To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much". My only guess is filing against Apple and Google jointly for being a duopoly, but Epic has made it extremely hard to do something like this because of their existing jury trial against Google which gives a lot of concessions to third-party app stores in terms of functionality.
"You're charging too much" seems unlikely to be the actual argument presented though. Something along the lines of the scare message, still not actually allowing it to be handled via in app flow like a first party payment, and intentionally making a 3rd party choice potentially impossible to compete vs a 1st party choice by arguably hiding part of the processing fee margin in the overall fee would be the kinds of arguments I'd expect.
I.e. Epic's goal here isn't about whether Apple charges 99% or 1% rather it's about allowing other payment methods (theirs in their case of course) to compete with equal footing regardless what Apple wants to charge to do it through them instead.
I think the percentage charged is very relevant though.
And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3)
And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).
Honestly Apple does not act as an agent for companies that are known outside of the Appstore.
Netflix has an app, Netflix “is not” an app. Google Chrome, Airbnb, Epic, anyone who has spent marketing bucks promoting their service and providing a supporting app, was rather acting as a marketing agent for Apple than the opposite.
Apple’s new stance has no merit. We all understand it’s fair to participate in the funding of the Appstore, but it is a very bad defense.
The fact that your example has a lower apple tax than actual ($3.9 apple tax for $13.0 subscription, not $3.0 as you've stated in the example where a developer would itemize the price or tariff) and none of the people who replied to you noticed is very relevant, too, in the same context as your comment.
Is it still enforced/rule that you can't charge a lower price for a subscription outside the app store? Perhaps thats why streaming services like netflix and max still charge the same price but spend that "Apple tax" to pay other kinds of distributers/promoters like american express, mobile carriers, etc. to offer promotions, bundles or discounts. I think this is how the largest players in the app/subscription market are trying to penetrate the apple tax fortress.
Other streaming services fall into the same category.
If I recall, and from what I’m now able to find, Netflix didn’t lower their prices when they did that move. And remember they have added ads, are cracking down on password sharing, and prices keep increasing.
So while Apple’s cut is high, let’s not fall into the trap of believing that other big companies are somehow fairer and would totally pass the savings onto us. The overwhelming majority, if suddenly exempt from paying Apple’s cut, would keep charging the same thing and pocket the extra revenue.
> And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).
I thought that was expressly permitted - just that Apple Tax still must be collected:
> The link can mention the specific price of content on a website, or that content is discounted on the website from the App Store price. Comparisons are allowed.
Only in the manner that it is silly: Since Apple demands a 27% tax on a linked purchase, there is no room for an actual discount anymore. You can't charge less for the same service because you're required to pay Apple either way.
In that manner, this ensures you cannot compete with Apple IAP on price, and is hence still wholly anticompetitive.
Price gauging has a very particular meaning; it isn't simply a subjective "you're charging too much".
It is the practice of significantly increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities during a time of crisis or high demand. This can happen when there is a sudden shortage of a product, like during a natural disaster, or when there is a surge in demand, like for popular concert tickets.
Characteristics of price gauging include:
- unconscionable prices
- taking advantage of a crisis
- limited supply or high demand
In the United States price gouging is illegal after a state of emergency has been declared.
Your tone is unexpectedly adversarial, and yet you're not disagreeing. I was simply answering gp's question about legal foundation of whether one can be considered to be "charging too much" under the law.
But overpriced goods and services are fairly common and accepted in the marketplace. Gucci handbags, houses, TurboTax, any product or service at a car dealership…
The 30% App Store tax does suck but I’ve never understood why it’s singled out. My best guess is that people hate platforms because it’s a 3-way transaction, which makes everything harder, including price negotiation. And also the service isn’t particularly unique, unlike the house, or a status symbol, unlike the Gucci handbag.
Ironically, if Apple made App Store publication more expensive but invite-only, like a high end Bugatti sports car, I don’t think it would’ve ended up in court.
30% is a lot, but it's particularly egregious when your one and only option is to pay 30% to Apple, who is doing everything in their power to make sure it remains your only option. Apple is a monopoly in this specific scenario, and setting the fee so high comes off as a "fuck you, try and stop me" kind of move.
"Google's lawyer highlighted Epic's willingness to pay the same 30% commissions to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo for transactions on gaming consoles previously in the trial."
They're kind of in a weird position because each of those companies are sticking them up, but because mobile isn't the bulk of their revenue, they can afford the legal costs of proceeding against Apple even if Apple retaliates against them in the meantime. Whereas if they got kicked off all the consoles they'd be out of business before the court case is over.
The argument that the consoles are subsidizing the hardware is just an excuse which has the causation reversed. They're not charging 30% because they have to subsidize the hardware, they're subsidizing the hardware in furtherance of their scheme to charge 30%. Without it they would stop subsidizing the hardware, but so what? People would pay less for games and more for hardware.
You might even pay less for hardware, because there would be no more reason to restrict games to a particular console and then you would only need one to play all the games, and Sony/Nintendo/MS would compete like (or be replaced by) Dell/HP/Lenovo.
The legal basis is that Apple is not privy to the transaction that happens outside. Purely on a data privacy basis, Apple cannot force a vendor to tell Apple what it does outside of Apple property. So any link tax that Apple wants to impose would have to be a fixed cost, and not a percentage of what happens in a different universe.
