Support NeoGAF

[RCU005]

I assume this is Apple-specific for now. But you'd think this has to be applied to Nintendo/MS/Sonys console stores as well at some point?

I'm not sure if Nintendo/MS/Sony also take a cut on in-game DLC purchases though. Is that the case?

It would take much longer and would be much harder for this to come to consoles. They are different things. A console is a much closed environment than a phone. With a game console you buy games and media offered by the console maker, but it's limited to just that.

With mobile, there's much more market involved. You have so many different companies with so much different ways of operating, and not everyone can or should operate the way Apple does.

 

[Gamezone]

Will this impact Apple's ability to not allow cloud gaming apps on their store?

 

[Topher]

Will this impact Apple's ability to not allow cloud gaming apps on their store?

Don't think so

 

[Zenaku]

They can probably negate some of the effects with a few new rules, such as:

1. All out-of-app purchases must be available in-app (so no unique items or packs outside of their store)

2. Price and offer parity between all in-app and out-of-app purchases (so no '20% off only on our website!' deals, or 2x points/free characters)

Neither of these would conflict with letting apps advertise alternate payment options, and I doubt a judge would rule against them for wanting parity for their users.

If all in-app and out-of-app purchases offer the same deals, at the same prices, with the same extras, most people will stick with the convenience of the systems payment system.

 

[SlimySnake]

I am super confused. Does Apple still get a 30% cut of all vbucks sales?

If not then Epic won. $4 million in chump change for a company that has made $9 BILLION from Fornite in the last 3 years. 30% of that is $3 billion. If they dont have to pay the 30% cut to Apple, they will probably make those $4 million back in a week.

No idea what Schrier is talking about.

 

[mckmas8808]

They can probably negate some of the effects with a few new rules, such as:

1. All out-of-app purchases must be available in-app (so no unique items or packs outside of their store)

2. Price and offer parity between all in-app and out-of-app purchases (so no '20% off only on our website!' deals, or 2x points/free characters)

Neither of these would conflict with letting apps advertise alternate payment options, and I doubt a judge would rule against them for wanting parity for their users.

If all in-app and out-of-app purchases offer the same deals, at the same prices, with the same extras, most people will stick with the convenience of the systems payment system.

I wish the US Congress would pass some laws to make Apple NOT be able to do what you just said. Because what you just typed is anti-competitive and bad for the consumers.

 

[reksveks]

I wish the US Congress would pass some laws to make Apple NOT be able to do what you just said. Because what you just typed is anti-competitive and bad for the consumers.

there is a bill in the senate, so fingers crossed. also don't count out the EU.

I am super confused. Does Apple still get a 30% cut of all vbucks sales?

If not then Epic won. $4 million in chump change for a company that has made $9 BILLION from Fornite in the last 3 years. 30% of that is $3 billion. If they dont have to pay the 30% cut to Apple, they will probably make those $4 million back in a week.

No idea what Schrier is talking about.

Nope, Dev's get the ability to link out to their own stores and escape the 30% commission that apple takes of IAP.

 

[SlimySnake]

there is a bill in the senate, so fingers crossed. also don't count out the EU.


Nope, Dev's get the ability to link out to their own stores and escape the 30% commission that apple takes of IAP.

thats a huge win for Epic then. That was the biggest thing they wanted. Everything else was just icing on the cake. This was about the 30% cut.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I thought in game currency was not allowed to be bought outside of the apple ecosystem? As well linking to it was prohibited. Using PayPal, visa or MasterCard to pay your apple account is a complete separate issue. The above mentioned examples offer no retail on the apps : Netflix, Spotify, audible etc. Can you give an example of a game that allows in game and outside purchases of in game currency?

Lots do.. or did, like Fortnite.. just have to be multi-platform:

App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer

The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.

developer.apple.com

3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app.

Not sure what your examples do but prove me right.. those apps all allow you to access your sub on iOS without paying w/in iOS. They don't offer a way to pay via iOS because they don't want to pay the fees.

What Epic tried to do was collect payment in the game, ON iOS, w/o using Apple's payment system.. just completely outside of app store basically.

 

[AdjudicatorHead]

I wish the US Congress would pass some laws to make Apple NOT be able to do what you just said. Because what you just typed is anti-competitive and bad for the consumers.

That, I don’t fully agree with tbh. If a publisher is allowed to not offer IAPs via Apple’s own system and can instead force people to use the publishers payment system and trust their credit card details and personal info on another system, as well as go to all of that hassle, that IS bad for the consumers, as you’ve removed the whole “choice” element and simply replaced a forced method with a more cumbersome and potentially less safe forced method.

Choice is fine, but I don’t want to be forced to enter my card details elsewhere. I enjoy the convenience and security of Apple Pay personally.

 

[IntentionalPun]

1. All out-of-app purchases must be available in-app (so no unique items or packs outside of their store)

This is one of their existing rules.

It stops apps from doing shit like being "Free" on iOS, but unlocked via web.

 

[reksveks]

This is one of their existing rules.

It stops apps from doing shit like being "Free" on iOS, but unlocked via web.

Yeah, ignore my original comment. I do wonder if they have price parity laws and if they would be able to push that without any legal challenge.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Think we might get into weird sections of their app definitions but reader apps like kindle operate like that, no?

It's the same section; reader apps don't have the "must be purchasable within the app" restriction, the section I quoted is basically for games (and also things like photoshop , or some of the other photo/video editing apps that make decent money for Apple).. notice the lack of mention of the bolded in 3.1.3(a)

3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation for free tiers, and account management functionality for existing customers.
3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app.

 

[Holammer]

Expecting Epic to roll out its new Epic-Pay (name pending) API soon'ish. On mobile devices, consoles and other platforms like Steam.
Always suspected something like that was the endgame for this trial.

 

[Notabueno]

For shorts: Platforms won't be able to steal money from publishers by mechanics of monopoly ie. you're force to pay 30% in arbitrary service tax to sell your content on our platform which is the only one you can.

Now publishers will be able still have to pay the initial 30% to be on the main platform but will also be protected from distributing their app through any other platform or system (like sideloading) AND be able to sell their in-app content through other means and platform than the main one.

Aka. COMPETITION

 

[IntentionalPun]

Expecting Epic to roll out its new Epic-Pay (name pending) API soon'ish. On mobile devices, consoles and other platforms like Steam.
Always suspected something like that was the endgame for this trial.

This ruling does not allow that though.. nor will that be possible on Android (w/o sideloading) or XBox/Playstation..

Epic basically lost this court battle.. but the article titles are not really reflecting that.

 

[Notabueno]

What does this mean? Apple’s stock took a nosedive so I’m guessing Epic won? Can they put up Epic Games Store on iOS now?

That's a good question, for now only competing in-app purchase systems are authorized.

 

[Tmac]

No it applies to mobile gaming. So Google is affected too.

It applies to everything, just not automatically.

Eventually other companies will sue other companies and evryone will be affected by this.

 

[skit_data]

Epic Games won?

Damn.

 

[IntentionalPun]

That's a good question, for now only competing in-app purchase systems are authorized.

No new purchase systems were authorized lol

But I imagine wall street reacted for the same reason this thread has like 90% of people not understanding the ruling.

Many so called "journalists" don't get it either.

 

[LordCBH]

Epic Games won?

Damn.

No they didn’t.

 

[reksveks]

No new purchase systems were authorized lol

But I imagine wall street reacted for the same reason this thread has like 90% of people not understanding the ruling.

Many so called "journalists" don't get it either.

Nilay gets it and he is a lawyer and he is very in this topic.

A month ago, you weren't able to link to a page if that page mentioned that you could pay via the site and there was something else.

A week ago or two that changed cause of the Japanese anti-trust regulator, you were able to link out to a single page so the user could manage their account.

Today, you can mention in the app that you can pay via the Web and even link out to it. One other thing it seems to included is now if you sign up via app, the dev can email you how to pay via the Web.

Those are big moves for Apple. The Korean law is weird because it is purely payment processors. This is still a fraction of the Klobuchar bill though.

 

[reksveks]

Will post the special podcast.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Will post the special podcast.

Click-bait, don't care if NIlay was a lawyer decades ago.

 

[A.Romero]

The court ruling allows links to be including in apps so customer can purchase outside.

They also were careful to mention that Apple is not a monopoly by any definition of the law, they are just successful.

It also ruled that is up to Apple if they want to allow Epic back into the store. I wonder if the potential amount of money will be enough to allow them back.

If this hits Apple's bottom line too heavily, they will change the business model. Maybe pay a subscription to publish on their store or something. They won't leave money on the table.

 

[reksveks]

Click-bait, don't care if NIlay was a lawyer decades ago.

You are saying that the movements in the last 3 weeks aren't significant? Especially given the fact that they have ruled that app store with an iron fist.

 

[IntentionalPun]

You are saying that the movements in the last 3 weeks aren't significant? Especially given the fact that they have ruled that app store with an iron fist.

No.. I'm saying that article Nilay wrote is BS.. the ruling is clear, it does not allow alternative payment processors ON the iPhone.

Being able to link to the web is significant; but that article is total click-bait.

Nilay didn't seem to bother to read the actual ruling; typical of tech "journalism."

 

[reksveks]

No.. I'm saying that article Nilay wrote is BS.. the ruling is clear, it does not allow alternative payment processors ON the iPhone.

Being able to link to the web is significant; but that article is total click-bait.

Nilay didn't seem to bother to read the actual ruling; typical of tech "journalism."

Epic wants that yes, but NIlay has that read the ruling if you want to look at his twitter thread.

I don't think Nilay's article on today's ruling mentions payment processors only purchasing mechanisms which are two different things, right?

 

[IntentionalPun]

Epic wants that yes, but NIlay has that read the ruling if you want to look at his twitter thread.

I don't think Nilay's article on today's ruling mentions payment processors only purchasing mechanisms which are two different things, right?

I read the actual article; Nilay clearly did not read the ruling. He read a paragraph and wrote an excited article.

A purchasing mechanism is just another word for payment processor.

Nilay is on one with this BS:

This is the ball game! What does it mean for a button in an app to “direct a customer to purchasing mechanisms”? Is it a checkout button? Can Amazon add a cart, a checkout button, and payments to the Kindle app now? The court isn’t stupid — it specified buttons and external links, which means they are presumed to be distinct. So a button can’t just be an external link that kicks you to Safari.

Read this, the court was pretty adamant about Apple's right to be the only in app purchase mechanism, from the ruling that Nilay clearly didn't read through:

really this thread should be closed, you are wrong.. sorry

 

[Yselacrey00]

Huh? No that's not what this was about at all. Try educating yourself before posting.

This whole thing started when Epic was telling people "hey buy your Vbucks via our website and you'll get extra Vbucks" to buypass Apple's 30% cut. Had nothing to do with side-loading.

Apple then kicked them off the App Store and this lawsuit began.

The ruling says that Epic is allowed to do exactly what they were doing that caused them to be kicked off the App Store in the first place.

It seems you are the one who is not educated. What you said it's what started the problem but not what Epic sued Apple for, you need to read the lawsuit. They were pursuing for apple to let them side load apps.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Huh? No that's not what this was about at all. Try educating yourself before posting.

This whole thing started when Epic was telling people "hey buy your Vbucks via our website and you'll get extra Vbucks" to buypass Apple's 30% cut. Had nothing to do with side-loading.

Apple then kicked them off the App Store and this lawsuit began.

The ruling says that Epic is allowed to do exactly what they were doing that caused them to be kicked off the App Store in the first place.

Not true at all.

Epic actually included an alternative payment method WITHIN THE APP:

Epic will not, in fact, be able to do that lol

 

[FStubbs]

No this is ONLY a win for Epic here. Apple kinda lost and most people didn't see this coming.

Tencent/Epic got a small win. They really wanted closed ecosystems ruled illegal so they could force EGS onto every phone and console.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Hopefully this comes to consoles.

 

[MaulerX]

Oh god please god let Sony and Microsoft be next.

But who's going to sue them?

This was a specific ruling against Apple. It was NOT an across the board ruling against all tech companies.

Everyone is going to have to fight their own fight on this.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Mod of War: Remastered or someone else please close this thread, the title is wrong.. Epic lost.. Apple won... they expressed they were pleased with the ruling. Tim is pissed and is the one who will be appealing.

All this does is allow apps to link to their web stores; that's the only thing new.. and Apple pretty much knew that was coming, as other court rulings in other countries were leading that direction too.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Not only does this not allow apps to collect payment inside the app w/o using Apples IAP, it even says Apple has the right to ask for commissions for purchases outside the app, much like Sony has their allowances for corssplay/crossbuy effecting their bottom line:

 

[Guilty_AI]

Not only does this not allow apps to collect payment inside the app w/o using Apples IAP, it even says Apple has the right to ask for commissions for purchases outside the app, much like Sony has their allowances for corssplay/crossbuy effecting their bottom line:

so basically Apple can kick the entirety of Epic's business out of the iOS into space if they so wish. AND, regardless of where the payment is made, they can still claim comissions.

Yeah, this wasn't an Epic victory at all.

 

[RCU005]

I don't understand a lot of this legal stuff, but if Apple decides to terminate Epic account and forbid the use and or development of Unreal Engine, it would be the biggest mistake they could make.

Many companies rely on Unreal Engine for their games and other applications. Apple not allowing Unreal on iOS, would mean that they are screwing everyone and will have to move on to something else. Consumers wanting to purchase those products will have to steer away from iPhone and iPad.

 

[Blood Borne]

Wrong outcome. It’s their platform, they should be allowed to set their own rules. This is ridiculous.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I don't understand a lot of this legal stuff, but if Apple decides to terminate Epic account and forbid the use and or development of Unreal Engine, it would be the biggest mistake they could make.

Many companies rely on Unreal Engine for their games and other applications. Apple not allowing Unreal on iOS, would mean that they are screwing everyone and will have to move on to something else. Consumers wanting to purchase those products will have to steer away from iPhone and iPad.

More likely scenario is that those games switch engines. Many companies already started doing that just off of how stupid Epic was acting.

iOS is the biggest digital platform in the world, dwarfs everything else.

 

[reksveks]

I read the actual article; Nilay clearly did not read the ruling. He read a paragraph and wrote an excited article.

A purchasing mechanism is just another word for payment processor.

Apple can be the only IAP method yes, don't think that was ever in debate but they can't tell devs that they aren't able to put a link in order to try and get around the IAP

The Judge has killed this

3.1.1 In-App Purchase:

• If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

The question is whether you think this is a big deal or not.

The second point in the injunction is kinda irrelevant now cause Apple made that change in June.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Wrong outcome. It’s their platform, they should be allowed to set their own rules. This is ridiculous.

The article is pretty misleading, just saying

 

[IntentionalPun]

Apple can be the only IAP method yes, don't think that was ever in debate

The article you linked to, that Nilay wrote, does in fact debate this.

Your very own thread title actually claims they must "allow other forms of in app purchases".. which is false.

 

[Pagusas]

Epic Games won?

Damn.

and this my friends is why mass media and gas lighting rule the masses

 

[Guilty_AI]

Epic Games won?

Damn.

If the court giving Apple green light to vaporize any Epic related business from their ecosystem can be considered a win, yes they won.

 

[slade]

Sony and MS are fine. Epic doesn't have a problem with them.

Epic and Sony have a partnership, and Epic doesn't want to rock the boat there to ensure Fortnite can be played cross-platform.

MS isn't a problem because MS doesn't block your Vbucks that you buy on the PC. You can buy Vbucks on a PC/browser and use them on the Xbox version of Fortnite. Sony blocks this, but again Epic doesn't want to piss them off and risk them locking out Fortnite accounts again.

You can link your PSN account to the Epic store. Whatever Vbucks you buy on PC can now be used on your Playstation. At least that is the way I did it when I bought Vbucks for my son a long time ago. Don't know if it has changed since then.

 

[reksveks]

The article you linked to, that Nilay wrote, does in fact debate this.

Your very own thread title actually claims they must "allow other forms of in app purchases".. which is false.

I wonder what a webview counts as but yes that original article's title and therefore my thread title is wrong.

 

[ManaByte]

You can link your PSN account to the Epic store. Whatever Vbucks you buy on PC can now be used on your Playstation. At least that is the way I did it when I bought Vbucks for my son a long time ago. Don't know if it has changed since then.

It’s changed. You can carry purchases over. So of you buy a skin on PC you can use it on PlayStation but Sony segregates Vbucks. Same thing with COD points.

 

[Iamborghini]

Wrong outcome. It’s their platform, they should be allowed to set their own rules. This is ridiculous.

They are allowed, but when they become so big, big like apple or playstation, there are essentially killing all the competition (and for you and me it's the worst thing that can happen so you souldn't be taking their side).
Also monopoly.

 

[reksveks]

Mod of War: Remastered if you could change the title to "Epic v. Apple: Judge Rules Apple Must Allow Developers to Direct App Users to Outside Payment Options" to more accurately reflect the ruling.