Small developers say the Epic ruling could lead to a windfall but some researchers say it is unclear if consumers will actually use alternative payment methods
After a judge opened up a way to avoid Apple's commission on their sales, companies big and small are seeing dollar signs.
New York Times
Context & Ripple Effects
The ruling’s practical scope was narrower than a full opening of iOS distribution: related coverage characterized it as preserving Apple’s fees and control over third-party app stores, even as developers gained a route to direct customers elsewhere. The later appellate outcome, left standing when the Supreme Court declined both appeals, confirms that steering rather than alternative app stores became the operative change.
The promised savings also depend on Apple’s response and consumer behavior. Apple subsequently said it intended to collect commission regardless of the payment path, putting the developers’ expected windfall in tension with the platform’s ability to set the terms of access.
First-order effects
Small developers can try to direct buyers to outside payment options, giving them a potential alternative to Apple’s in-app purchase commission.
Apple retains the App Store and iOS distribution rules, while the consumer willingness to leave the native checkout determines whether developers can realize meaningful savings.
Second-order effects
Developers must weigh any lower payment-processing cost against conversion loss from sending customers through an alternative checkout flow.
Apple’s stated willingness to charge commission on competing payment platforms turns payment routing into a dispute over enforcement and take rate, not simply a choice of processor.
Third-order effects
The case points toward a model in which platform gatekeepers can be required to permit links while retaining substantial economic control through commissions and store rules.
If consumers do not adopt off-platform checkout at scale, formal steering rights will have limited power to redistribute App Store economics toward smaller developers.
The trend: App-store regulation is increasingly testing whether opening payment pathways can reduce platform take rates without dismantling the gatekeeper’s control of distribution and checkout rules.
The App Store changes ordered by a judge yesterday as part of the Epic-Apple verdict won't cut into Apple's profits much. But it could be a huge win for app developers, who stand to make a boatload more $$$ by dodging App Store fees. With @jacknicas: https://www.nytimes.com/...
Holy shit, if this sticks - IF (you know Apl will throw BILLIONS into fighting this) BUT IF IT STICKS That will be a monumental shift in mobile apps Finally in the favor of dev teams of all sizes https://twitter.com/...
Its a dumb rule Apple doesnt even need. Not having to enter cc info and being able to manage all my subscriptions in one place and cancel with a swipe is amazing. Its always best just to win on offering the best product instead of anti competitive rules. https://twitter.com/...
Me in NYT, making excited conjectures about the possibilities for Pleco as “Kindle for Chinese books.” (also note that I'm talking revenue, not profit, and most of that isn't profit because I pay out a massive amount of royalties) https://www.nytimes.com/...
If developers design similar UI to @EpicGames @FortniteGame that showcases how the user saves in the game, of course consumers will use alternative payment methods. By doing so, that forces Apple to compete and get their prices down. https://twitter.com/...
NYT is missing two major things: 1. Users will do whatever is easiest. Basic UX Product Management. This is definitely solvable. 2. It's going to take significant time to ramp up alternative payment methods that work at scale of Apple's payment processors. https://twitter.com/...
Zach Shakked's iPhone app has earned $5 million over the past year. Apple took nearly $1.5 million of that — its fee for letting him run his app on its devices. Now he's hoping Friday's court ruling will get him to keep much more of that money. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Prof. Chris @Hoofnagle views the decision as a major victory for app developers, although he is worried that the greater freedom to post in-app links will weaken privacy and security https://twitter.com/...
App developers celebrated a judge's ruling that Apple must change how it manages its App Store. For the smallest app makers, the ruling could lead to a windfall. https://www.nytimes.com/...
this is an amazing op-ed. @Moonalice argues why Apple needs to “Think Different.” Apple is in a position to support Congress and consumers. They need to dump their associations with the surveillance capitalists and fix the app store. Win Win for consumers. https://time.com/... ht…
“Please stop viewing antitrust as a penalty for success.” An open letter to Tim Cook from Roger McNamee on why Apple should compromise with antitrust regulators https://time.com/...
.@Apple would be smart to negotiate with regulators. Side loading is coming in EU, and maybe US, unless Apple cuts a deal. Side loading would kill Apple crown jewels of privacy, security. Apple can make economic, policy concessions to avoid side loading. https://time.com/...
Bad day for @Apple. They won things on technicalities, but lost trust of judge and lost on the key issue. Antitrust law will apply better to other app segments. New normal: when you do indefensible in plain sight, you will be regulated. My @TIME op-ed: https://time.com/...