There are loads of developers out there selling content for up to £($)99 but it’s up to the end user to decide whether to pay these extortionate prices for “just a bit of extra programming”. The decision signals that Apple’s control over the App Store and the fees it charges likely. It’s your choice to place your concession there or not.Īlso I didn’t buy my iPhone to play fortnite as I’m sure many other people didn’t either so again people have a choice which platform they use if they really wanted to play fortnite so if there are other cheaper options out there, why doesn’t epic push their users towards that platform which apparently doesn’t charge a 30% fee.Īt the end of the day, epic are also allowed to price accordingly so if they were really about the consumer then why not lower your own in app purchase prices. An appeals court on Monday mostly sided with Apple over its App Store rules in a suit with Epic Games. Apple counterclaims that Epic Games has breached its developer agreements and App Store guidelines by introducing a direct pay option on iOS devices in Epic Games. A federal judge has ruled that Apple can’t push back the deadline to update App Store policies, as previously ordered on California’s Epic Games v. If you have a concession in a department store, you have to pay some form of rental decided by the store/owner. brings this action against defendant Apple Inc., alleging violations of antitrust laws through its Apple App Store policies on iOS devices. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free. The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now). Apple will also argue that the original court made an error when implementing an injunction that will force App Store changes.Īpple claims that because it was not found to be engaging in anticompetitive behavior, the App Store rules are not unfair and the district court did not have the authority to mandate an injunction.The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. The district court held that Epic breached its contract with Apple but was not obligated to pay Apples attorney fees. Epic, says Apple, made far-reaching claims at the edges of antitrust law, and there is no basis for the ruling to be overturned on appeal. Epic Games will argue that the court made "multiple legal errors" in its initial ruling, once again arguing for sideloading to be allowed.Īpple maintains that Epic Games lost the trial because of "unprecedented" and "unfounded" accusations of anticompetitive conduct that ultimately did not sway the judge. Apple won the antitrust suit, but was ordered to allow developers to add in-app links to outside websites where payments could be accepted.Īpple does not want to change its App Store rules and also appealed, leading to the court battle today. Epic Games aimed to get the court to allow for third-party app stores and alternate methods of getting apps on iOS devices, but Epic Games largely lost the lawsuit, leading it to file an appeal. Apple quickly pulled the Fortnite app from the App Store, and Epic Games was ready with an antitrust lawsuit over Apple's App Store rules. Apple saga started way back in 2020 when Epic Games started allowing Fortnite players to make purchases directly in the app, skirting the in-app purchase rules. The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games resumed today, with lawyers for both companies meeting in the United States Court of Appeals to attempt to get the initial ruling from last year overturned.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |