• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,198
4,897
425
I am going to just post it here and will try to find good articles on this judgement but



Under the new order, Apple is:
- permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
In the full ruling, Judge Gonzalez-Rogers explained her thinking on the issue in greater detail.
Notably, the judge rejected both parties’ definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,” Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.

Under that market definition, “the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she continued. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.”

What we learned from the Epic v. Apple ruling - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech

She has ruled against the anti-steering rules in the app store. She did give Epic an order to pay $4m though.
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
A good outcome. Epic didnt get what they wanted, but they did cause a major ripple in how Apple is allowed to operate. Closed Garden's can still exist, they just cant handcuff users or developers to paying through their own gateways/restrict how a app can talk about its services and payment systems.

Also fun, Epic also gets smacked in this ruling for breach of contract to the tune of 4million. So in a way BOTH Apple and Epic lost. Its wonderful when two greedy ahole companies both lose.
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
Oh god please god let Sony and Microsoft be next.

Don't hold your breath, the judge made it abundantly clear this ruling is very limited and defined it to ONLY mobile gaming, not gaming in general:

“The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,”

She went out of her way to keep this ruling isolated to prevent a domino affect. Anyone who wants to take on Sony/MS/Nintendo won't find much here to use as reference.
 
Last edited:

hemo memo

Member
Sep 13, 2011
8,756
7,709
1,045
Don't hold your breath, the judge made it abundantly clear this ruling is very limited and defined it to ONLY mobile gaming, not gaming in general:

" “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,”"
For fuck sake
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
47,861
15,118
2,000
A good outcome. Epic didnt get what they wanted, but they did cause a major ripple in how Apple is allowed to operate. Closed Garden's can still exist, they just cant handcuff users or developers to paying through their own gateways/restrict how a app can talk about its services and payment systems.

Also fun, Epic also gets smacked in this ruling for breach of contract to the tune of 4million. So in a way BOTH Apple and Epic lost. Its wonderful when two greedy ahole companies both lose.

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

Robb

Member
Feb 12, 2021
472
571
330
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?
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,198
4,897
425
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?

See comment on the relevant market from this judge. The ones whom should be concerned currently is Google.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
No this is ONLY a win for Epic here. Apple kinda lost and most people didn't see this coming.

Epic wanted the closed garden torn down, court cost, lost revenue and lots more. They got none of that, and Apple won its counter suit for breach of contract.


This ruling most affects apple though, so in that way you are correct that apple "lost", but Epic did not win what they wanted.
 
Last edited:

itsjustJEFF

Member
Apr 12, 2018
1,122
1,228
435
Assume this will come to PSN and XBL eventually.
I sure hope so. This sets the precedent for all future cases like these.

I would like to believe there are smart ppl at Epic that thought about what could come out of something like this. Technically that Epic store is now open as well 🤔
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
I sure hope so. This sets the precedent for all future cases like these.
Read the ruling, the Judge went out of her way to make sure this ruling is not used as precedence for future cases outside the extreme limited scope she defined. She did a great job keeping her language very concise . This appears to be a judge that does not want to cause waves.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Member
Feb 12, 2021
472
571
330
See comment on the relevant market from this judg
Thanks, that's what I thought.

This ruling does open up a lot of possibilities for similar cases being held towards other storefronts though.

Would not be surprised to see more of this going forward.
 

itsjustJEFF

Member
Apr 12, 2018
1,122
1,228
435
Read the ruling, the Judge went out of her way to make sure this ruling is not used as precedence for future cases outside the extreme limited scope she defined. She did a great job keeping her language very consise. This appers to be a judge that does not want to cause waves.
:messenger_hushed: seriously?!?! that seems like a ruling just meant for the Apple App Store, how fair is that 🤷‍♂️ I'm going to have to dig deeper on this.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,198
4,897
425
Epic wanted the closed garden torn down, court cost, lost revenue and lots more. They got none of that, and Apple won its counter suit for breach of contract.


This ruling most affects apple though, so in that way you are correct that apple "lost", but Epic did not win what they wanted.
They didn't against Apple, that's true. Google might get more harshly treated as they were much more anti-competitive in their actions.
 

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
6,459
9,823
965
24
Earth
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?

not the same thing at all.

imagine if Microsoft said that ANY PAYMENT done on windows had to be through them, and they got a cut.

That’s the comparison, and makes it clear how Apple was in the wrong.



Also shoutout the the Legal Geniuses here on GAF that said this ruling would never happen and that we were dumb to think it could happen! Great job
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
Thanks, that's what I thought.

This ruling does open up a lot of possibilities for similar cases being held towards other storefronts though.

Would not be surprised to see more of this going forward.

That it does, they just can't use it as precedence. But it does open up the idea that these goliath companies can bleed and are open to attack from smaller companies, with a chance to make a difference. It will have empowering value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reksveks

Tripolygon

Member
May 6, 2012
4,840
7,536
1,160
NYC
Epic wanted the closed garden torn down, court cost, lost revenue and lots more. They got none of that, and Apple won its counter suit for breach of contract.


This ruling most affects apple though, so in that way you are correct that apple "lost", but Epic did not win what they wanted.
They got what they wanted. Seriously, ask for the stars, settle for the moon. That is the strategy they were going for. Apple's countersuit was not a loss for Epic. That was money Epic owed Apple, its measly chump change.
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
13,564
5,819
1,870
Prosper, Tx
They got what they wanted. Seriously, ask for the stars, settle for the moon. That is the strategy they were going for.

True enough, the 4million won't really hurt Epic, and its a fraction of what their legal fees likely are anyway. I wonder if Apple will block them from the App store for the rest of time now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hezekiah
Jun 28, 2013
3,470
3,859
895
Assume this will come to PSN and XBL eventually.
You can already pay with paypal. Console makers usually sell their consoles at a lost. So if anything this would come to Nintendo. Since they sell a mobile processor from a decade ago. All they do is print money from the hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blochu

Yselacrey00

Banned
Nov 20, 2018
1,358
1,655
520
not the same thing at all.

imagine if Microsoft said that ANY PAYMENT done on windows had to be through them, and they got a cut.

That’s the comparison, and makes it clear how Apple was in the wrong.



Also shoutout the the Legal Geniuses here on GAF that said this ruling would never happen and that we were dumb to think it could happen! Great job
How is not the same thing at all? He was talking about consoles, you can't but anywhere but from their stores.
 

Kilau

Member
Dec 12, 2013
3,902
4,813
710
"The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store", that's the out
Interesting, but seems the door is open now for future litigation?
 

Tripolygon

Member
May 6, 2012
4,840
7,536
1,160
NYC
True enough, the 4million won't really hurt Epic, and its a fraction of what their legal fees likely are anyway. I wonder if Apple will block them from the App store for the rest of time now?
Couldn't say, Apple has a lot of money to burn on this in court to protect their revenue. But we shall see.
 

Yselacrey00

Banned
Nov 20, 2018
1,358
1,655
520
Holy shit, Epic won. After all the ridicule they received (including on this forum) for even daring to sue Apple.
Never really liked Tim Sweeney but he's a hero for this.
Epic won? I don't think so at all. Epic wanted to be able to side load, the judge said no. What they can do is put a link for outside payments, but how is that going to be done? Apple will have to set the rules and I'm pretty sure it's going to be a really small link difficult to click lol.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
42,444
74,732
2,525
California
manabyte.com
Epic wanted to be able to side load, the judge said no.

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.
 

Trogdor1123

Member
Mar 2, 2012
10,059
3,407
965
Everyone celebrating need to pump the brakes a bit. They will appeal. I'm sure the next step will be to enforce a security fee on all external transactions should that lose.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
42,444
74,732
2,525
California
manabyte.com
Google, Apple, Sony and MS right now: Shit

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.
 

Fredrik

Member
Jun 27, 2005
10,876
5,591
1,720
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?