I tried meant to respond to Airwhale, but the conversation continued when Timo said he agreed with Airwhale despite two people subsequently explaining why the parking app design wasn’t breaking any App Store rules.
Hope I’m responding to the right person now!
Maybe Timo deleted his message, because I didn’t see anything from him
I think I answered as best as I could - I tried/meant to respond to someone else, but Timo responded and we continued from there. Got it?
You make a lot of assumptions, and many of them are not correct.
Furthermore, there’s no discussion to be had here. Have the final word if you like, but I’ve said my piece: I’m not airwhale, nor webwalrus, so take up your fact finding mission with them. I personally think there’s something to airwhale’s POV – and no, I don’t owe you an explanation why. No one owes an explanation to yours or anyone’s satisfaction.
Okay, thanks for that much of a response, mysterious as it is. Two different people responded to the suggestion that the parking app payments were somehow remarkable, pointing out why it wasn’t and that thousands of other apps act similarly, so it was surprising that you said you believed it was anyway, and surprising you couldn’t or wouldn’t explain your own reasoning.
Hey gang, we can debate ideas and the sides of this story, but this thread has gotten heated. Take a breath.
I was just puzzled by the distinction between “digital goods” and other transactions within apps - it seems arbitrary to me. That’s all.
I guess it depends on whether you consider the “digital good” in question to be something that adds a feature or functionality to the app in question. If so then I think there’s a clear and easily justified reason for Apple to take a percentage (whatever it may be) from the IAP. If not then things get murkier and more muddled.
I think it was Siracusa on ATP who also brought up the very logical point that things like chargebacks, refunds, etc. are more complicated when a more concrete thing is involved.
Kid accidentally bought $20 worth of virtual coins in some weird pay-to-play game? Apple can mediate that dispute at their discretion, and while the dev won’t like it if they’re out $20, they had (quite literally) zero cost providing that - so no major issue.
Whereas you pay $25 for a yoga class, you (by reservation anyway) take up a spot in that yoga class (preventing other revenue), and now you claim you want a refund because you couldn’t show up? Whole different can of worms.
And even more complicated if you paid $50 via IAP for some electronic item that was delivered, but now you say it doesn’t work. Apple refunding that purchase (which they may have to do) actually costs the merchant money (not just potential money), and the chargeback process can be very involved.
In the latter two cases, Apple being the merchant of record would them to a lot more hassle and legal liability. So allowing that to be offloaded to a third-party payment processor by the merchant makes sense in some way.
I feel as if Epic Games is just trying to bombast people.
Frankly, these companies (same as Tile and Spotify) trying to spin their PR into whining to customers are grating on my nerves. It feels like they take us for fools, and they lose my business. (I used to be a Tile premium subscriber and I cancelled because of their foolish complaints.)
Tile was clearly worried about Apple releasing AirTags.
As for Spotify, they’re competing with Apple Music, so… 
If memory serves, Tile started whining before the Air tags rumor. Not long, but still.
It is hard to believe that Epic Games is using the situation as a marketing campaign.
The video below provides a good summary on the lawsuit as it stands so far.
Both companies seem to be using their best marketing communication tools and encouraging their fans to support them. Apple, being the larger company, can accomplish the same reach more staidly.
One is trolling and being argumentative for argument’s sake. Do not make the mistake of giving equal weight (or opprobrium) to both sides here.
Apple’s statement:
We are disappointed that we have had to terminate the Epic Games account on the App Store. We have worked with the team at Epic Games for many years on their launches and releases," Apple said. "The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation. Epic has refused. Instead they repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store. This is not fair to all other developers on the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight. We hope that we can work together again in the future, but unfortunately that is not possible today.
Epic’s reply:
Apple’s statement isn’t forthright. They chose to terminate Epic’s account; they didn’t have to. Apple suggests we spammed the App Store review process. That’s not so. Epic submitted three Fortnite builds: two bug-fix updates, and the Season 4 update with this note:
Hello,
>
>Fortnite build v14.0 with the new Season 4 has been uploaded through App Store Connect. This build continues to offer customers the choice of in-app purchases through either Apple’s payment solution or through Epic direct payment. Epic is submitting this version in case Apple wishes to restore Fortnite to the App Store in time for Season 4 launch. Thanks.
Note that nowhere did Apple’s statement accuse them of ‘spamming’ - Sweeney’s did. Apple said, “they repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store” - and Sweeney himself said they submitted 3 Fortnite buids, each with the sidestep that got them kicked out in the first place.
So Epic isn’t arguing against Apple’s point as much as it’s just being argumentative.
It sounds like both sides mischaracterized each other in their statements if Epic really submitted two minor updates and the major release that broke the rules.
However, the merits of those two statements are not the point. These companies are fighting to keep public opinion on their side parallel to the legal fight and the app review communications. For better or worse, that’s an arena where words are chosen for their rhetorical effectiveness. Epic’s size and business position will result in using brasher words than Apple’s will, but that doesn’t make them wrong to do that, or have much to do with who should ‘win’ the parallel discussions/conflicts. Just as when Apple, e.g., gets into fights with the US government over privacy, Apple is the one employing the more nimble public PR strategy.
No, you are making incorrect presumptions. All three updates contained the unacceptable code. Epic is being unnecessarily argumentative, it is putting words in Apple’s mouth, it is repeatedly trolling them, and at best you are trying to say that they are somehow the same or that Apple is merely employing ‘more nimble PR strategy’. This is simply inaccurate.
Ridley Scott, director of the original Apple 1984 commercial, has commented on Epic’s parody:
“I sure have and I wrote to them because on the one hand I can be fully complimented by the fact they copied [my commercial] shot for shot,” Scott says. “But pity the message is so ordinary when they could have been talking about democracy or more powerful things… And they didn’t use it.”
Scott added, “I think the animation was terrific, the idea was terrific, the message was ‘ehh’.”
(there’s nothing else from Scott in the article, to save you a click)
Scott is most certainly spot on.