Edit: Apple built the ecosystem. No one has to develop for it.
You all want to be indie wonders? Go do that.
You want to be unicorns? Build something novel.
Wait, wait, I got you; release your source code. I want choice in how things run on my device.
“But but but I made this IP!”
On top of Apples infrastructure, and intellectual property.
Circular grifting.
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open that link automatically.
I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they don't all just use Stripe).
I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if they thought the rules were not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want to be discussing actual damages. Because of that, flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to rule on if they were legal in the first place.
Rules that many believe are unjust, hence this making it to court.
>I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient
Paying for goods has never been easier especially with all the payment app integrations like paypal, cash app, venmo, etc.
I want choice and I want Apple to compete by being a better product not by being the only game in town. If Apple opened up they would gain me as a customer.
The major card networks have rules that give customers recourse in case of fraud or missing/faulty goods regardless of the processor and card type. Some countries have laws that strengthen these protections even more, though it's usually limited to credit cards.
The "antifraud" narrative about how the App Store is so much better at fraud protection is annoying (especially considering how many scam apps there are).
Aren't those two positions mutually exclusive?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You're moving the goal posts further away from this example making sense.
The app in question was built, packaged, distributed, installed and runs on Apple funded SDKs after all.
1. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
The source of an Amazon seller page is made through Amazon's portal.
It's not. The difference between building your store and getting a booth in someone else's.
Doesn't sound like a vendor I would want in my market either.
No, and again, these moving goal posts make this conversation more and more meaningless.
Epic wants to sell their currency outside of the app store. They're not allowed to do so by Apple's TOS. This is the same as Amazon saying a website cannot sell to users on the Seller's personal site if the buyer owns an Amazon account. It's just monopoly garbage.
If it were possible to buy from _either_ the App Store or Epic's store, Epic would certainly ablige and just include a 30% upcharge. Of course, nobody would use it (as has been proven over and over again), but they would absolutely include it.
Show me the app store in this image?
Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax.
Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp
[1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
(A) They can't bundle GApps with Play Store & (B) they have to present an app store picker instead of defaulting to Google Play.
I think the happy medium everyone should be striving for is just third party payment APIs that are blessed by the platform. This isn't about distribution (I don't think Epic cares if it's hosted on the App Store, Google Play, or not). It's all about payment processing.
If Apple and Google had a blessed Payment API that let developers use alternative payment processors, this would go away I imagine. I know some users want more freedom, but this lawsuit really isn't about user freedom, it's about payments (and if users do get more freedom, e.g. able to install apps in alternative ways, it's a side effect of this, not the goal of the lawsuit)
I wonder if Apple is forced to cut their fees in payments if they'll raise the developer fees to compensate, tiered based on size of the org.
If you want to reach millions of customers, you are restricted to the Apple Payment options... even when better options exist. Same for Ad and other subpar options.
Why? Because they are better options? No... because Apple FORCES you to use those options.
"but you don't have to develop for Apple" is a copout that ignores the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior Apple is using to force people into subpar options for a 30% gateway tax.
Similarly, others can't put good browsers onto Apple because of restrictions... why? because webkit is the REQUIRED base... despite the fact that its restrictions mean you can't use webapps as real alternatives because of limitations with controllers, bluetooth, etc.
Google can make better alternatives to Safari? Firefox can? Microsoft can? doesn't matter... Apple FORCES you to use their subpar options because if there was real competition, they wouldn't get a 30% tax.
Spread that decision to email clients and all other corners of the Apple "ecosystem" and you have a company using monopolistic practices to limit competition to increase prices.
"but don't do business on their platform" doesn't change the fact that they are using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I don't like EA and think they are an equally horrible company - and should be judged equally poorly for many bad practices... but EA (and netflix, steam, etc) should have the ability to not use Apples gated options and not pay for a service that isn't worth 30% - especially when they can host their own payment and ad services.
Stop with the bad arguments to defend a company using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I say this as an iPhone owner and a programmer.
Apps should be able to offer a choice of how users can pay.