Apple wins AND loses Epic Games Dispute LOL

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...nt-methods-on-apps-in-its-Store.560921.0.html

It says apple won the case but also has to allow links to third party payment methods in its store or something like that.

"However, there is a sting in the tail for the apparent victor of this lawsuit. Gonzalez Rogers has also determined that the App Store policy by which only first-party payments are allowed is "anticompetitive" and should be stopped. Therefore, the tech behemoth must now permit alternative payment methods, whether through links or other methods, within apps made for Apple devices."

 

I am still wondering how they won if they have to allow everything they were fighting against? I need to goto that court room with some stuff!

 

They won through Carefully written App guidelines violation and Apple's "Privacy Centric Approach" which forces everyone to comply or side with Apple as if they are Godsend!

 

But the south korean government states otherwise and apple have to comply or leave the market.

 

They only won in regards to epic games specifically my read over all, I don't know the fine details though. So looks like they don't have to pay up to epic specifically. What's the difference between Anti-competitive and anti trust? Must be that technical difference.
I think it's the technicality of having the apple pay ONLY, the court says they can have apple pay option but they have to allow ways within apps/stores to pay other ways. Kind of a win for everyone else since now they can use their own payments instead of apples.

Who knows how that will work out though, reminds me of when ebay basically shut out paypal as the default payment method on both buyer/seller sides. I mean technically you can still do paypal but with ebay managed payments takeover I have no idea how I'd use paypal for almost anything ebay on the seller side now. Buyer side simple at checkout w separate login etc But if you already have managed payments seems kinda pointless to go through someone else on the other side. Passive aggressive.

 

This is not a black and white case of one party winning and the other losing.

 

Uh hence the title of the thread LOl

 

Yeah I didn't read it as a winner / loser

 

Epic's Tim Sweeney Explodes After Apple Refuses To Allow Fortnite Back Into The App Store hothardware.com | Sep 22, 2021

A court ruling earlier this month wasn't a decisive victory for either Apple or Epic Games regarding the pair's legal battle over App Store payments. While Epic scored a win in allowing app developers to choose alternative payment methods for in-app purchases, it also had to pay Apple 30 percent of its revenues for for directing iOS users to the Epic Direct Payment System.

 

Beat me to it I was just about to post this lol

 

So result apple gets paid by epic for the "missed" payments from in app fortnite, effectively bans epic/fortnite anyways via legal maneuver of appeals period and probably permanently. But apple may need to allow others to have their own payment method in their app store. I didn't catch anything about legal fees needing to be paid by epic. Idk two turds slugging it out in a toilet imo, one's just much larger and is a cult lol

 

It seemed strange to me that EPIC expected to win this when its on Apple's phone and their walled garden. If anything this just exploited a loophole that Apple is sure to lock down via even more draconian means that will likely be invisible to the individual customer.

I mean I love the drama of it all, make no mistake lol, I just didnt see this ever going EPIC's way even if they won wholesale they could just remove them off itunes ?

Am I missing something or is that the gist of it?

 

I guess epic decided that the cost of litigation was worth the risk, since they pocketed money from their own payment methods in fortnite on apple before being banned there. Courts are unpredictable so who knew how it could have gone. I mean from what the court ruled it is really screwy in the context of the overall ruling of agreeing with epic in a way, but not in a way that forced apple to reinstate epic or that epic could keep the saved fees from going around apple's payment wing. Legalistic hair splitting.

They of course lost the future revenue from having fortnite etc on apple devices so that's a big loss for them even with apples payment wing fees. If/when apple complies with the courts decision other's will be able to bypass apple fees if the customer pays through a different method from apples. So again a win and loss for apple, mostly loss for epic.

 

Just a followup to above

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...it-years-to-play-the-game-again.563775.0.html

The long comment in the link is hilarious btw lol

 

No fan of Apple but the response from them to EPIC is hilarious, love those passive no aggression from me gloating victory moments.

Its really odd how EPIC with its good will image chose this route against Apple where companies with negative PR equity like EA couldnt conceive this very scenario instead going through the trouble of building their own store front, just to give in later and release everything back on Steam.

Such an odd world lol

 

Both sides are appealing so it's not over yet. Both sides are also in it for the long haul which is why Epic was/is willing to push it. If they win, they win very big; if they lose they'll still be able to say the word billion every day.

 

Judge Rejects Apple Request to Delay Allowing Third-Party Payments on iOS

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denies Apple's request for a stay, meaning it has until Dec. 9 to comply.

Apple's argument did not go down well with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Among other things, she remarks that Apple is asking for an indefinite postponement, despite the fact that they also state that they want more time to evaluate risks. She says that they are not asking for more time at all, but that they are only trying to delay the measures. Gonzales Rogers also states that Apple has not presented any credible arguments to the court for how links to external payment alternatives should cause the company as much damage as they claim.

The appeal continues despite this, however, Apple is not given any extra time to implement the measures or the right to wait to implement them. However, Apple does not give up, but has announced that they will appeal that decision as well. This is done by escalating the case and applying for a stay in the federal court "Ninth Circuit".

 

If there is anything courts hate, is vague arguments. Thats best left to the politicians.

 

Imagine the bribery and other shenanigans going on in such a case lol But the Ninth CIRCUS who knows.

 

Yeah I'm sure these companies are stuffing money down everyone's throats.

Just to pick anyone's brain that may have a better understanding than me, if I may:

This whole court case is because epic wants to cut out apple from the transaction process for purchases made within the app itself correct?

To draw a similar (to me) hypothetical. It would be as if uhh EA wanted to cut out steam for purchases made within a video game. Which for this argument would mean people aren't technically using steam for said purchase and therefore shouldn't abide by lets call it royalties towards steam.

If I'm wrong please feel free to let me know or if I'm missing some context.

At the end of the day it's still two companies chasing the goal of making money, but details matter.

 

Allowing third party payment methods will cut out at least in the tens of millions of dollars from Apple who skims the take like credit cards do, they could just adjust their fees for being in the ecosystem to make up for it though. That's probably not going to be as easy as it sounds.

But that was the ruling on the epic case, epic lost their specific case and back pay but the judge also ruled that Apple couldn't restrict in app payment systems that weren't apples is my understanding. Apple delisted epic and of course has probably no intention of allowing them back in, it's their ecosystem after all they can do as they like. However this challenges that principle and opens a huge legal hole for lots of other things. Courts are so variable and these corporate "persons" know that shopping around and finding the right judge can definitely work.

Who knows how this will work out but from Apples POV even delaying it as long as possible through the legal system will keep that skim money rolling in, it's probably way more than legal costs. Also as mentioned there's a precedent as to Apples control of the ecosystem, no way they want that.

 

EPIC V. APPLE RULING PUT ON HOLD AFTER APPEALS COURT GRANTS A STAY thewerge.com

Epic Games declined to comment when reached by The Verge.

 

Despite the court saying Apple doesn't have a dominant market position; they do: Corporations have been highly successful at modifying the law and terms used in the law so that the definition of monopoly, dominant position, control, etc; are difficult to apply to a corp irregardless of the reality.

If Apple were making cars their position would be that you can only buy fuel from them, tires from them, get repairs from them, etc. Further if you used the car they for business you would have to give them a 30% cut of the business. This because they provide the network of gas stations and tire shops that the car runs on. Not because you want to use their overpriced services but because you have no choice.

Epic doesn't want to pay that money and they have a lot of their own ching to throw at it. I'm not going to get into breaking up the big tech monopolies because this isn't the place for it but the power and money created with those monopolies was used to create IP laws that enable the business model discussed. At a guess I'd say Epic is no better than Apple but for the moment it suits their purpose to attack the business model. It's always about the money.

 

Yep apple found the right judge/court, delay as long as possible keeps it rolling in, not hard to see that coming. Of course the other angle is data collection which is probably worth a good chunk of change which according to the article apple has to allow independent collection of by third parties, a pretty big loss in itself.