Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

[whispous]

Just want to drop in that the reason I switched from Android to iOS was BECAUSE the app store and lack of sideloading is a walled garden.

 

However, the payments part which the judge has ruled against is absolutely up my alley, as that is not part of the (more than the play store) curated, slightly less full of trash app store.

 

If sideloading were available on iOS, people would start doing it, and people would start bringing utter trash (moreso than currently) to the platform, leading to millions of incapable fools complaining about the terrible user experience they've given themselves.

 

To quote an old 4chan post about how smart the average user is when insalling software...

 

[harryk]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

That's ridiculous.

I seriously don't see how any rational person can look at iOS, look at the users, look at the app store and go "yeah, this is not a market".

I don't even get why it matters if it's a market or not. The fact of the matter is that iOS is such a big platform, with over 1 billion users, that it is insane how Apple are given unlimited power to restrict competitors in any way they deem fit without any repercussions.

Defining the relevant market is the basis for all US antitrust law. Check out some of the legal blogs discussing the case, they lay out the possible market definitions and the justifiability of each.

 

https://actonline.org/2021/06/08/antitrust-and-you-part-2-epic-v-apple-in-an-antitrust-law-context/

https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/epic-v-apple-demonstrates-the-importance-of-economic-analysis-in-antitrust/

https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/epic-v-apple-demonstrates-the-importance-of-economic-analysis-in-antitrust/

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

And by proxy, this would also mean sideloading on stuff like consoles etc - even though that would have to be another case i guess. 

Correct. Everybody bitches about Apple, but all the console manufacturers get a free pass, which since the dawn of time artifically cripple pieces of hardware that are essentially PCs, lock them down like crazy in order to force you to buy overpriced games that are platform exclusives. And everyone and their dog seems to accept that practice, I don't get it.

9 hours ago, Arika S said:

If Apple's OS is so closed off that they can't implement something as simple as the paypal one touch payment, then you must think their OS engineers are all morons

Who said apple can't do it? I said they are unwilling to do it and cannot be forced. And the fact that you even compare a fancy name for a basic browser-based payment with the bliss of using Apple Pay on an iOS device tells me you never used it.

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Then PayPal needs to be baked deeply into the OS. Can't see that happening or anyone forcing Apple to do it.

No it doesn't. Where do you get all these crazy and incorrect ideas from?

 

When an app calls the payment API it could just be made to load a dynamic list that could be populated by third party apps using a special API.

Do you have the Paypal app installed? Then Paypal could get loaded into the list. Then when someone clicks on the PayPal button it would send commands to the PayPal app.

It requires zero "deep integration with the OS" to do.

 

 

12 hours ago, Dracarris said:

The Con/Drawback of Apple Pay is the higher fees which are usually eaten by the developer

No it is not. Developers have for sure raised prices because of the fees, so it is getting passed along to the users.

The fee is being taken into account when deciding what the price of the service should be. It might not be the developer directly saying "okay, it should cost the usual price plus 30% more for users on iOS" (because Apple forbids that).

Instead the thought process is "okay, because a lot of our users pay through Apple, we need to raise our prices for all customers to make up for the loss of profits. If less of our users bought using another method with lower fees we could keep the prices across the board the same".

 

 

13 hours ago, Dracarris said:

That being said, my original argument was based on the ease of use for the end user with two different scenarios for who eats the cost, a discussion which you ignored and picked the version that suits your view.

But Apple's payment method is only better (even if we ignore the massive con of it) because of limitations Apple has imposed on their competitors.

Imagine if Volkswagen started employing people to puncture the tires of Toyota cars and you went "well, Volkswagen is clearly the superior car maker because if you buy a Toyota then you might get a punctured tire".

Other systems are only inferior because Apple forces them to be. If other payment platforms had the same amount of freedom on iOS as Apple's own payment system has then both could actually compete on their own merits, and if they did we would probably end up in a situation where they were fairly equal.

 

 

13 hours ago, Dracarris said:

And that's just your opinion. Windows was back then and still is much closer to a monopoly than iOS.

I don't agree.

Sure, Microsoft had far more market share, but they had far less impact on the daily lives of people, far less users, far less power, and used their monopoly powers in less destructive ways.

 

If Microsoft was a company that controlled 90 out of 100 users back in the 90's, and they abused that power slightly, Apple is now a company that controls 600 out of 1000 users and abuse that power a lot.

The latter is far worse than the former.

 

 

13 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You are walking on thin ice here. Your argument is only upheld by whether Walmart holds 30% or 50% of the market? The principle is pretty much the same, they are a giant among very few players that together rule the majority of the market. And I highly doubt that they could be forced to offer product X under conditions that they don't set themselves, even if they were to rule over 50% of the market.

No it's not... Do you seriously not understand the first thing about antitrust laws? Yes, how much market share someone has is one of the core issues. 30% vs 50% market share plays an enormous amount of importance in how the laws apply.

The more market share and the more power you got, the more restrictions you have to follow.

Another important aspect is how many other players compete over the remaining 50% of the market. If it's only one other competitor, then you also have to follow more restrictions. A duopoly is not that much better than a monopoly, especially not when both companies in the duopoly are colluding with each other like Apple and Google does.

 

Did you know that Apple and Google held meetings together in 2018 where they discuss "working as if we are one company" regarding store policies and revenue splits?

Quote

Other unredacted sections of Epic's complaint reveal more new details, including those from a meeting between Apple and Google that took place in 2018 to discuss increasing search revenue growth; Google pays Apple large sums of money to make Google Search the default search engine on the mobile Safari for the iPhone. Following the meeting, an Apple representative suggested to a Google senior member that the two companies team up and "work as if we are one company" to combat efforts like Epic's to undermine mobile app store commission rates and restrictions against alternative app stores.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Dracarris said:

If we have all the tools and Apple has competitors: Why did so little happen in all those years?

We do not have all the tools (Apple has special APIs that other developers aren't allowed to use) and Apple do not have competitors (no competing app store, no competing payment process, no competing browser engines, etc).

Android is not a competitor to the App store or Apple's payment processing in the same way a book is not a competitor to the Internet.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Dracarris said:

55% is a strange definition of monopoly. Literally nobody is forcing you to enter the iOS ecosystem, there are plenty other options available.

"Literally nobody is forcing you to use X" is a very bad argument for defending a monopoly.

By the same logic, we should be okay with only having one ISP that controls access to the entire Internet because "literally nobody is forcing you to use the Internet".

Black and white thinking like what you are doing right now is very destructive. Why not try and improve the situation rather than resort to this very simple minded way of reasoning? 

The market should preferably be free and open. "Just don't participate in the market" is not a good way of responding to someone who wants to ensure the market is fair and good.

Also, there aren't "plenty of other options". There is 1, which is Google, and Google are colluding with Apple and are also doing very shady things.

 

It's like choosing between having your teeth kicked in or your nose broken, and you have the audacity to say "why are you complaining? You got plenty of options!".

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

When an app calls the payment API it could just be made to load a dynamic list that could be populated by third party apps using a special API.

Do you have the Paypal app installed? Then Paypal could get loaded into the list. Then when someone clicks on the PayPal button it would send commands to the PayPal app.

and then

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It requires zero "deep integration with the OS" to do.

Do you actually believe yourself what you are writing there? Deep does not mean "hard/requiring a lot of effort". Why would you believe that?

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Instead the thought process is "okay, because a lot of our users pay through Apple, we need to raise our prices for all customers to make up for the loss of profits. If less of our users bought using another method with lower fees we could keep the prices across the board the same".

Ah. So that means once they are not forced to use Apple Pay anymore, they will lower the prices, right? So once Fortnite is back on iOS, Epic will reduce the prices for in-app purchases, because they don't need to pay the evil Apple tax anymore, right? Right?

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But Apple's payment method is only better (even if we ignore the massive con of it) because of limitations Apple has imposed on their competitors.

How dare they not allow others to easily make money on an ecosystem that they created by investing hundreds of billions into HW and SW development. While you are at it, why don't you force Steam to allow 3rd parties to sell the same games on their platform with much lower fees than the 30% cashed by Steam? After all they dominate the game launcher market. Same unanswered question regarding locked down gaming consoles.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Apple is now a company that controls 600 out of 1000 users and abuse that power a lot.

600 out of 1000, not 60 out of 100? All the sudden we raised the market share from 55% to 60%? Btw, there are more countries in the world than the US with different market shares.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do you seriously not understand the first thing about antitrust laws? Yes, how much market share someone has is one of the core issues. 30% vs 50% market share plays an enormous amount of importance in how the laws apply.

You simply decided for yourself that the privately created iOS eco system is a market that must be open to anyone. Apparently you haven't read any of the discussion among jurists whether that assumption is even true.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Did you know that Apple and Google held meetings together in 2018 where they discuss "working as if we are one company" regarding store policies and revenue splits?

Given that you can sideload apps and install alternative app stores on Android phones, why would that matter? If the Play Store charges 30% but others are freely available, why is the Play Store not dead yet?

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

We do not have all the tools (Apple has special APIs that other developers aren't allowed to use)

Obviously I was referring to anti-trust laws that according to you give us all the tools to change those grievances and we just need to enforce them, why did that not happen in all those years? Maybe after all the law situation isn't as easy and clear as you think it is.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

"Literally nobody is forcing you to use X" is a very bad argument for defending a monopoly.

iOS is not a monopoly. Go buy one of the thousand Android phones available for every budget and demand, install an alternative app store.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

By the same logic, we should be okay with only having one ISP that controls access to the entire Internet because "literally nobody is forcing you to use the Internet".

That is a very, very, very bad analogy. Internet these days is a basically a fundamental human need/right. The access to the iOS eco system is not.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Do you actually believe yourself what you are writing there? Deep does not mean "hard/requiring a lot of effort". Why would you believe that?

I can tell that you're not a developer or understand how OSes or programs in general work.

What exactly do you think "deep OS integration" mean?

PayPal would not require any "deep integration" into the OS. It would just need to use APIs that the OS provides, just like any other userland application.

It would be about as "deeply integrated" as a flashlight app or a fart button app. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Ah. So that means once they are not forced to use Apple Pay anymore, they will lower the prices, right? So once Fortnite is back on iOS, Epic will reduce the prices for in-app purchases, because they don't need to pay the evil Apple tax anymore, right? Right?

Yes, that's actually what Epic did. Did you read about this yesterday or something? The first thing Epic did when they circumvented Apple's payment cut was lower their prices.

I feel like you're attempting some poor "gotcha" move here but it's failing because you haven't been reading about this case or what has happened.

Also, since prices has already been established it is unlikely that they will be lowered. However, it will probably mean prices won't be increased as frequently (and we could have avoided previous price increases), and new apps might be priced lower than what they would have been.

Or in the case of Epic, they just lowered the prices. It depends on which particular apps you're talking about, how much competition they got etc. I could see Spotify lowering their prices because they are competing against Apple Music which are priced fairly quality (but Apple has higher profit margins since they don't have to give away 30% of their revenue).

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

How dare they not allow others to easily make money on an ecosystem that they created by investing hundreds of billions into HW and SW development. 

They are free to do so. They are not allowed to hinder others from competing with them however. "I spent money" is not an excuse to kneecap your competitors. With that line of reasoning, we might as well allow Intel to firebomb AMD's headquarters because "Intel made x86 so therefore they should be free to do whatever they want against their competitors". Hell, Intel got in trouble for paying PC manufacturers to not sell computers with AMD processors in them. By your logic that anything is fair game if it's to make money on something you made, then that would be legal too. But luckily for us we don't live in such a corrupt world and such practices are illegal.

When you start interfering with your competitors ability to compete with you, you are probably both morally corrupt as well as in the wrong legally speaking.

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

600 out of 1000, not 60 out of 100? All the sudden we raised the market share from 55% to 60%? Btw, there are more countries in the world than the US with different market shares.

There are more smartphone users today than there were PC users in 1998 when Microsoft were found guilty under antitrust law.

That's why the total number of users changed in my example, because the number of users has changed in the real world too.

Yes, there are other countries, but these lawsuits are happening in the US so they are not relevant. "Android is really big in India" is not an argument for why Apple should be let off the hook in a US lawsuit.

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You simply decided for yourself that the privately created iOS eco system is a market that must be open to anyone. Apparently you haven't read any of the discussion among jurists whether that assumption is even true.

When you got 55% marketshare and are colluding with the one who holds the remaining 45% as well as do other shady things then yes, I do believe that you must open up. Whether the US legal system finds that to be true remains to be seen. I do have to point out that the US legal system have heavily favored Apple before so I don't have my hopes that high. I think other countries will be less biased but we will see.

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Given that you can sideload apps and install alternative app stores on Android phones, why would that matter? If the Play Store charges 30% but others are freely available, why is the Play Store not dead yet?

Because Google has made it very hard to sideload, and they have also done things such as bribed developers to stay exclusive on Google Play.

Seriously, do a tiny bit of research about the subject you talk about before opening your mouth. It is embarrassing how little you know about this subject.

Spoiler

I used to think that Epic had a pretty flimsy case again Google in their lawsuit. Apple, sure, in my mind they absolutely has a case there, but since you can (albeit with some difficulties) sideload on Android it was a bit weaker.

But today I've found a ton of articles explaining the situation more, and now I fully support Epic in the Epic vs Google lawsuit as well.

 

 

Some things Google has done against Epic:

Epic and OnePlus (as well as LG) were talking about shipping devices with the Epic Games app pre-installed. When Google heard about this, they contacted OnePlus and said that they were not allowed to pre-install Epic Games on their phones, probably because it would allow Epic Games to get around the 30% cut Google enforces on in-app purchases for games. (Source)

 

Google's executives had a plan that if Epic did not accept a settlement, Google would approach and attempt to buy Tencent's share of the company (Tencent owns 40% of Epic). Basically, if Google were scared that they would not be able to win in court, they would attempt to gain control over Epic by buying them.

The same news article also says that in 2018, Apple and Google had a meeting where Apple suggested that the two team up and "work as if we are one company" when trying to combat Epic and similar efforts to get the 30% store commission rates and block on alternative app-stores to stay. Basically, Google and Apple were in talks of creating a cartel. (Source)

 

Google had a program which they called the "Premier Device Program". What this meant was that if a phone manufacturer like let's say LG agreed to not ship their devices with any "apps with APK install privileges", they would get paid by Google. This was Google trying to prevent alternative stores on Android phones. The incentive was an additional 4% of the Google search revenue share (I presume it's only search revenue from that particular device and not the entire Google search revenue). This is like if Intel had secretly been telling PC makers like HP, Dell and Asus "hey, if you stop selling PCs with AMD CPUs then we will give you a share of our SSD revenues". As you can imagine, this is highly illegal. (Source)

 

Google had another secret program which they called "Project Hug". In 2018 when Fortnite originally launched on Android (back when you had to side-load it), Google became worried that if side-loading became popular, other games might start doing it too which in turn would result in less payments going through Google Play. According to a report from Google Play's finance team, Google were worried that if other app stores like Amazon's or Samsung's were to "gain full traction", it could result in a loss of between 350 million and 1.4 billion dollars to Google.

As a result, Google launched "Project Hug". What they did was contact over 20 of the "top developers" that they deemed were "at risk" of following Epic, and offered them multiple millions of dollars if they stayed in the Play Store. According to the court documents, several hundreds of millions of dollars were spent bribing companies to stay on the Play Store. Google responded to these allegations that "these programs are a sign of healthy competition between operating systems and app stores and benefit developers tremendously". Not sure how bribing developers is a sign of healthy competition... (Source)

 

 

 

A lot of these things were previously not know because Google asked to keep them a secret. As the lawsuit between Epic and Google goes on, the judge decided to release this previously redacted info to the public.

 

 

On another note, Google made 7 billion dollars in profit from the Google Play store in 2019.

11.2 billion dollars in revenue.

8.5 billion dollars in gross profit.

That's a profit margin of about 76%.

Source

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Obviously I was referring to anti-trust laws that according to you give us all the tools to change those grievances and we just need to enforce them, why did that not happen in all those years? Maybe after all the law situation isn't as easy and clear as you think it is.

Of course it's not easy or clear. These things takes time. It's also up for interpretation on a lot of things. So far your arguments have been complete and utter bullshit however, and hasn't been the same reasoning the court has used in their ruling. 

These lawsuits are also extremely costy so they are only done when things are really bad. The investigation into whether or not Apple is a monopoly didn't even start until Epic asked for it.

The whole logic of "if it was an issue then it would have been taken care of earlier" is so stupid. By the same logic right to repair is an easy and clear case as well. If it was an issue we would have dealt with it earlier. Since it hasn't been looked into it must be fine the way it is now.

It's an issue that has become more and more serious as time as gone on. Nobody cared about Apple having a monopoly on iOS sales back when they only had like 1 million users. Now that they got over 200 million users in the US alone things are a bit more serious.

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

iOS is not a monopoly. Go buy one of the thousand Android phones available for every budget and demand, install an alternative app store.

Monopoly, duopoly that colludes. Monopoly on iOS sales. 

You're nitpicking words in a poor attempt to undermine my arguments. Stop picking on my word choices and start responding to my actual arguments.

Also, you're once again resorting to the whole "if you don't want your teeth kicked in then you can always have your knees broken. You got a choice so therefore everything is fine!".

 

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

That is a very, very, very bad analogy. Internet these days is a basically a fundamental human need/right. The access to the iOS eco system is not.

No it's not. The word "internet" is not even mentioned in the declaration of human rights.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I can tell that you're not a developer or understand how OSes or programs in general work.

While both assumptions are wrong, I duly note the subtle insult.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

It would be about as "deeply integrated" as a flashlight app or a fart button app. 

Sure. Providing and implementing an API for secure and abuse-hardened third-party payments requires the same as turning on the flashlight. Basically we can stop the discussion here. To make it crystal clear: Providing such an API (by the OS) while stil guaranteeing the current level of security of Apple Pay was exactly what I was referring to.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The whole logic of "if it was an issue then it would have been taken care of earlier" is so stupid. By the same logic right to repair is an easy and clear case as well.

That's not what I said! Stop twisting my words. I never used that line of argumentation, and again, you are using a very bad analogy. For right to repair the legal basis/laws are missing, this is the big issue with RTR. Exactly the opposite compared to anti-trust, following your line of argumentation.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

No it's not. The word "internet" is not even mentioned in the declaration of human rights.

It's a de-facto basic human need as you are otherwise totally cut off on information. Again, twisting my words, nitpicking, while accusing me of doing such - funny. Even ignoring all this, you are honestly claiming that internet access has an equal level of importance to a human as the access to the iOS eco system. Can't make that up.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Monopoly, duopoly that colludes. Monopoly on iOS sales. 

You're nitpicking words in a poor attempt to undermine my arguments.

Yeah, Monopoly, duopoly, basically the same. Tomayto, Tomahto. I see no reason for fruther argumenting with you if you think of the difference between these as nitpicking.

 

I am tired of answering all your aggressively worded counter-arguments, please chose someone else from now on. If you want, you may book this as a win for your side.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.

 

And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 

 

I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.

 

And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...

 

My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.

 

But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 9/11/2021 at 11:12 PM, harryk said:

Exactly, Apple's payment system is likely the best option for small developers, who are the vast majority on the App Store. The biggest players (i.e. Netflix, Spotify etc.) with existing external payment systems are going to benefit the most from this change.

I think there might be a market for dedicated third party payment providers

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

19 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I said they are unwilling to do it and cannot be forced. And the fact that you even compare a fancy name for a basic browser-based payment with the bliss of using Apple Pay on an iOS device tells me you never used it.

I would rather use a basic web browser version that has lower prices/ gives more money to a developer than using a pretty widget that is more expensive/gives less money to devs

 

[HRD]

3 hours ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.

 

And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 

 

I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.

 

And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...

 

My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.

 

But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

Your idea of apple allowing the use of alternatives without taking a commission is not realistic because then every app would be free and when you open it you have to pay with third party payment and apple would make nothing. Apple charges 30% not just for the use of the store but also for licensing it’s intellectual property and developers tools..etc. The judge actually said that apple could ask developers to pay a commission on sales without IAP. In fact there is evidence submitted to the court that Sony is already doing that if a playstation player mainly plays on their platform and make purchases out side of it Sony will take a cut.

[RedRound2]

23 hours ago, whispous said:

Just want to drop in that the reason I switched from Android to iOS was BECAUSE the app store and lack of sideloading is a walled garden.

 

However, the payments part which the judge has ruled against is absolutely up my alley, as that is not part of the (more than the play store) curated, slightly less full of trash app store.

 

If sideloading were available on iOS, people would start doing it, and people would start bringing utter trash (moreso than currently) to the platform, leading to millions of incapable fools complaining about the terrible user experience they've given themselves.

 

To quote an old 4chan post about how smart the average user is when insalling software...

Precisely. This is why people like my dad would only buy an iPhone. And Apple's superiority in platform and ecosystem isn't so world breaking that people wouldn't be able to live with competing platforms. And that is exactly the reason why they wouldn't be qualified as a monopoly. People are free to choose what they want. 

 

Tim Sweeny is really being snarly here. All they actually wanted was to bring the Epic games store on iOS so they could enjoy some profits off non-epic games. But he continues to disguise his crusade in the name of small developers and consumers, even though all small developers were granted 50% reduction in fees and options to link external payment system

[whispous]

13 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Precisely. This is why people like my dad would only buy an iPhone. And Apple's superiority in platform and ecosystem isn't so world breaking that people wouldn't be able to live with competing platforms. And that is exactly the reason why they wouldn't be qualified as a monopoly. People are free to choose what they want. 

 

Tim Sweeny is really being snarly here. All they actually wanted was to bring the Epic games store on iOS so they could enjoy some profits off non-epic games. But he continues to disguise his crusade in the name of small developers and consumers, even though all small developers were granted 50% reduction in fees and options to link external payment system

I think the point he's making is largely valid, but in my opinion, his reason for doing so is pure greed.

 

I don't WANT iOS to become open to any and all software. That's the whole point for me. I do find 30% cut and forbidden to advertise out-of-ecosystem cheaper payments to be orwellian and monopolistic, even if it is an industry-wide norm. Just because something is normal doesn't mean it's good, productive or fair.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly).

 

Because the law does not define a monopoly in numbers.  It defines it as having market power, essentially a power that cannot be competed with.  Apple has the control of a significant portion of mobile users dictating what apps they can and can't install and up until now dictating the only way they can pay for those apps/services and the terms of said payment. 

 

 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, whispous said:

I think the point he's making is largely valid, but in my opinion, his reason for doing so is pure greed.

 

I don't WANT iOS to become open to any and all software. That's the whole point for me. I do find 30% cut and forbidden to advertise out-of-ecosystem cheaper payments to be orwellian and monopolistic, even if it is an industry-wide norm. Just because something is normal doesn't mean it's good, productive or fair.

Yep, a  30% cut for a basic financial transaction is ludicrous,  for hosting the store and proving developer support is another argument, but for simple in-app purchases it would be as greedy as Mastercard or visa charging a 30% fee for every purchase.

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yep, a  30% cut for a basic financial transaction is ludicrous,  for hosting the store and proving developer support is another argument, but for simple in-app purchases it would be as greedy as Mastercard or visa charging a 30% fee for every purchase.

It's worth noting that Apple already charges (on top of the 30% cut) for developer support, hosting software and access to the store. Both directly (having a developer account costs money) and indirectly (you need to buy additional things such as a Mac to develop iOS apps).

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's worth noting that Apple already charges (on top of the 30% cut) for developer support, hosting software and access to the store. Both directly (having a developer account costs money) and indirectly (you need to buy additional things such as a Mac to develop iOS apps).

That just makes it even worse,  I don't understand how anyone can defend that.   

[hishnash]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

That just makes it even worse,  I don't understand how anyone can defend that.   

Compared to most platforms however it's not that bad. 
 

Just look into developing for any of the games consoles.
 

1) you required to provide 30% of your revenue (however you get it, even if users buy on other platforms or buy the game inshore physically, unlike apple)

2) you need to pay much higher fees (pre developer commonly) to have access to the SKD

3) your contract terms are under NDA so you can't even compare with the next games company over if they got the same deal as you

4) You need to buy/rent very very costly development kits (you can't use off the shelf hardware) you also don't own this, the console vendor can ask for this back at any time as they own it you are just renting it for a very high price

5) the SDK and all the headers etc are under strict NDA so if you develop code that depends up on them (like a game engine or some other until ties) selling this (to other devs) is a nightmare and will require the console vendors permission (they likely will also require you to fork out a % of your revenue this).


If you are developing for a games console you are likely also using a game engine like Unreal that will also take 10% ish of your revenue (that is computed based on your total revenue not profit after the console vendor takes the cut) so your SDK license fees are around 40% then you might well be using other packages etc for sound these are also commonly in the industry revenue share based so its not impossible to end up paying over 60% of your revenue out in SDK license fees in addition to large upfront/yearly payments per staff member as well to get these SDKs, etc.

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, hishnash said:

Compared to most platforms however it's not that bad. 
 

Just look into developing for any of the games consoles.
 

1) you required to provide 30% of your revenue (however you get it, even if users buy on other platforms or buy the game inshore physically, unlike apple)

2) you need to pay much higher fees (pre developer commonly) to have access to the SKD

3) your contract terms are under NDA so you can't even compare with the next games company over if they got the same deal as you

4) You need to buy/rent very very costly development kits (you can't use off the shelf hardware) you also don't own this, the console vendor can ask for this back at any time as they own it you are just renting it for a very high price

5) the SDK and all the headers etc are under strict NDA so if you develop code that depends up on them (like a game engine or some other until ties) selling this (to other devs) is a nightmare and will require the console vendors permission (they likely will also require you to fork out a % of your revenue this).


If you are developing for a games console you are likely also using a game engine like Unreal that will also take 10% ish of your revenue (that is computed based on your total revenue not profit after the console vendor takes the cut) so your SDK license fees are around 40% then you might well be using other packages etc for sound these are also commonly in the industry revenue share based so its not impossible to end up paying over 60% of your revenue out in SDK license fees in addition to large upfront/yearly payments per staff member as well to get these SDKs, etc.

 

None of that makes it any better.  If anything it makes it all worse.

 

Besides, II am not here to compare one evil to another in some vane hope it makes things look better, the end consumer has been analized by these practices and it will take a lot more than just allowing 3rd party payments before I consider apple not to be the cemetery of software purchases.

 

 

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, hishnash said:

Just look into developing for any of the games consoles.

Consoles are the worst, not only for devs but also for consumer choice about what can and can't be done on the platforms. As I have pointed out in this discussion multiple times.

 

Yet no one complains about those practices with consoles that are standard since the existence of such, but ofc whenever Apple does sth questionable, all hell breaks lose.

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Consoles are the worst, not only for devs but also for consumer choice about what can and can't be done on the platforms. As I have pointed out in this discussion multiple times.

 

Yet no one complains about those practices with consoles that are standard since the existence of such, but ofc whenever Apple does sth questionable, all hell breaks lose.

I only see people complaining.  Not sure what forums you are reading.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

None of that makes it any better.  If anything it makes it all worse.

"My favorite company is not the worst offender so therefore we should not say bad things about it" is a very common rhetoric on this forum.

Can't come up with an excuse for shitty behavior? Point out that someone else is worse and change the subject to being about them instead!

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I only see people complaining.  Not sure what forums you are reading.

On top of that, this thread is about Apple, so why shouldn't we talk about what Apple are doing?

If someone wants to talk shit about consoles then they are free to start another thread about that. This thread about Apple and their 30% cut should not be derailed to be about consoles however.

 

 

Edit: I'd also make the argument that consoles are a far smaller and much less important market than smartphones.

Number of consoles (PS4, PS5, Xbox One &Xbox Series X/S) sold in total: ~184,000,000 (184 million)

Number of active iOS devices (not sold, active at this very moment): 1,650,000,000 (1,65 billion)

 

The size of the market plays an important role in determining what we should focus on fixing first.

[hishnash]

21 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Edit: I'd also make the argument that consoles are a far smaller and much less important market than smartphones.

Number of consoles (PS4, PS5, Xbox One &Xbox Series X/S) sold in total: ~184,000,000 (184 million)

Number of active iOS devices (not sold, active at this very moment): 1,650,000,000 (1,65 billion)

 

The size of the market plays an important role in determining what we should focus on fixing first.

In the context of Epic games consoles are very relevant, as the court case showed consoles are 10x to 100x more important (in revenue and player numbers).  

While there are fare fewer consoles than iOS devices every single console users plays games and spends $$$ on these games, most iOS users if they play games never spend anything they only a tinny % (likely less than 1% of iOS users) ever spend more than a few $ on games.

So from a game developers perspective the games console market is larger in $ value, however you do need to consider that getting a title on a games console costs more, dev time but also license fees and rev share and much more difficult review etc process. 

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Edit: I'd also make the argument that consoles are a far smaller and much less important market than smartphones.

Number of consoles (PS4, PS5, Xbox One &Xbox Series X/S) sold in total: ~184,000,000 (184 million)

Number of active iOS devices (not sold, active at this very moment): 1,650,000,000 (1,65 billion)

 

The size of the market plays an important role in determining what we should focus on fixing first.

And on top of that, mobile phones and tablets are almost an essential part of life these days, they have replaced the computer for a good number of people.