6 ms·

Epic is the customer here also and they want to be able to provide a convenient and cheaper way for their customers. Their asks are not only reasonable, they ar

• dimitrios1 5y ago
  Imagine you want to sell a valuable, consumer friendly product that is cheaper than some alternatives and will save people money, but in this case, in a brick and mortar store. The brick and mortar store says "we agree to stock your product, and will take 30% off the top for our troubles." Would we be saying the same things? It's the same dynamic, in my view.
  • ttmb 5y ago
    And then the brick and mortar store says "oh and also we want 30% of anything the customer purchases through your product for ever" - Yes, yes I do think we would be saying the same things.
  • sam0x17 5y ago
    This analogy only works if you modify it: There are only two chains of brick and mortar store in the world and one with double digit market share (Apple) has decided to take 30% off the top for all goods sold in all of their stores and have banned products from having any indication on their packaging that they can be purchased elsewhere for different pricing. Entering any store also requires an extremely expensive chain-specific device that most people purchase on credit every few years, eliminating the ability to easily shop around at both chains. If this were to happen outside of tech, the perpetrator would get crushed by anti-monopoly legislation.
    • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      It's even worse than that, because each of the stores are in different cities and if your customers want to patronize the other store they first have to move to the other city.
      • sam0x17 5y ago
        See my edit regarding "you need an expensive chain-specific device" to enter any store belonging to a chain.
    • chrischen 5y ago
      An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS platform can be used to advertise alternative platforms at different pricing. The “fair” price if this was allowed to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their right mind would pay any amount extra if given the option. The only real restriction Apple currently has is that apps should do no such advertising of alternative platforms (payment methods). All arguments about the fairness of this are moot because see Netflix, which happily complies with these rules and avoids Apple’s 30% cut. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
      • sam0x17 5y ago
        > An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS platform can be used to advertise alternative platforms at different pricing. The “fair” price if this was allowed to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their right mind would pay any amount extra if given the option. Prior to the recent ruling, this was untrue (unless I'm mistaken).
        • chrischen 5y ago
          What is untrue?
  • root_axis 5y ago
    To make the analogy accurate it would need to be stipulated that this brick and mortar store is the only place that customers can go to buy products. edit: I wouldn't even say "two chains" like a sibling comment suggests because the reality is that customers have to invest hundreds of dollars on an exclusive membership to one or the other, picking and choosing from both is not an option.
  • gambiting 5y ago
    Except that it's not. The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can still attract the 30% payment fee. In your example, it's like if you bought a TV from Walmart, took it home, and then any content you wanted to buy on that TV had to have a 30% fee paid to walmart since....that's where you bought it originally? It doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense here. When epic sells you a fortnite skin within fortnite, apple provides literally no value to this transaction, other than being a gatekeeper between two legitimate sides wishing to engage in a business transaction - so that's why Epic wanted to make sure they can process their own payments within the app(and the court has agreed).
    • jungturk 5y ago
      What if the TV manufacturer could set a $0 retail price on the television and then charge the user on-device subscription fees to recoup a profit? Would Walmart be interested in that? Seems like their retail cut would be sliced to $0 in that situation despite doing the retail work.
      • wvenable 5y ago
        What if the TV manufacturer didn't even need retail distribution because they have their own warehouses, trucks, etc and will gladly send you a TV for $0 and charge on-device subscription fees to cover it. But sadly, you bought your home in a neighborhood with an HOA, and even though you own your home, the HOA requires all retail purchases have to go through them, and they take a 30% cut of everything and they won't let you order that TV directly from the manufacturer to put in your house. But this is ok, because this is what you agreed to when you bought your home.
        • jungturk 5y ago
          Great analogy. Is that ok? It would seem that people entered the contract together without duress? Are there other neighborhoods? Run by other HOAs with better terms? Isn't it a market contest at that point to see which one buyers will prefer?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • fallingknife 5y ago
    If there were only 2 stores in the world and they both had exactly the same policy, then yes I would say the same thing.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • passivate 5y ago
    Disagree. Adding 100 files on an FTP site is nowhere near as complicated as adding 100 boxes of frozen yogurt in a grocery store. Physical goods occupy space, need (sometimes) specific storage conditions, packaging, etc. We need to re-evaluate these concepts for digital-only goods. I'm not denying that running a store has costs, but grabbing 30% of sales for a digital-only good is immoral IMHO.
• rdsnsca 5y ago
  The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission , but did't rule if 30 % was fair. "First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."
  • kerng 5y ago
    yeah, reasonable commmission seems like 2-4 percent here. I don't think consumers should have to pay more for it. And most important, apps should have no restrictions whatsover to have payments inside their own app ecosystem!
    • apple4ever 5y ago
      Bingo. There is no reason I have to go to a website to buy a book to read on my book reader app, other than Apple being a bully.
      • lostlogin 5y ago
        Characterising Apple as bullying Amazon is interesting. The ebook example is quite a fraught one and Apple roundly lost that battle.
        • FireBeyond 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]