The ruling stops short of opening up iphone to third party stores so not a complete victory for Epic.
It is balanced take on the issue Apple is illegally restricting customer choice while not being monopolistic seems about right.
Apple will of course appeal this, however this is going to be massive for iOS store revenue, apple will be forced to drop rates or stand to loose a lot of developers from their payment system
Honestly, I appreciate that I will finally be able to browse videos to watch in Amazon and actually be able to have at least a link to the Amazon site to buy them directly instead of having to jump through hoops like I would now where I go and search for what I was just looking at in a browser to buy or rent it.
I think this is part of the case isn’t it? Amazon has been given a special deal whereby you can currently do exactly that on their prime app. I think it changed a year or so ago to allow that
Can people put 'free' apps on the app store, that then essentially ask for payment in app to proceed? Or perhaps, 'upgrade'? That would seem really annoying if every app started doing that.
What, you want small companies to have the same rights as big ones?!
I personally think this ruling is great and that the fears about all apps switching to bait and switch models are overblown. There are advantages to using Apple's IAP and it will still be the preferred method for many/most customers and so most companies will still want to support it. The biggest effect will be putting downward pressure on the current fees. There's a lot of room to move between 30% and 3%.
Exactly my problem with this ruling. What we'll probably end up seeing now is a million "free" apps for things with lots of hidden fees and costs, and now you won't have the apples-to-apples comparison directly on the search page.
I've said this in a previous topic about the lawsuit, but with developers using third party payment methods, consumers like me lose out on iClouds convenient and simple subscription management.
Being able to cancel services like HBO Now, Strava, or whatever I'm trying out for a bit of time with a consistent interface is a big win for consumers. Instead, I know the developers celebrating in the comments will happily adopt the trash UI patterns implemented by legacy media, like newspapers and satellite radio, where subscribers have to go through a form and then get in contact with support on the phone to process a cancellation.
Apple's payment system puts the end-user experience first. I'm sure abandoning that will pad subscriber retention for the developers here, but I'm really, really not looking forward to this.
There is nothing stopping apps doing so already, only difference is Apple get a 30% of IAP or not.
A lot of games and many apps do this already, download and perhaps few features are free, however advanced features/ removing ads / buying skins or mods in game requires you to pay . This is nothing new.
This will be interesting to watch. I think this is a necessary and welcome development - but I also believe it will handicap smaller teams and reward the big players. The companies that have the resources to stand up payment systems will do so and reap the benefits, while the smaller teams will likely continue eating the 30%.
Why? A small developer could use something like Stripe or Paypal to collect payments, and enjoy fees significantly lower than 30%.
They wont even need to roll their own auth system, as they could use sign in with Apple.
What i dont understand is how this checkout process will look. As I understood it, devs would only be allowed to “steer” users to other payment options. Does this mean they cant include a non-Apple payment SDK in their app? So they’ll need to open a modal browser window to complete the checkout process?
If devs cant ship a payments SDK, they’ll be at a disadvantage with Apple Pay, because the checkout experience will always be slightly worse. Maybe most users won’t care?
The judge ruled that Epic violated Apple's App Store terms of service. So unless Apple decides to forgive them, I don't think they'll be allowed back.
> But she ruled in favor of Apple on other counts, including that Epic breached its contract with Apple when it allowed Fortnite users to pay it directly, instead of via Apple, inside of its iPhone app last year
The injunction said nothing about requiring Apple to reinstate Epic's account. A decision on the matter will likely come via a separate ruling in the coming months.
I wonder how many iOS games are about to be re-released as "free" games that need to be unlocked for their original price on another site the first time they start.
Very good point, but on the other hand, you've already gotten the user to install and start the app without needing them to pay; that's a foot in the door. I'd be really curious to see the results of A/B testing something like this at various price points.
Nah they will badger you with adverts to navigate to a third party payment service which is nigh on impossible to cancel your accidental $3 trial purchase which goes up to $30 a month after three months.
I remember what this was like before the App Store…
Idk, but most paid games do this already in some way (minus the external site part). A free download with a paywall is much more likely to get customers than a pay-to-download.
> Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately
conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court
finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit
margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.
> Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under
California’s competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide
critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with
Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a
nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.
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.
I started using Privacy.com recently for this purpose, and it’s pretty great. I can create a throwaway credit card for a single merchant, and input a fake name and address when checking out. I can even set limits or cancel them whenever, so impossible to cancel subscriptions can’t get me.
Its also a better concept than Apple Pay since I can use it anywhere credit cards are accepted. Idk if they can send you a physical one to swipe at scanner though.
Only crappy part is that they seem to be overzealous with their antifraud systems, so I was locked out after my first purchase. Customer support cleared it up quickly, but thats a pretty awful onboarding experience.
32 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 77.2 ms ] threadIt is balanced take on the issue Apple is illegally restricting customer choice while not being monopolistic seems about right.
Apple will of course appeal this, however this is going to be massive for iOS store revenue, apple will be forced to drop rates or stand to loose a lot of developers from their payment system
I personally think this ruling is great and that the fears about all apps switching to bait and switch models are overblown. There are advantages to using Apple's IAP and it will still be the preferred method for many/most customers and so most companies will still want to support it. The biggest effect will be putting downward pressure on the current fees. There's a lot of room to move between 30% and 3%.
Free apps need to have at least some functionality without paying. I don't think this ruling will change that.
Awesome.
Being able to cancel services like HBO Now, Strava, or whatever I'm trying out for a bit of time with a consistent interface is a big win for consumers. Instead, I know the developers celebrating in the comments will happily adopt the trash UI patterns implemented by legacy media, like newspapers and satellite radio, where subscribers have to go through a form and then get in contact with support on the phone to process a cancellation.
Apple's payment system puts the end-user experience first. I'm sure abandoning that will pad subscriber retention for the developers here, but I'm really, really not looking forward to this.
A lot of games and many apps do this already, download and perhaps few features are free, however advanced features/ removing ads / buying skins or mods in game requires you to pay . This is nothing new.
They wont even need to roll their own auth system, as they could use sign in with Apple.
What i dont understand is how this checkout process will look. As I understood it, devs would only be allowed to “steer” users to other payment options. Does this mean they cant include a non-Apple payment SDK in their app? So they’ll need to open a modal browser window to complete the checkout process?
If devs cant ship a payments SDK, they’ll be at a disadvantage with Apple Pay, because the checkout experience will always be slightly worse. Maybe most users won’t care?
In other words, they’ll be forced to compete.
Ruling: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-j...
(documentcloud uploads via The Verge)
> But she ruled in favor of Apple on other counts, including that Epic breached its contract with Apple when it allowed Fortnite users to pay it directly, instead of via Apple, inside of its iPhone app last year
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/technology/epic-apple-app...
I remember what this was like before the App Store…
> Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.
> Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28482895
And a bunch of other submissions...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483564 (NYTimes.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483558 (CNN.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483745 (WSJ.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483248 (MSN.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483372 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28483162 (Bloomberg.com)
This is a level of consumer privacy that's not found anywhere else.
Its also a better concept than Apple Pay since I can use it anywhere credit cards are accepted. Idk if they can send you a physical one to swipe at scanner though.
Only crappy part is that they seem to be overzealous with their antifraud systems, so I was locked out after my first purchase. Customer support cleared it up quickly, but thats a pretty awful onboarding experience.