Apple seeks stay on allowing external links & purchases during injunction violation appeal...

AppleInsider

Even though Apple has already allowed apps to start linking out to external purchase options, the company has asked the U.S. District Court in Northern California to stay enforcement during the appeal.

Apple is asking for a stay during injunction violation appeal

Apple has found itself in hot water after a judge ruled that the company was willfully violating an injunction over anti-steering rules. Apple followed the judge's demands and filed an appeal, but now it is asking for one more thing.

According to a report from 9to5Mac, which discovered the filing, Apple is asking the U.S. District Court for a stay on enforcement of the new requirements set by the judge. Apple was told it must immediately allow apps to link out to websites and enable external purchase options, which it has, but Apple hopes to stop having to do this while it appeals.

The situation is the result of Apple trying to find ways to monetize external purchases while still removing anti-steering rules. It is the only ruling Apple actually lost in the Epic vs Apple debacle, which has cost Epic Games at least a billion.

If a stay is granted, it might mean Apple will reverse approved app updates for Spotify, Kindle, and others. It will also likely mean that Epic CEO Tim Sweeney's planned return of Fortnite to iPhone will be halted.

There's no doubt that Apple will want to seek ways to monetize purchases made outside of the App Store while still following the rule of law. However, the courts don't seem to agree that Apple is owed anything if purchases are made externally for apps that were distributed on iPhone.

Apple's monetization of the App Store relies heavily on developers using its payment systems, which means Apple can take a 30% or 15% cut of every purchase or subscription. If every app and game can simply link out to a website, Apple could find itself in a situation where it can't make money on any app on the App Store beyond the annual developer fee.

While there are arguments to be made about how much Apple is owed, it surely isn't nothing. That is likely what Apple hopes to define with its appeals.



Read on AppleInsider

foregoneconclusion

Video game console manufacturers charge 30% commission for games sold in their 1st party digital stores, don't allow 3rd party digital stores and also collect 30% commission on physical units sold in 3rd party retail stores. So there is a precedent for collecting commission on sales made outside the 1st party digital store. Epic has tried to claim that it's okay for consoles to do that specifically because they don't make as much profit on hardware but that is not a legal argument. There aren't any laws that control commission levels that companies can charge based on profit levels elsewhere in their business. 

edited May 8

s.metcalf

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

foregoneconclusion

quakerotis said:

Guilty, predatory, limiting are all ways I would describe Ap[ple and its behavior.

Apple chose to use the video game console model for its commissions. It's not like what they were doing was unprecedented. If anything, that way of doing business had been standardized for companies that made their own operating system and exclusively ran it on their own hardware. 

pichael

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

eriamjh

I find Apple’s arguments compelling in the legal sense.  

22july2013

pichael said:

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

You and I agree, but many people (e.g., "s.metcalf") want to force business models on us that we don't want to deal with. If I wanted to deal with Google's model, I would buy phones that run Google software. I want the freedom to be able to choose Apple's model. If Apple is forced to follow Google's horrible model, there would be little reason for me to buy from Apple.

9secondkox2

22july2013 said:

pichael said:

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

You and I agree, but many people (e.g., "s.metcalf") want to force business models on us that we don't want to deal with. If I wanted to deal with Google's model, I would buy phones that run Google software. I want the freedom to be able to choose Apple's model. If Apple is forced to follow Google's horrible model, there would be little reason for me to buy from Apple.

This. Any company in a competitive field survives snd succeeds based on its differentiators. These unfair attacks are all aimed at destroying apples successful differentiators, artificially “taking them down a notch or ten.” 

9secondkox2

foregoneconclusion said:

Video game console manufacturers charge 30% commission for games sold in their 1st party digital stores, don't allow 3rd party digital stores and also collect 30% commission on physical units sold in 3rd party retail stores. So there is a precedent for collecting commission on sales made outside the 1st party digital store. Epic has tried to claim that it's okay for consoles to do that specifically because they don't make as much profit on hardware but that is not a legal argument. There aren't any laws that control commission levels that companies can charge based on profit levels elsewhere in their business. 

yep. GameStop, Walmart, target, etc. all pay a portion of the game sales revenue to Nintendo, Sony, ms, etc. big precedent. 

s.metcalf

pichael said:

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

Huh?  If you can’t manage subscriptions that’s on you.  It’s not that hard.  I routinely subscribe then cancel straight away so I can use it for the month and when it runs out it stops and if I want to resubscribe I do the same again.  Or better yet I get a good deal on an annual subscription like I did for Paramount during Black Friday and I don’t have to worry about it for a year.  Again, it’s not that hard.

And the whole “payment insecure” thing is a bogus scare tactic and is widely debunked.  These are mostly global companies and many offer Apple Pay outside the app.  Do you not buy anything online not from Apple?  Give me a break!  Credit card companies and your bank have their own fraud protections and insurance guarantees.  Again, if you can’t manage and keep an eye your own bank accounts that’s on you.  Did I mention it’s not that hard?

wesley_hilliard

s.metcalf said:

pichael said:

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

Huh?  If you can’t manage subscriptions that’s on you.  It’s not that hard.  I routinely subscribe then cancel straight away so I can use it for the month and when it runs out it stops and if I want to resubscribe I do the same again.  Or better yet I get a good deal on an annual subscription like I did for Paramount during Black Friday and I don’t have to worry about it for a year.  Again, it’s not that hard.

And the whole “payment insecure” thing is a bogus scare tactic and is widely debunked.  These are mostly global companies and many offer Apple Pay outside the app.  Do you not buy anything online not from Apple?  Give me a break!  Credit card companies and your bank have their own fraud protections and insurance guarantees.  Again, if you can’t manage and keep an eye your own bank accounts that’s on you.  Did I mention it’s not that hard?

You missed the point of the comment. It isn't hard today, sure, because there are laws (that the current admin wants to ditch, or may have already) that forces companies to make it as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe. And having a central place to manage everything in Apple's ecosystem helps keep this in check.

So yes, it isn't that hard today. However, if users start subscribing to a bunch of stuff outside of a central management platform, it'll be on them to track those subscriptions, websites, and payments. And unsubscribing may not be as easy as logging in and hitting a button. There is no centralized UI outside of the App Store for this.

SirisXM was notorious for this. It was virtually impossible to cancel a subscription. They'd make you call, put you on hold, hang up, then bombard you with offers. Most people just gave up and took the cheaper option rather than force them to cancel the account. Now imagine if every app you subscribe to was like that. In Apple's ecosystem, you are guaranteed a way to easily manage subscriptions in a single location. Outside, you're not.

It's not complicated.

longfang

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Don’t be sanctimonious. I prefer to have Apple handle all payments instead of having to sort through a bunch of different charges in my statement. 

thrang

Apple has a right to profit from business conducted on its literal and physical back, do not forget that. That is the most aggregious aspect of the ruling! Try going into Walmart to set up a pop-up table directing customers to your website (or the trunk of your car in the parking lot) to sell things without any renumeration to - or permission from -  Walmart. Freely leveraging the customers that you;dn't bet there if the incredibly costly infrastructure of Walmart did not exist. It is insane at a cellular level.

This judge is clueless, not just about technology, but of the very tenets of for-profit business endeavors, and capital investment, risk, competition, etc. Apple should and does have competition - other smartphone/device manufacturers. a FEATURE of their offering is not to be freely made available to direct or adjacent competitors just because they are wildly successful with their product. They do not have an illegal monopoly, and have never been charged with or proven to have, for example, thwarted developers from writing for Android - which would be clearly in the yard of coercion and an element of an illegal monopoly.

Apple has invested (how many)?? hundreds of billions or dollars (and perpetually invest)s in the entire ecosystem for decades, that supports and markets the App store,, the platforms, its developers, and more -  and there is no logical or ethical basis where third party companies/competitors should be permitted sell their wares without ongoing, profitable compensation to the creator of the opportunity - at whatever level they desire. No one is forcing anyone to develop or sell iOS/iPad apps.

Forcing "direction" to other payment platforms circumvents ongoing, profitable compensation to the creator of the opportunity, and ignores all considerations of investment, R&D, risk, iterating, supporting, securing, running, and improving intellectual property initiatives that this judge seems to care less about.

Too bad if it costs app developers and customers for Apple to make their profit. Choose differently if it is such a burden.

edited May 9

meson

22july2013 said:

pichael said:

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

You and I agree, but many people (e.g., "s.metcalf") want to force business models on us that we don't want to deal with. If I wanted to deal with Google's model, I would buy phones that run Google software. I want the freedom to be able to choose Apple's model. If Apple is forced to follow Google's horrible model, there would be little reason for me to buy from Apple.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. No one is forcing you to use Google's model. The who point of this is to give Apple users a choice on where to spend when using an iPhone. If you still want to be overcharged, you can still buy from the Apple Store. You'll always have that choice.

stabitha_christie

Meson said:

22july2013 said:

pichael said:

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

You and I agree, but many people (e.g., "s.metcalf") want to force business models on us that we don't want to deal with. If I wanted to deal with Google's model, I would buy phones that run Google software. I want the freedom to be able to choose Apple's model. If Apple is forced to follow Google's horrible model, there would be little reason for me to buy from Apple.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. No one is forcing you to use Google's model. The who point of this is to give Apple users a choice on where to spend when using an iPhone. If you still want to be overcharged, you can still buy from the Apple Store. You'll always have that choice.

Since the whole point is choice and I will always have that choice, can you enlighten us on your choices for services like Netflix and Spotify?