming revenue lost would be 64 * 70% * 30% = 13.4B for 2021 , but it's probably a lot smaller due to special deals, and also this would assume they would lose ALL the revenue. In reality they'd lose about,maybe ~$3B ? The alternative would alienate some of their best developers -- who knows, maybe they'd leave?
      • AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
        where will they leave? 50% of market is Apple's and majority of people play games on their mobile phones and not on dedicated setups.
        • cblconfederate 5y ago
          how much did fortnite lose?
      • bhelkey 5y ago
        >> In short, iOS apps must be allowed to direct users to payment options beyond those offered by Apple. > It seems their max app gaming revenue lost would be 64 * 70% * 30% = 13.4B for 2021 It is my understanding that the injunction is not limited to games. It applies to all apps.
• socialist_coder 5y ago
  This will certainly get appealed and bogged down even more in the legal system, right? What are the chances this actually happens? And when? Secondly, this is such an easy way to increase your take by 20+% that I would imagine almost every publisher is going to be offering their own payments platform, not just the biggest ones like Epic.
  • colinmhayes 5y ago
    NYT article said this goes into effect in 90 days, although I assume an appellate judge could change that.
  • nullspace 5y ago
    Yeah, agree. I think this would kill the App Store model. It's surprising that the stock only dipped by 2%. What am I missing?
    • jeroenhd 5y ago
      Why would the app store model stop working? Paying through the app store has a direct benefit to usability. Before in app purchases the app store model worked fine. Even if the Epic lawsuit goes completely off the rails and Apple is forced to allow external app stores on iOS, they can still maintain a profitable app store if they provide the best experience to end users. Building an app store is very hard, and convincing people to install an alternative store is even harder, so I doubt they'll lose much there. The app store is so ludicrously profitable that the exclusivity they enjoy can't possibly be the only reason it's making them money. This cut into Apple's (and Google's) profits, but it certainly won't mean the end of app stores as we know them.
      • gokhan 5y ago
        > if they provide the best experience to end users I don't think they can. Their DNA on this evolved as a monopoly. They won't be able to compete, they will be slow and boring while clever people will overpower them.
• ggoo 5y ago
  Does this apply to all apps or just games?
  • jhatax 5y ago
    All apps; the language in the ruling against Apple is: >> permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. >>
• danShumway 5y ago
  This is somewhat surprising to me. I thought Epic had a reasonable chance of getting an eventual win on some points, or in getting enough attention that regulators stepped in. I also thought Apple had a pretty decent chance of winning. But I did not think that Epic had a particularly strong chance of getting an injunction like this. I hope that the takeaway people take from this is "it's tricky to guess what a judge will do during a contentious case", and not, "the judge was always obviously going to issue this injunction." I still personally think knowing what I know now, if I went back to the start of this case I still wouldn't be able to confidently predict this injunction. But maybe other people are better at reading court signals than I am.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    The judge literally hinted at this exact outcome during the hearings, back in May: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-apple-judge-hints-at-compromise-in-feud-over-app-store#:~:text=The%20judge%20overseeing%20the%20high,t%20their%20only%20shopping%20option https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-appl.... It's not a surprising outcome whatsoever if you followed the trial. Apple's recent concession on this was reading the room and realising this is the likely outcome.
    • danShumway 5y ago
      I did follow the trial, and actually probably commented on that exact compromise hint at the time (although I'd need to look over my comment history to know for sure). I didn't read a "compromise" as indicating that an injunction was particularly likely, and most of the commentary I read on HN at that time didn't read it that way either. I think people are looking back with the benefit of hindsight at something that was not by any means a generally assumed outcome, even from people who were covering and talking about the trial on HN itself or on other social media sites I followed. A hint that the judge is curious about finding middle grounds in a lawsuit is definitely not a promise of a permanent injunction.
  • stale2002 5y ago
    Something that I like to do, when discussing these issues with people, is get the other person to commit to a position, ahead of time, and go back to those comments later to see who was right. I had multiple discussions, with many commenters on hacker news, where people were way too certain about the court case, when clearly it could have gone many different ways (Thus, I agree with you that "it's tricky to guess what a judge will do during a contentious case" ).
• lacker 5y ago
  Great news for mobile developers (and for Stripe). Everyone doing in-app purchases has a huge incentive to quickly find some drop-in replacement that charges 3% instead of 30%. I would be surprised if Apple ends up keeping the fee at 30%. If this injunction holds up, I think they will drop it within the year.
• Invictus0 5y ago
  Will Epic's developer account be reinstated?
  • paulmd 5y ago
    Short answer: no. Apple isn’t required to reinstate Epic, and it actually also enforces damages for the breach of contract during the time when Epic was stiffing Apple for the fees. Despite a lot of reporting about how this is some big win for Epic, the court is siding with Apple there, the ruling is Epic was in the wrong (breach of contract) and needs to pay up, and if Apple decides they don’t want to do further business with epic then oh well, “play stupid games…” Next time you want to try and negotiate a lower contract rate, don’t breach a legal and valid contract and then try to use the courts to do your dirty work. The courts are not your sales rep.
• gigel82 5y ago
  This would be very good news if it sticks! But since Apple is known to refuse store submissions for opaque reasons, what would stop them from retaliating against apps that provide links to external payment processors with vague unrelated reasons? I would not put that past them. Also, I hope the anti-monopoly part gets picked up at the federal level; no one can deny Apple & Google are de-facto duopoly.
  • belltaco 5y ago
    It's possible but it will be hard to get away. If there's an official policy to do it, there might be whistleblowers or people might notice patterns. If that happens, courts tend to take a very dim view of what they see as intentional retaliation or creative workarounds to not follow the court orders. The court might first tell Tim Cook to appear in court to answer what exactly happened and who decided to do it.
• mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This is a big deal. I wonder how Apple will respond to dealing with the bandwidth costs of free apps with large bandwidth requirements. Hopefully they just get rid of free apps, and require customers to pay upfront so that they don’t have to deal with as many advertisements.
  • mhermher 5y ago
    They're just gonna increase developer license fees.
    • mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Epic licensing fee $100,000,000?
• sombremesa 5y ago
  What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?
  • AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
    Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling. And they don't need 30% fees for maintaining IOS ecosystem - when you buy an apple phone for $1000, you pay Apple enough for it to maintain its AppStore. Also they earn money from AppStore advertising (which apps out of the millions should the small screen show); so maintaining AppStore should not be a problem. I don't know about the bad-actors part though.
    • sombremesa 5y ago
      > they cannot ignore a ruling Why not?
      • colinmhayes 5y ago
        Why can't you ignore your tax bill?
      • indymike 5y ago
        Fines now. Jail later.
        • sombremesa 5y ago
          Thanks. This actually comes closes to answering the question I was asking in the first place.
          • indymike 5y ago
            It was actually a good question.
            • deleted 5y ago
              [deleted]
• jjordan 5y ago
  Hopefully this will eventually lead to a day where users once again have full control over their devices. Android is a bit better, even if alternate app stores don't have the same system privileges as Google Play, but Apple devices are wholly authoritarian in what you can run on a device you supposedly own.
  • gchokov 5y ago
    Google Devices are anything but owned by customers. You don’t have anything yours there, not even your data, location.. anything. Wake up.
    • ssaturn 5y ago
      Freedom is not a boolean, it is a scale and google offers more than apple at the moment. Ironically the pixel devices are one of the few where bootloaders are unlocked in the US and you can flash a customer google free rom. Assuming there is no hardware based surveillance this is as close to free as we can get at the moment.
      • simondotau 5y ago
        Close to free—for the 0.1% of owners who are willing to put in tens of hours of their time.
  • marricks 5y ago
    It's a case of choosing how you lose. Android certainly is more open and free in terms of what you can do with it, but you become Google's product and they will mine all meaningful data from your interactions. What would be swell is an open device you fully control which doesn't spy on you. Turns out that cuts off most of the ways to make big bucks.
    • arsome 5y ago
      You can basically have this today - you might have to give up a few niceties, but if you don't rely on anything too fancy, Lineage + F-Droid, with optional MicroG will generally do the trick for most apps. Gotta be a bit of tinkerer to set that one up though, not something for grandma.
• baggy_trough 5y ago
  Note that Epic also has to pay 30% damages. > n the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment, and interest according to law.
• baggy_trough 5y ago
  Note Epic also has to pay 30% damages. > On the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment, and interest according to law.
  • colinmhayes 5y ago
    I'm sure Epic included this in the legal costs of the case. If they get to create their own store they can potentially make billions.
  • jimbob45 5y ago
    In what upside-down world is that justified? It seems like the judge is talking out of both sides of her mouth.
    • paulmd 5y ago
      What do you think is unjustified here? The 30% is literally the money they collected while breaching their contract, that was money Epic agreed to pay Apple and Apple is rightfully owed. The big picture here is that Epic lost the case - they were ruled to be in clear breach of contract and Apple was determined to not have acted anticompetitively except in one specific respect (the anti-steering clause). Epic gets no third party App Store - meaning ”platform” app stores are not anticompetitive, a ruling that 30% app store fees are not anticompetitive, a ruling that Epic still owes the money during the time when they were knowingly and willfully breaching their contract, a ruling that they have to pay apple’s lawyers for the frivolous suit, and no requirement for Apple to reinstate Epic’s account after all these shenanigans. Oh yeah and anti-steering clauses are probably illegal. Big win for Epic there. Despite newspapers racing to frame this as a big loss for Apple, it’s really Epic who lost here (and that’s why they get to pay the lawyers, pay the breach of contract, etc). It’s completely consistent with the rest of the ruling, because that’s what happens when you lose a suit.
  • 5y ago
• AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
  Does this also apply (as precedent) to Epic vs Google?
  • occamrazor 5y ago
    Partly. Google allows sideloading, but makes it inconvenient. Whether it’s more similar to Apple or Steam is a non-obvious question.
• fxtentacle 5y ago
  Reading this, I cannot help but imagine someone at Apple thinking to themselves "I wish we had granted Epic an exemption like we did with Netflix". The court proceedings and the documents that they were required to disclose were surely bad for PR and now it looks like they won't even keep the monetary benefits.
  • Factorium 5y ago
    Fortnite will come and go but Unreal Engine will be generating revenues forever. Epic are more motivated by transferring the excess profits of Apple into modest profits for developers, who then redistribute 5% of their revenues (as part of the Unreal Engine license) back to Epic. I wonder if Epic will sue Steam and console developers next... Epic sells Unreal to Sony and Microsoft, so suing them is probably unlikely. But Valve could definitely be the next target.
    • madeofpalk 5y ago
      > I wonder if Epic will sue Steam Why would Epic sue Steam? Fornite isnt on Steam, because it doesn't need to be. It's the platform (Windows) working in a competitive way!
      • Macha 5y ago
        Console developers on the other hand, are almost certainly next.
        • madeofpalk 5y ago
          I think Epic has a good relationship with console developers, generally, because they help each other out. Epic seems happy that it actually gets something back for giving up that 30%.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • dleslie 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  >The decision concludes the first part of the battle between the two companies over Apple’s App Store policies and whether they stifle competition. Apple won on 9 of 10 counts but will be forced to change its App Store policies and loosen its grip over in-app purchases. >Rogers said that Apple was not a monopolist and “success is not illegal.” >“Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” Rogers wrote. Glad to see nobody knows what a monopoly is anymore. It's like the Grant administration all over again...
• endisneigh 5y ago
  Is this also true for Epic Games? Why would anyone not circumvent all fees for any platform?
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    In many platforms it's not worth the effort, or the native payment method is actually cheaper than any potential competitor
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      Curious to know which platforms have lower fees than doing it yourself.
      • cblconfederate 5y ago
        It depends on the effort needed to "do it yourself" which is a lot if you're accounting many many tiny transactions. There's definitely a market there, or at least there was during the FB games era.
      • TillE 5y ago
        Taking direct payments is absolutely insane if you're a small developer. I mean, have fun accounting for zillions of tax laws in every country in the world. 30% is a lot, but considering all the other services you get, it's not particularly unreasonable. For big companies, sure, you have accountants and lawyers and your own infrastructure, so you don't need any of that stuff.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    Name me another platform where you are forced into a duopoly with identical policies.
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      Gaming consoles.
• unanswered 5y ago
  > Dr. Hanssen’s survey is also severely flawed and ultimately unreliable. First, he reports that 30- 43% of respondents “regularly” use a Microsoft Windows phone even though Microsoft had 0% market share in smartphones in 2018 and no longer sells phones. Apple with their completely truthful experts here.
• spzb 5y ago
  My reading of this is that it's nowhere near the big deal people are making out in the comments here. According to CNBC's report "Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing" [0]. That's a long way from forcing Apple to allow alternative IAP providers or installing alternate app stores. It suggests you'll have to step out of the app to make a payment (which adds friction) and it'll be up to the app developer to validate back in the app that the right person has made the right payment. This sounds similar to what Apple had already conceded they'd do [1] [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-reaches-decision-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-rea... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/27/apple-agrees-to-let-iphone-apps-email-users-about-payment-options https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/27/apple-agr...
  • dannyw 5y ago
    Apple's concession was for reader apps only. This expands it to all apps.
    • spzb 5y ago
      I meant "sounds similar to". I've edited my comment for clarity now.
    • akmarinov 5y ago
      Also a "reader app" is whatever Apple felt a reader app is, it's not something specific that an app should be.
• throw_m239339 5y ago
  Wow this is unexpected, until now Apple had a solid case, or so I thought. This is welcome of course, since it means other developers can use that judgement AGAINST Apple. Was it worth it for Apple to go to court all things considered? I guess they were really confident the court would rule in their favor.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    huh? The judge pretty much told everyone the outcome in May: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-apple-judge-hints-at-compromise-in-feud-over-app-store#:~:text=The%20judge%20overseeing%20the%20high,t%20their%20only%20shopping%20option https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-appl....
• post_break 5y ago
  I can only assume this means epic developer account reinstated and fortnight is back in the app store.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    The injuction does not require Apple to reinstate Fortnite.
• Rels 5y ago
  I don't understand the logic behind this ruling. So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30% now), and they have to change that. But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made after their update in which they used direct payment? But if Epic didn't try to go around the rule and loudly complain, there would be no judicial case, and no ruling forcing Apple to change? This is weird to me.
  • kkcorps 5y ago
    Taking one for the team.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • jimbob45 5y ago
    Epic only has to pay out ~$4 million for their "damages" so it's largely moot and ceremonial for them. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it seems contradictory.
  • modeless 5y ago
    I guess the judge's logic is that Epic could have sued without breaching the contract first, even if the contract was actually illegal. I don't agree that it should work that way, but the damages are immaterial. The bigger issue is: can/will Apple permanently terminate Epic's developer account for breach of contract and prevent them from releasing Fortnite despite this ruling, and possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? It seems to me that they can.
    • Macha 5y ago
      > possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? I think this is unlikely. Mac gamers need Unreal more than games developed using Unreal need Mac users. Mac is an incredibly niche market for games - they're not going to rewrite their game using a different engine to run on Mac, and Apple knows that. Of course, Apple could decide they don't give a shit about native Mac games, why don't you play our iOS games, but that just seems petty.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• btown 5y ago
  This makes me very curious if we'll see things like the Amazon Kindle store coming to iOS, as well as an increased amount of paid Amazon Prime content. It's absurd that you can read books on the Kindle app but there's no CTA to buy them. Whatever ends up happening, this upends whatever status quo existed between the companies.
• etchalon 5y ago
  Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow other payment processors." But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e. Apple can't tell developers they can't link out to other payment options on the web.
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    It says they can't prohibit developers (so they must allow) adding links to non-IAP. OTOH it doesnt force apple to allow any link, they can still filter which payment providers are allowed
    • dannyw 5y ago
      Violating an injuction via a technicality will land you in court again.
      • cblconfederate 5y ago
        Would it be a violation?
        • etchalon 5y ago
          Probably. "Letter of the law" vs. "the spirit". Judges are not fans of people trying to be "technically in compliance".
          • cblconfederate 5y ago
            i dont think the spirit is to allow developers to engage in scammy behavior. Apple can still refuse the app based on its other rules.
  • simondotau 5y ago
    And there's nothing in the ruling that says Apple can't still demand a cut from in-app sales transacted through another mechanism. It's more work for Apple, but they're still legally entitled to do it, if developers must agree to Apple's terms in order to use their intellectual property.
• Pulcinella 5y ago
  Apple Pay is a separate system than the normal IAP system, but I expect there are going to be tons of apps with tiny web views hosting nothing but the web Apple Pay button. This would cut down on some of the friction of having the user re-enter their credit card info for every app while still cutting out Apple’s 30% cut.
• gok 5y ago
  Seems like this essentially kills the game console business. If 3rd party Xbox and Playstation games are allowed to sell content with their own payment system, why would anyone buy games through Microsoft/Sony?
  • junipertea 5y ago
    Convenience, existing game libraries, the pain of setting up another payment system using 12 buttons, price..
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• hrbf 5y ago
  On the one hand this great for consumer choice, on the other, it will undoubtedly lead to a loss in purchasing confidence of regular users and a flood of scams or scam-like apps. Especially with regard to subscriptions, we’ve seen this play out via SMS-based ringtone subscriptions of days past. Personally, I will never subscribe to anything on my iOS devices if I cannot view and cancel it via the built-in subscription management. Here’s to hoping that Apple is going to make integration with it mandatory.
  • latexr 5y ago
    > it will undoubtedly lead to (…) a flood of scams or scam-like apps. Scams are alive and well on the App Store, they don’t need this ruling to thrive: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
    • hrbf 5y ago
      Way to cherry-pick and dismiss. I would argue the possible long-term loss in purchasing confidence by the customers who were burned by a bad experience weighs a lot heavier overall. Regarding scams, keep in mind that the ones I mentioned will come in addition to the existing ones, not displacing them, making an already non-ideal situation potentially way worse. To stem this, the app approval process could get even slower than it currently is. A better solution would have been to somehow force Apple to lower its fee structure. This however is incompatible with certain economic liberties we take for granted and would set a worrying precedent, so the current outcome is probably the only pragmatic one.
  • echelon 5y ago
    We don't need a corporate nanny state. Society has thrived without Apple putting its mittens on everything and everybody.
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    Apple is probably going to make a list of "allowed" payment partners. This decision doesn't seem to disallow them to have a say in that.
• summerlight 5y ago
  https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-blackburn-and-klobuchar-introduce-bipartisan-antitrust-legislation-to-promote-app-store-competition https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blu... Should Apple appeal? I don't think so; they now have much bigger thing to worry about. If they decide to appeal, it'll generate even more publicity and congress and public are going to be more engaged. Apple desperately wants to get it over with as silent as possible.
  • xvector 5y ago
    Apple WILL appeal. This is 25% of their yearly revenue at risk. I think many people don't realize just how critical this case is to Apple.
    • sangnoir 5y ago
      If they appeal, they'll be on the line to lose even more (and Epic is itching for this fight to continue, so Epic might appeal). Apple can cut its losses and be happy with the current, quantified ruling, or roll the dice and possibly run into a terrible precedent for other jurisdictions that have been rattling their sabers at Apple.
      • dannyw 5y ago
        I expect both Apple and Epic to appeal.
      • manquer 5y ago
        Epic will need to appeal, they are still not allowed in the App store for breaching contract, this ruling did not change that. They need get favorable ruling on appeal taking the view the contract was not valid and had illegal terms therefore Epic was not in breach. Without that Fortnite is still not returning to the App Store.
• quickthrowman 5y ago
  Is this going to affect subscriptions? If so, I’m cancelling all of my current subscriptions through apple, they’re the ONLY company that makes cancelling easy and that will go away if this includes subscriptions.
• OisinMoran 5y ago
  To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right" thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or decisions like this should include the likelihood of getting caught and make the expected value negative. A fine for not having a train ticket is not just the price of a ticket.
  • poniko 5y ago
    Why, the curt said follow the terms of contract (Since the contract is valid). Why should you get a penalty because you legally have a chance to dispute a contract? You might need to pay the legal fees etc but the default must be to have the fair chance to challenge what you might seem unfair in said contract.
    • AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
      His argument was that if you don't pay all the time and get caught some of the times, then you only have to pay some of the time. If fees is $100 each time and you don't pay 100 times and get caught only 50 times, then you only pay 50 times 100=5000 rather than 100 times 100=10000. And we are talking in tens of millions, so legal fees are negligible.
  • AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
    Very good point. I believe that the judge just gave a slap on the wrist to Epic Games with that fine (that's why it was equal to just the "back-pay") for breaking a contract (which is wrong, legally speaking.) I believe the judge did this (just a slap) because Epic was right and Apple was anti-competitive. I could be wrong though. I have very little knowledge of anti-competitive laws.
    • judge2020 5y ago
      I'd have to agree with you, as this lawsuit was a PR play more than anything, especially if it means they don't get their App back on the app store (yet?).
• gjkngr 5y ago
  here's the meat: "Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their: Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP. Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app." And it applies to all apps, not just games
• pupppet 5y ago
  I don't see developers dropping their price now they can use their own payment processor. All I see is me, the user, having to struggle through using their janky home-made payment processors as I pay and/or try to end my subscriptions.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    Developers will probably just use apple pay plus PayPal.
  • donmcronald 5y ago
    It's possible they could use the difference for promotion too. In the PC world there's things like nexus.gg that I've been seeing more of lately. It allows creators and streamers to set up a game store so you can buy from them and the creator gets the (rough) equivalent of Steam's cut. That's a much better model IMO. The creators and streamers are actually promoting your product to a core audience that's likely to buy, so they're more deserving of that big cut. For example, the YouTube channel where I learned about that is from a creator that plays the style of games I like, so their nexus.gg store is actually pretty good as a discovery mechanism (for me). So smaller developers can keep uniform pricing, but leverage other forms of promotion where the people that are actually driving sales benefit instead of some rent seeking middle man like Apple or Google. That's not some "janky home-made payment processor" either. I set up an account with the primary platform (nexus.gg) and I can buy from / support any creator curated game store I want within that platform.
  • alickz 5y ago
    >All I see is me, the user, having to struggle through using their janky home-made payment processors as I pay and/or try to end my subscriptions.` You could just not use the app if you don't like their payment processor.
• gpm 5y ago
  Note that if you scroll to the bottom of the order, the judge was nice enough to include an outline of the order to aid in navigation Direct link to order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-j...
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• xvector 5y ago
  There goes all of Apple's App Store revenue, a cool 25% of Apple's total revenue. Should have sold my stock!
• sudhirj 5y ago
  Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S. Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue. 1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account, say at $5,000 a year. The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system. All Apple has to do is to make the rates competitive enough, that after considering building their own purchases system, factoring in sales tax and VAT, most developers will happily just opt for Apple's system if the rates make sense. Many people are putting up with 30% already — bringing the rates down to something reasonable with an upgrade path to put them on par with payment processors like Stripe (with VAT and Billing and Radar) or Paddle will just increase revenues for them. The moment they drop rates and ease restrictions apps that are not being built because of these rules will get built, and these apps will gladly pay the market rate of 5% to 10% for a full service payments system.
  • mertd 5y ago
    Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web purchases.
    • WA 5y ago
      Exactly. Stripe and PayPal could be integrated easily.
      • ethbr0 5y ago
        But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh. Now I see what this was about.
        • dpkonofa 5y ago
          I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have to stand up their own versions of this (or if they even can) and whether or not it'll be as seamless for the end user.
• arbirk 5y ago
  Kids are the customers, parents have the credit card. Epic will have to onboard the parents to really make a dent. What Epic wanted was their own separate store, and that wish is clearly shut down.
  • spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Majority of parents will choose epic if epic is cheaper for the same thing.
• paulpan 5y ago
  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this ruling only applies for in-app purchases correct? E.g. Apple cannot force apps to default to and only use to its payment infrastructure for post-sale and within app transactions (which comes with 30% fees). In other words if my app costs $10 and in-app transactions are $1 apiece, Apple still gets $3 from initial purchase but instead of $.30 from each subsequent in-app transaction, I could potentially keep $.97 (assuming 3% credit card fees). If so I think the long-term impact will be most interesting in that will Apple raise its developer fee significantly and/or discourage "free" apps to cover its hosting, review, other overhead costs. It would also incentive app developers to become more like game developers: every feature becomes its own add-on/DLC.
  • manquer 5y ago
    Alternatively in a parallel universe, Apple will transparently price their other "services" basis the actual cost incurred such as number of reviews they do, number of downloads, OTAs, number of IAPs/ recurring subscriptions etc, and developers can figure out the best mechanism for their user case.
• anilr 5y ago
  If an app has been blocked from the app store because it doesn't have In-App purchases (it has its own credit card form), do we know how this judgement affects things? It sounds like the app would be allowed to link to an external payment system, but it's not clear if a non-Apple in app payment system would be allowed. It's also not clear to me if In-App purchases (through Apple) could be required for approval into the store? I assume Apple would still have the power to require use of their payment system.
• mbreese 5y ago
  IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing. > ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing ... To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able to link out to an external purchasing mechanism. So, for example a link to the Epic Store web page must be allowed, but a different in-app purchasing mechanism could still be limited. Which, I think that was the main complaint for many other developers -- you couldn't accept payments outside of the App Store (like on your website). So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves. This seems to be a pretty common-sense written injunction, meaning that developers are allowed to communicate with users and accept payment outside of the Apple garden. This seems pretty straightforward and would cover many (most?) of the developer complaints for dealing with their customers. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i...
  • cptskippy 5y ago
    This is how I read it: permanently restrained and enjoined from 1) prohibiting developers from a) including in their apps and their metadata: i) buttons, ii) external links, or iii) other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, b) in addition to In-App Purchasing and c) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
    • mbreese 5y ago
      But that's not how the clauses are written grammatically, which is why I'm unsure. There are two clauses: one about purchases and the second about communication. The second clause is easiest to deal with. It is: communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app This means that the developer can communicate with the user -- using information the user gave them, not information that Apple has to give them. I think we can agree on that one. The first clause is tougher, and I think there are multiple ways to read it (at least for a non-lawyer... lawyers might read this only one way). prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing The way that I read it is: developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, in addition to the existing Apple In-App purchasing. The other way to read that is (which is how I assume you read it): developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, as well as allowing non-Apple mechanisms for purchasing inside the app. Without knowing how the judge has defined In-App purchasing, I'm not sure you can tell which is the right interpretation. The capitalization of it is curious to me, but maybe that's just how they referred to all purchases that happen inside an App, or maybe that's how the Apple App Store managed purchases were referred to. I'm sure there will be some kind of better legal analysis appearing soon enough (I hope).
• threatofrain 5y ago
  That Apple collects high fees ought to be considered separately from whether Apple mandates at least the use of Apple Pay. As a user, I love Sign in with Apple + Apple Pay. It allows my family members to give over very little information over to app companies. This is a level of consumer privacy that's not found anywhere else.
• plandis 5y ago
  As a consumer I trust how Apple payments work and like the fact that everyone was using it on iOS. Now I will need to cut back on apps and do more due diligence to avoid scams and other issues. Hard to see how this is a win for consumers in addition to developers.
  • spywaregorilla 5y ago
    You can still use Apple payments.
    • plandis 5y ago
      What do you mean? If purchases are directed to a developers own payment system I don’t have a choice, I cannot force that developer to use Apples payment system can I?
      • fabianhjr 5y ago
        You have the same choice developers had: their way or the highway. Though, developers would be likely to: - choose established and trusted payment processors (like PayPal or Stripe) rather than rolling their own solution or a small unknown payment processor, and - offer many processors and let the user choose
      • spywaregorilla 5y ago
        I don't see anything to suggest apple cannot force apps to offer apple pay as an option. Only that they cannot force apps to make apple pay the only option.
      • cynix 5y ago
        The ruling is that Apple cannot forbid linking to other payment methods _in addition to_ IAP, not _instead of_. Apple can still require that IAP must be one of the options.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • 5y ago
• COGlory 5y ago
  This is not a good enough outcome. It's never been about IAP methods. The problem here is that Apple is stopping you from using software on a physical device you own. Very disappointing ruling.
• zuhayeer 5y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/93990 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/93990 Wonder no more lad, you can use Stripe as IAP soon
• testfrequency 5y ago
  I believe people are over conflating the "friction" involved with using an outside payment system (such as Stripe or PayPal). Apple ID's already allow you to attach your PayPal account as primary funding...this is just giving developers that direct choice now. PayPal, you confirm checkout total, login to paypal, confirm subscription or price. Done. Stripe, you can use their standard checkout page, autofill your card info, or just use Apple Pay to confirm the subscription/item, pay. Done. What's changed is just giving developers that flexibility. Ultimately saving them money, they can hire more devs, and make their products hopefully cheaper (and better). Most consumers will still have no idea that their checkout is not happening with Apple, and it's happening elsewhere (aside from PayPal Checkout being obvious with their checkout/login flow). Apple could absolutely adapt their native subscriptions SDK to support the status of a third-party app, though I doubt they ever would. They tried to do this with streaming services (HBO, Netflix, etc.), but they shut this down recently
  • jackson1442 5y ago
    Apps based around "physical goods" (read: food ordering) have been able to do this for ages, and if the trend I see there expands into "normal" apps, about 50% will support Apple Pay, 25% will support PayPal without AP, 10% will support card scanning, and the rest will make you manually enter your card number, billing address, name, email, firstborn child, etc. So no, I don't think the flow will remain nearly as seamless as it is today, and that's disappointing to me. I don't pay for much IAP-wise (though I do order plenty of DoorDash), but I guess this will give me even less motivation to buy crap I don't need.
    • ineedasername 5y ago
      firstborn child That only works the first time. Now, I'm running out of kids and you'd be astounded at how little value they hold once you get to fifth born.
  • ribit 5y ago
    >What's changed is just giving developers that flexibility. Ultimately saving them money, they can hire more devs, and make their products hopefully cheaper (and better). The only ones who can save money on third-party payments are big developers or apps that charge a lot of money. For usual $0.99-2.99 in-app buys, you won't be saving much, in fact, you are likely to pay more. And of course, you have to do VAT, refunds and other things yourself. I just don't see how a small dev is benefiting here. I'd rather pay Apple's 15% and be done with it.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• a-dub 5y ago
  this seems ridiculous. does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband? apple is not a monopoly, nor is it anticompetitive. it is, however, opinionated and differentiates itself in the marketplace with that opinionation. there are less opinionated, yet very competitive alternatives and both users and developers are free to switch to them.
  • ThatCaio 5y ago
    >does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband? No, this is equivalent to the vendors having the ability to accept other forms of payment, such as cash or other credit cards, if they choose alongside the wristband.
    • a-dub 5y ago
      but then because the wristband is more expensive, they'll hide or break the wristband machine and the next thing you know, downtown disney is now the bowery with sketchy ad men in pinstripe suits chasing everyone around. the whole reason why people pay to go to downtown disney is because they don't want to deal with that shit. the simple fact no one wants to admit is that the msrp for an iphone or an android does not even come close to the r&d costs for the software, hardware and backend platforms. android is open, but in exchange for that, users pay by broadcasting all their activity to creepy marketers. ios is closed, but rather than take money from creepazoids who are stalking and trying to sell to and complicate the lives of users, they charge a tax on all commercial activity on the platform... to pay for the platform. now third parties are saying "we don't want to pay the platform tax" but this is couched in all this bullshit about app store freedom or choice in payment processor or whatever. if you don't want to pay the platform tax, don't do business on the platform. don't try to wreck the platform's business model and value proposition for the users who choose it over the digital advertising dystopia that is the "open" internet in 2021.
• throwaway98797 5y ago
  I hope this doesn’t hurt customer experience.
• zamadatix 5y ago
  > 43 With respect to the appropriateness of Peely's "dress," the Court understood Apple merely to be "dressing" Peely in a tuxedo for federal court, as jest to reflect the general solemnity of a federal court proceeding. As Mr. Weissinger later remarket, and with which the court agrees, Peely is "just a banana man," additional attire was not necessary but informative. Trial Tr. (Weissinger) 1443:17.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • gunapologist99 5y ago
    If you were confused by this as well, here's a reference: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666922/apple-epic-peely-naked-banana-judgement https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666922/apple-epic-peely...
• thehappypm 5y ago
  I've read the doc like 10 times. I think there are two key takeaways. First, Apple can't stop companies like Epic from including links to other payment tools. Practically speaking, that means things like Kindle can now have a "Purchase on Amazon.com" button (which it currently does not have in order to avoid the 30% cut). Second, the App Store itself is a-okay. Apple does not need to allow side loading or a second App Store. Analysis from me: it's a win for Apple. They get to keep their App Store, which would be tremendously bad for them if they were forced to allow alternatives. There will be revenue loss from in-app purchases that are done via external links now, but Apple's own mechanisms are likely to continue being the easiest and most seamless, so that revenue stream will hardly go to $0.
• ibdf 5y ago
  I believe this will cause managing subscriptions to be a lot harder and untrustworthy. I will probably have to sign up for different payment systems I never heard of… the store won’t be able to track when subscriptions expire, and this will open up so much room for fraudulent behavior.
  • cyberlurker 5y ago
    Why would that be the case? Can’t apps still use Apple as one of the payment options? If subscriptions are important to you, keep doing it through Apple. Unless the discounts are significant I don’t see myself going through the 3rd party payments. I already try to avoid subscriptions anyway. But for one off purchases, it’s nice to have options. I think this is a modest win for consumers.
• thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  It still costs Apple money to run the App Store. Since many developers will now be able to opt out of payments through Apple and Apple will lose that revenue, I foresee Apple changing the terms of service for developers so they can get revenue by some other means not affected by this ruling. Would Apple charge developers based on the number of downloads / installs of the developers' apps? What other ways might Apple make up for the lost revenue?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I think it will be fine, but the one big worry that I have, is that I expect a significant percentage of these "alternatives" to point to scams. That will put Apple in another hot spot. If someone reports that an approved app has scam links in the app, will Apple be on the hook to block the app? If they do, will that, then open them up to charges? What about if they don't? I have been quite impressed with the ingenuity of scammers. The Apple customer base is a lucrative target. I am constantly getting hijack attempts and phishing scams, aimed at my AppleID.
• leptoniscool 5y ago
  This is a big money maker for AAPL, they'll probably need to raise the profit margins on their hardware to make up for the lost revenue.
  • asdff 5y ago
    "New" SE phone with 4 year old hardware incoming
• yyyk 5y ago
  Judge seemed to have reached into the narrowest possible ruling, a reasonable decision in a case which is likely to be appealed by both sides. Apple learnt that the monopoly definition argument doesn't prevent rulings against anti-competitive practices, and Epic learnt that if it wants to attack App Store fees it needs to bring an objective criteria to the table and have it accepted. The judge skirted the App Store issue, but I never felt that was important: IMHO, 99.999% of iPhone users would have used Apple's store even if alternate stores were available; The only alternative store with any chance of success would have been an OSS store - hardly what Epic wanted.
• ksec 5y ago
  I just want to say I follow a lot of court case within the Tech Industry mostly Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel. And Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is the only Judge that seems to have clear, well reasoned verdict in all of her cases. Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning. The other thing that really irritate the heck of me from Apple's PR, are their insistence of mentioning how App Store has provided jobs in each country. Creating X amount of Jobs. Below is the statement from Apple on this verdict >Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone.
  • YPPH 5y ago
    >Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning. Judges in the US certainly have varying political persuasions and values, but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. It's part of their oath or affirmation. Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'.
    • ksec 5y ago
      >but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. >Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'. Except that is not what's happened. I dont mean biased just in their verdict but actual ruling. The worst and most eye opening was Apple vs Qualcomm. Where evidence and explanation from Qualcomm were completely tossed out by the Judge. It was so bizarre that I wasn't the only only one who noticed it. But Twitter, Social Media and MSM only wants to cover Apple's narratives.
      • 5y ago
• OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  Is Apple surprised? It seems to me that the current model for tech companies is.. . Do something clearly sketchy to build your market. It might be copyright violations, it might be lock-in. . Grow/profit until someone cares. . Hold off the court cases for as long possible . When they finally go against you, it's probably too late since the new thing has come along. . Wash rinse repeat.
• cletus 5y ago
  I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a legislature was ultimately going to do it for them. And you're almost always better off making that change yourself. Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines. Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO) can see a lot of benefit from Apple's 30% cut. It's those large publishers who are most likely to challenge your rules in court or lobby against you. If the very largest publishers were paying 10% as a Preferred Partner instead of 30%, they would be a lot less willing to challenge the status quo when they might lose that privilege. We've already have ridiculous workarounds for Apple's policies here like how you can bypass it to buy directly from Amazon through the app for physical goods. The carve out for digital goods is and was always a tortured post facto justification. Where once the 30% cut funded the App Store (when it was small). It's clearly transitioned to being a massive profit center and Apple executives couldn't see past the short term revenue to see the writing on the wall. Woops.
  • majani 5y ago
    When you consider the Pareto nature of app store earnings, Apple's best move was to wait and be forced to make the change.
    • dev_tty01 5y ago
      I agree. It also allows the judge to slap them without agreeing with the other side. Epic didn't get anything they really wanted. This change will not make much difference. No change to single app store model. As far as I can tell, Apple will have to allow communication in the app about payment through other means. That's it. I think it is likely that Apple will require apps to offer Apple payment as an option alongside the new communication about an external payment system. That is just a guess on my part, but it wouldn't be surprising. If I guessed right, Apple's income probably won't go down much. I would rather use Apple payment system. Lots of other people will also. It is simple and allows me one-stop management of subscriptions and purchases. Some folks won't of course, but it is the easiest choice.
• gordon_freeman 5y ago
  From Epic CEO Tim Sweeney from NYT article[1]: Tim Sweeney, Epic’s chief executive, said on Twitter that he was not satisfied with the ruling because it did not go far enough in allowing companies to complete in-app transactions with their own payment systems, versus having to direct customers to outside websites. He said Fortnite would not return to the App Store until such rules were in place. “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers,” he said. “We will fight on.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/technology/epic-apple-app-developers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/technology/epic-apple-app...
  • pier25 5y ago
    Wait... what? So apps will be able to redirect you to a website but users won't be able to make the payment in the app itself?
    • archon810 5y ago
      That's right and it's exactly what he's unhappy with.
      • Drew_ 5y ago
        There isn't anything in the ruling that specifically and only protects a payment mechanism through a web page. The ruling protects linking to any alternative payment mechanism. That should include a payment mechanism implemented in-app.
    • cynix 5y ago
      That’s how I interpreted “buttons, external links, or calls to action that _direct_ users to purchasing mechanisms” (emphasis line): that the user will be directed to an external payment mechanism outside the app.
  • shrimpx 5y ago
    Apple's reaction to Sweeney's statement: "See ya!!!"
• rocqua 5y ago
  This still allows apple to mandate same price on and outside the platform, and still allows apple to mandate apple pay be an option. This is great for customer experience, because users still have the option to use apple their polished system. But if a (big) player offers a better experience, users get to pick that.
• ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  >In a separate judgment, the court affirmed that Epic Games was in breach of its contract with Apple when it implemented the alternative payment system in the Fortnite app. As a result, Epic must pay Apple 30 percent of all revenue collected through the system since it was implemented — a sum of more than $3.5 million. Well, that seems rather BS. To even try for the antitrust case they were required to show how it would hurt consumers. So they did. Which went against Apple's rules obviously. So it's decided that Apple isn't allowed to do what they were doing, but, Epic has to pay out a fine anyways? Would the case have even made it this far if Epic hadn't done this? I'm sure Epic is happy to pay the $3.5 million in return for this, and other companies are surely just as pleased. But to have to pay it at all seems like a bit of a legal flaw here.
  • threeseed 5y ago
    Epic was in breach of contract. Which means not only do they have to pay the fine but Apple is likely to permanently ban them from the store.
    • ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
      I feel you missed my point entirely. However banning Epic from the store would be great honestly, then maybe the next injunction would be to force Apple to allow users to install what they want.
• astlouis44 5y ago
  Bravo to Epic and team, but I have to say that the web will win out long term. It's cross platform, "just works" everywhere, and developers are free to choose from any payment system. They also don't have to live in fear from retribution by the platform owner. Our startup Wonder is building a decentralized 3D platform in the browser for Unreal Engine 4 developers who want to ship their immersive applications on the web, be it games, product visualizations, even VR apps. We plan on extending support to Unity and other engines in the near future as well. The biggest innovation is that we offer the tooling to optimize, package, and distribute rich software online that previously could only run on desktop. Thanks to WebAssembly, WebGPU, WebTransport, and WebXR, even the most demanding applications can run client side in the browser. Developers are free to host their creations on their own terms, without a middleman saying what they can and can't do. Here's a link to our Discord if you're interested in hearing more: https://discord.gg/cFJV6Yu https://discord.gg/cFJV6Yu
• jollybean 5y ago
  I think the other, possibly more meaningful issue, is Apple's control over who can and cannot make an app for their devices. If you put a product in BestBuy, it's understandable that BestBuy would not want you to offer a very cheap upfront price, and then to have all sorts of 'add ons' sold directly to consumer where BestBuy doesn't make any money. It's fair that BestBuy sets terms that they can participate in the follow ons. The limiting factor here, however, is competition. If anyone could make an AppStore for iOS, then the issue of Apple's or BestBuy's 'terms' could be side-stepped. The power imbalance is caused by a lack of competition. If there was competition, app makers would find a place where they were not constrained by in-app purchases, or something along those lines.
• system2 5y ago
  In the last few years Apple really showed their real face. I am also surprised to see these changes even after their extreme lobbying work.
• skizm 5y ago
  I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to this non-Apple payment method."
  • Razengan 5y ago
    That seems to be the best way to reduce the number of users pestering Apple for refunds for shitty apps.
  • frumper 5y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised to see a pop up warning when leaving the app to the browser that gives a warning like this on all external links.
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    who says they won't review the payment processors? they obviously won't allow apps that they consider scams
  • simondotau 5y ago
    Apple is far more likely to just require a cut from in-app sales transacted through any other mechanism, something Apple is still legally entitled to, and can be clarified in the developer terms which must be signed in order for others to sell products which integrate Apple intellectual property.
• diebeforei485 5y ago
  Great article in The Verge about what the meaning of a "button" is: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667161/app-store-epic-ruling-difference-button-external-link https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667161/app-store-epic-r...
• rubyn00bie 5y ago
  yawn Apple is getting a mild slap on the wrist and the outcome of the case is probably the best for everyone. It did away with the most entirely absurd and egregious restriction but still lets a company like... choose how to run their business. If anything this is likely to drastically improve the quality of some big-name applications on Apple's platforms, further increasing their bottom line. I would bet money technologically illiterate people have sworn off of Apple's platforms because they bought a device for a single purpose (like watching Netflix) and then couldn't signup for the fucking service on the device. Is that going to be a huge boon for Apple's bottom line? Nope. But it will likely make their ecosystem stickier because there's less friction for groups of consumers. Chances are Apple-HQ is poppin' open some champagne today having a laugh that they ever were allowed to prevent links or calls to action. The real winners here, no one seems to be talking about, are the console manufacturers who I'm sure had their buttholes puckering at nearly the speed of light waiting for the verdict. While Apple could surely continue on without an exclusive AppStore on its platform, Nintendo and Sony would begin to feel some absolutely critical burning. Both manufacturers have de-facto monopolies on their platforms, and those monopolies are at least as restrictive as Apple's if not more so because they act as barriers to entry into their markets (i.e. If Sony doesn't like your game idea, you can just fuck off with no recourse). The one thing about this case that pisses me off is Sweeny running his mouth like he and Epic are really victims here. His refusal to put Fortnite (which I've never played) back on the app store is pathetic, childish, and anti-consumer. It is honestly as disgusting to me as Facebook trying to peddle their unwavering commitment to tracking their users every waking-action as "pro consumer." If Sweeny and Epic brought this same case against Nintendo and Sony, I'd maybe be more sympathetic to his bullshit because at least then it would be consistent. My thought is Epic is likely big enough to bully Sony or Nintendo into better deals on their platforms; while, Apple doesn't have to take it's shit for a single solitary second because Epic poses no threat to Apple's revenue. Then this inability to bully the platform owner threw Sweeny into an _epic_ tantrum and here we be. shrug I'll stop ranting here.
  • spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Epic tried to put Fortnite back on the app store in Korea. Apple refused.
• justahuman1 5y ago
  I love the cancellation experience with apple subscriptions, most other things are garbage / dark patterns.
• granzymes 5y ago
  Epic's statement (via Tim Sweeney): Today’s ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers. Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers. Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers. Apple's statement: Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because or products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where the rules apply equally to everyone.
• slinkyblack 5y ago
  Epic has decided to appeal https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-to-appeal-decision-in-apple-lawsuit-as-apple-calls-it-a-huge-win/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-to-appeal-decision...
• dustinmoris 5y ago
  As an Apple user I feel like I have lost the most here. Sad day for users, great day for dodgy cunts like Epic.
• stavros 5y ago
  I don't understand why Epic is dissatisfied with this. Doesn't the injunction mean that Apple now has to allow other payment processors? Is it that Epic wanted third-party app stores on iOS?
  • another_kel 5y ago
    No. This injunction is allowing info\link to website where you can use other payment processor. And Epic wanted to integrate a different payment system directly into the app.
    • stavros 5y ago
      Oh hmm, that's too bad. I'd be dissatisfied too, I hope they win the appeal.
  • Drew_ 5y ago
    I believe they're disatisified that the App Store wasn't deemed a monopoly
  • nodamage 5y ago
    The main reason is the court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store. In other words, this verdict benefits all other developers except Epic.
• jay_kyburz 5y ago
  I'm going to put this comment on every Apple vs Epic thread from now on, regardless of how many internet points I lose. Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own. If Valve can make the Steam Deck, Epic can make a Fortnite Phone. Epic could then choose to make the phone as open or locked down as they like. They could have their own app store policies, and they could allow any payment platforms they like. It could be an Android fork, or they could have a look at what is going on in the Linux phone community. Would it be a success in the market place? I just think that depends on Epics choices it makes along the way. But I do know that millions of kids would rather have a cool gaming phone rather than an old fashioned iPhone.
  • kaishiro 5y ago
    Surely they could do both?
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    > Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own. So instead of 2 silos, you now have 3. How does that improve anything? The whole point is to move away from this idea that developers are apple's "ecosystem", like cows in a cow farm. They are not cattle, but independent people with the right to compete in a fair market, much like how apple is competing in a fair market, which is provided by general market state regulations.
    • jay_kyburz 5y ago
      We might find that Epic chooses an open platform like Valve chose with the Steam Deck. But developer are free to just not develop apps for Apple. Or just run their app as a web page like I do.
    • paulmd 5y ago
      > So instead of 2 silos, you now have 3. How does that improve anything? Only on HN could you possibly find people arguing that an additional competitor entering the market somehow “reducing competition and not making anything better” while also arguing that attempting to use the legal system to destroy one of those competitors’ unique offerings to customers and force them to adopt the model of their competitor, leaving no customer choice for the curated-ecosystem model, is good and pro-competitive.
• nodamage 5y ago
  It's worth noting that this ruling was not particularly great for Epic as their ultimate goal was to run their own app store under the theory that Apple was unfairly monopolizing app distribution on iOS devices. The court fully rejected Epic's argument that Apple held a monopoly over the iOS app distribution market, concluding that the relevant antitrust market did not consist only of iOS devices: > "As demonstrated with respect to the relevant market, Apple does not have substantial market power equating to monopoly power. While considerable, Epic Games has failed to show that Apple’s market power is durable and sustaining given the current state of the relevant market. For that reason, the Court finds that Epic Games failed to prove the first element of a Section 2 claim: the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market." (Page 152) Consequently all of Epic's Sherman Act claims and California Cartwright Act claims were rejected by the court because Epic failed to prove Apple held monopoly power in the relevant market. With specific regards to Epic's specific claim that blocking alternative app stores was an unreasonable restraint of trade, the way the court analyzes these types of claims is as follows: 1. The plaintiff first has to show that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect. 2. The defendant is then given the opportunity to show a pro-competitive justification for the restraint. 3. The plaintiff then has to show that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved via less restrictive alternatives. In this case, the court agreed with Epic that the constraint was anti-competitive. However, they then accepted Apple's pro-competitive justification with regards to security of the platform (page 145): > "Here, the Court finds Apple’s security justification to be a valid and nonpretextual business reason for restricting app distribution. As previously discussed, see supra Facts § V.A.2., centralized app distribution enables Apple to conduct app review, which includes both technical and human components. Human review in particular helps protect security by preventing social engineering attacks, the main vector of malware distribution. Human review also helps protect against fraud, privacy intrusion, and objectionable content beyond levels achievable by purely technical measures. By providing these protections, Apple provides a safe and trusted user experience on iOS, which encourages both users and developers to transact freely and is mutually beneficial. As a result, Apple’s conduct “enhance[s] consumer appeal.” See Qualcomm, 969 F.3d at 991." They also accepted that the difference in approaches between iOS and Android promoted competition between the two platforms (page 146): > "As a corollary of the security justification, the app distribution restrictions promote interbrand competition. The Supreme Court has recognized that limiting intrabrand competition can promote interbrand competition. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 890. For example, restricting price competition among retailers who sell a particular product can help the manufacturer of that product compete against other manufacturers. Id. at 890–91. It is this interbrand competition that “the antitrust laws are designed primarily to protect.” Id. at 895. Here, centralized app distribution and the “walled garden” approach differentiates Apple from Google. That distinction ultimately increases consumer choice by allowing users who value open distribution to purchase Android devices, while those who value security and the protection of a “walled garden” to purchase iOS devices. This, too, is a legitimate procompetitive justification." Epic tried to argue that a less restrictive alternative was possible via enterprise certification or notarization, but this argument was rejected by the court (pages 148-149): > "However, missing from both the enterprise and notarization models is human app review which provides most of the protection against privacy violations, human fraud, and social engineering. These proposed alternatives would require Apple to either add human review to the notarization model or leave app review to third-party app stores. Apple executives suggested that the first option would not scale well. Under the second option, Apple could in theory set minimum guidelines for app stores to provide a “floor” for privacy, security, and quality. However, security could increase or decrease depending on the quality and diligence of the store. Evidence shows that at least on Android, the experiment shows less security. ... > In short, Epic Games has not met its burden to show that its proposed alternatives are “virtually as effective” as the current distribution model and can be implemented “without significantly increased cost.” ... > Here, Apple’s business choice of ensuring security and protecting its intellectual property rights through centralized app distribution is reasonable, and the Court declines to second-guess that judgment on an underdeveloped record. ... > Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple’s app distribution restrictions do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act." While this decision will no doubt be appealed by both sides, it's not looking particularly good for Epic's goal of forcing open alternative app stores on the iOS platform. Finally, the court also affirmed Apple's right to permanently ban Epic from the App Store for violation of the developer agreement (page 179): > (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion.
• schappim 5y ago
  This news is a huge opportunity for Stripe, who can quite easily deploy a nice cross platform payments solution.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• scarface74 5y ago
  People seem to be missing one part of the ruling that all of the wannabe HN lawyers were insisting on. The judge specifically said that Apple wasn’t a monopolist because it controlled the iOS platform.
• syspec 5y ago
  From: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-to-appeal-decision-in-apple-lawsuit-as-apple-calls-it-a-huge-win/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-to-appeal-decision... > Epic Games has announced that it plans to appeal the judge’s decision from today’s Epic v. Apple case. Although today’s ruling says that Apple must relax rules around In-App Purchase and allow apps to link out to third-party payment systems, the judge ruled in Apple’s favor on all other counts. > For instance, Apple was not shown to have a monopoly nor must be compelled to allow third-party app stores or alternative third-party payment systems inside the app itself, as Epic had hoped. In a statement, Apple described the decision as a “huge win for Apple”.
  • DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    > Apple must [...] allow apps to link out to third-party payment systems. > Apple [must not] be compelled to allow third-party app stores or alternative third-party payment systems inside the app itself It sounds like Apple cannot legally sanction a developer account when their apps open their own self-hosted payment page in a WebView instead of going-through iOS' IAP system - while Apple is under no obligation to allow iOS's IAP system to use a different payment back-end. ...shat's the effective difference here, as far as a regular punter's experience is concerned, though?
• kevincox 5y ago
  It isn't clear to me if they need to allow third-party payments on the iPhone or they need to allow third-party payments in the App Store. I suspect Apple is less likely to do the former (as presumably that means sideloading) but the latter is great news for open source developers that are getting kicked off app stores for donation links or even webpages in various app stores (Apple isn't the only one guilty of this).
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• chillage 5y ago
  There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is allowed to keep its practices outside of that state? Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? And why do none of the articles on this topic address this point?
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This is an order by a California district judge. No, its an order by a federal district judge in California; specifically, a judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (Media reports often use sloppy language which confuses federal courts located in a state with courts of a state.) > So that means it must only be valid in California? No. > Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? It's a federal decision. In any case, even if that wasn’t the case, much Apple conduct occurs in California even if it impacts users outside of California.
    • chillage 5y ago
      Oh ok thank you for the explanation, that does clear it up. So this decision applies to the US (though maybe not outside the US)
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        The permanent injunction applies to the conduct it specifically mandates and/or prohibits and the named parties it says it applies to (so long as those parties are subject to US law, but that seems likely to be th case for Apple for the foreseeable future.)
• skygazer 5y ago
  One thing that's bugged/occurred to me. People keep acting like Apple will no longer get to charge 30% to developers for in-app purchases, but it seems like they may still be entitled to their 30% and even in this ruling Epic still owes that 30% -- Developers will be able to use alternate payment providers, but may still owe a commission to Apple? Tim Cook alluded to this in his original testimony, and the judge doesn't seem to have had an issue with it, and she ordered Epic to pay the 30%. In other words, only the anti-steering violated California law, but otherwise, she validated that Apple's business model is reasonable under the law and supported the commission structure, it seems. That seems like a whole can of worms. How will Apple know what to bill developers for apple sourced transactions? Do they need to build new reporting APIs? Within the next 90 days? Is it the honor system? Will developers raise rates on their sites to cover Apple's commission? Will this all have been moot? What if a developer doesn't pay? Can they be removed? Does apple send them to collections? What does that do to developer relations? Or does Apple abandon commission for external sales they alluded to needing to collect. Edit to add Tim Cook quote from Epic trial [0]: “IAP helps Apple efficiently collect a commission” — for payment processing, but also customer service and the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Without in-app purchases, “we would have to come up with another system to invoice developers, which I think would be a mess.” [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/22/22448139/tim-cook-epic-fortnite-trial-testimony-privacy-iap-antitrust https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/22/22448139/tim-cook-epic-fo...
  • nkellenicki 5y ago
    I believe the money owed to Apple is a seperate concern, raised from their apparent breach of contract. At the time Fortnite was available on the App Store, the Apple In-App Purchase mechanism was the only contractually allowed method of purchase, and for the short time Fortnite enabled purchases via other methods, their contract with Apple was breached. As a result, the judge ruled that Apple is owed 30% of that revenue - money they would have gotten had those purchases been made via Apple IAP. In addition, the judge ruled that Apple was well within their power to terminate Epic's developer relationship and App Store access, because of this breach of contract. This new injunction only takes place in 90 days time, and doesn't nullify any power Apple has to determine who they wish to allow on their App Store. As a result, they are seemingly choosing to not permit Epic back on the App Store, again, due to their initial breach of contract. My interpretation of this this new ruling is that Apple isn't entitled to money raised through other payment methods going forward, as likely the App Store developer terms of service will be revised to reflect the new state of the law. However I'm sure this will become clear in due course when we see the new terms.
• p2t2p 5y ago
  I personally don't care what courts say and what devs do. If your app wants me to buy a subscription out of IAP system - I won't do it. I want my subscription to be present in a central place with a single-click cancellation.
  • sfifs 5y ago
    The point of this ruling and the Korea law is you'll have to be given the option. Pay a given price in Apple OR pay a lower price outside.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• anfilt 5y ago
  Such a shame the injuction does not allow end-users to sideload.
• ribit 5y ago
  I am wondering how Apple will react to this. It seems likely that big companies (who pay for much of the App Store) will take the opportunity to implement their own payment option. Small devs probably won't bother, since overhead on small purchases + additional accounting is likely to be higher than Apple's 15%. Will Apple introduce some sort of tiered pricing model, where apps with third-party purchase option have to pay a listing/API fee? Or will they just take a revenue hit? I'm quite sure that they already planned for this, given their reaction to the verdict. They don't appear to be very concerned ...
• beckman466 5y ago
  One strategy Apple will explore is turning the Apple appstore into an Apple Arcarde/Plus -like service and use dark patterns to basically convince/force people to use it. Because the other alternative will be for customers to deal with malware on iOS for the first time (as any other appstores on iOS will always have lesser security because Apple's system isn't free and open) [1]. Apple didn't allow users to change their default browser until iOS 14. That's 13 years on from the release of the original iPhone in 2007. They sure as hell aren't going to make it easy for other appstores to exist. Business customers will be able to afford this new Appstore 'service', but the negative costs will be carried by everyday people, who will, due to the closed nature of Apple's walled garden, be forced to get by with much less security. If anything goes wrong with these other app stores Apple will deflect criticism by blaming the govt. for not allowing them to control the full 'iOS experience' anymore (or in business speak: 'to control all the verticals'). This of course is the weaponized rhetoric of a monstrous monopolistic entity who uses illogical arguments to misrepresent and confuse the average user/customer. We've already seen how far these profit-seeking firms are willing to go to even directly mislead customers into voting against labor protection laws with Uber and Prop 22 [2]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... [2] https://twitter.com/bigblackjacobin/status/1294865684782919686 https://twitter.com/bigblackjacobin/status/12948656847829196...
• cyberpsybin 5y ago
  How do people say that this is Apple's victory? The next lawsuit is already on horizon when apps will force users to pay more when going through Apple pay and Apple will force the pricing through new ToS. Even then, this verdict has consequences of epic proportions. If anything, Epic has done more for developers than any lame duck politician.
• pushkine 5y ago
  I think the biggest takeaway from this ruling is being overlooked, read page 159 Apparently the Sherman Antitrust Act only applies to a service if it strictly cannot be replicated otherwise. In other words, since iOS allows the installation of and does not control the distribution of "web apps", it therefore has the right to control the distribution of "native apps" It doesn't matter that web apps don't have access to most of the iPhone's API, it doesn't matter that they can't send notifications or run in the background, it doesn't matter that they can't run fullscreen or in 64bit, what matters is that they get an icon on the homescreen, they thereby fit the definition of an "app" so technically Apple does not entirely control app distribution on iOS
• plnii 5y ago
  I haven’t seen my class of app discussed here. In my case, a mobile app is useful for a subset of features of my web app, but it would never replace to full experience. Very few customers would ever think to look for my app in the App Store. Nonetheless Apple wanted to force me to offer the subscription through the App and then take a 30% cut forever. I ended up just releasing an Android version as they were more lax about not including any payment option. I could see this opening up the option for a lot of business apps that augment functionality elsewhere.