Apple motion says external payments “fundamentally change” its App Store
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
If a company stands to lose money because they are breaking the law, that's their problem.
Upvote
271
(291
/
-20)
You should have thought of that before you decided to maliciously comply with a court order.
NEXT CASE!
NEXT CASE!
Upvote
208
(219
/
-11)
Apple now has to compete with their payments instead of forcing developers into using them. If Apple dropped their cut to just 10%, some developer will still use their platform for not having to deal with payment systems themselves.
Upvote
264
(276
/
-12)
People do realize that if this means apple is now loosing billions of dollars that that means that other companies were losing billions of dollars previously right? This money isn't just disappearing. It is saying that a company with a market cap of $3T can no longer force companies that are only worth millions or billions to give them 30% of their revenue.
Upvote
310
(328
/
-18)
What ever will the 3 trillion dollar company do without its 27% commissions on outside app store payments? Someone think of the shareholders!
EDIT: Apple worshipers mad
EDIT: Apple worshipers mad
Last edited:
Upvote
212
(231
/
-19)
Upvote
146
(159
/
-13)
Upvote
185
(198
/
-13)
Wait, are they seriously attempting to make a legal argument that following the law will decrease their profits and so therefore they shouldn't have to do it?
The hubris of corporations is just beyond belief.
The hubris of corporations is just beyond belief.
Upvote
232
(237
/
-5)
Sure, as soon as you tell me how to get apps on my iPad without using the App Store.
Upvote
182
(189
/
-7)
Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Apple.
That money isn't "lost", it's in the hands of consumers and developers and just not in your greedy ass fucking pockets.
That money isn't "lost", it's in the hands of consumers and developers and just not in your greedy ass fucking pockets.
Upvote
128
(145
/
-17)
Yes, your honour, I could pay the speeding fine you imposed. But that would stop me buying another speedboat, and that just seems unfair!
Upvote
120
(124
/
-4)
I don't agree 100% with the findings, but it's time for Apple to accept the loss and change their business model to compensate for the lost revenue. They'll need to do the same with Google search revenue. There are plenty of other ways to monetize.
Upvote
53
(55
/
-2)
Apple's defiance of the previous order was so brazen and so well-documented that I cannot imagine any appeals court having sympathy.
Upvote
116
(120
/
-4)
Technically Apple is correct that the original injunction didn't specify that they couldn't collect fees on linked external payments. But it's a real spirit-vs-letter-of-the-law thing. You guys are really trying to argue that the original order was "you need to permit external payment links, but can still collect the same fees"? You think that's what the judge meant?
Upvote
119
(120
/
-1)
Hey sure Apple, you can continue to charge your 30% (or 27% or whatever), you just have to also let sideloading work without restrictions.
Upvote
67
(74
/
-7)
One of the great tech companies in history reduced to a landlord, driven by lawyers. They’re Oracle with better press!
Upvote
72
(77
/
-5)
I don't agree with Steve Jobs about a lot of things.. but he really nailed it when Apple focused on profits over products:
Upvote
43
(45
/
-2)
Thanks to the commenters I have some understanding of what the issue is about. Ars covers several ecosystems, one of the larger ones being Apple. I am just not part of that ecosystem.
Upvote
-2
(10
/
-12)
If I'm selling Widget(TM) and Walmart charges me outrageous fees I can go sell my Widget(TM) at Target, on Amazon, through my own website, etc.
Where exactly am I going to sell my app that I've made for iOS if I want to avoid Apple's fees?
The question is not whether they can charge fees, the point is that they're using their monopoly control of app distribution on iOS to charge an exorbitant amount for it.
Upvote
103
(110
/
-7)
Nah, that's a bad analogy.
A more accurate one would be:
If you buy a PS5 from Walmart, should Walmart be entitled to a 27% cut of all online game purchases you make?
Upvote
118
(131
/
-13)
Upvote
78
(80
/
-2)
Apple will now need to compete and make a payment system and terms that developers will choose Apple Payments instead of a competitors payment processor.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
I can buy games on disc or discounted codes in a variety of places. I can sideload non-DRM ebooks from anywhere using Calibre or even email them to the Kindle email address that Amazon provides and they'll just show up on it.
Upvote
82
(86
/
-4)
I can't speak for an Xbox because I have a Playstation, but in the past I have gone to a store like, say, a Gamestop. I walked in, went up to a display filled with Playstation 5 games, selected one off of the shelf that I wanted, and took it to the counter. The sales person exchanged that display case with one that was actually filled with a disc while I paid using my debit card (money can be exchanged for goods and services). I then took it home and put the disc in my Playstation and was able to play a game on the device without giving a dime directly to Sony (just indirectly). I highly suspect it is possible to do the same on the Xbox.
In the case of the Kindle, I have purchased ebooks in the past from Humble Bundle many moons ago. They sent me a compatible file. I connected my Kindle to my computer and uploaded the file to my Kindle, whereupon I was able to read the ebook just fine on my Kindle.
In both of these cases it was possible because third party stores/options were available.
Upvote
65
(71
/
-6)
Now, proper sideloading.
inb4 a bunch of Apple sycophants making up bullshit about how it would violate Apple's security model or make every iOS device less secure, even the ones without sideloading enabled; or telling me I should have bought an Android device instead...
You're wrong, you're suckers, and you're all a bunch of idiots. Stop running cover for a billion-dollar corporation with your underinformed and incorrect opinions.
inb4 a bunch of Apple sycophants making up bullshit about how it would violate Apple's security model or make every iOS device less secure, even the ones without sideloading enabled; or telling me I should have bought an Android device instead...
You're wrong, you're suckers, and you're all a bunch of idiots. Stop running cover for a billion-dollar corporation with your underinformed and incorrect opinions.
Upvote
31
(56
/
-25)
I thought that the order only permanently precludes Apple from charging a certain way to use their services (forcing everybody to give them a percentage of every sale made in an App). They can charge app developers by the download if they want to charge for the use of their property. That would certainly means that in 5 years we are going to get a new ruling saying that they need to allow competing app stores.
Upvote
19
(21
/
-2)
exactly, i BOUGHT it i should be able to do what i want to do with it.
Upvote
37
(48
/
-11)
You can import any ebook into your Kindle, you have to use their app, but you don't have to pay Amazon.
If I buy a book in ebooks.com, I can read that book in my Kindle without paying Amazon 30% for that privilege.
Upvote
48
(50
/
-2)
100%. Interesting how so many people bring up sideloading as if it were the end of the world from a security perspective, yet from what I've seen most of Android's security issues stem from the Play Store itself even though sideloading works just fine.
Upvote
44
(54
/
-10)
You don't even need their app, there are alternatives to that even.
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
sounds likes you've never used a kindle, or an Xbox. discs come from the microsoft store now?
Upvote
31
(35
/
-4)