For all we know, they might still be developing JAR apps for the Symbian platform and happy to keep just 20% of earnings.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals Court-Mandated App Store Payment Rule Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For all we know, they might still be developing JAR apps for the Symbian platform and happy to keep just 20% of earnings.
I don’t mind paying via a company’s website, as long as it’s a trusted company like Epic, Netflix, Spotify, etc.
Though I am really hoping Apple can still demand apps provide a single click unsubscribe option.
The big benefit of centralized payments through Apple for me is that I don’t have to go through some BS song and dance to cancel a subscription.
Though honestly, it should be a federal crime to provide an easy online subscription option without doing the same for cancellation. Companies should be shut down if they make you call to cancel.
Though I am really hoping Apple can still demand apps provide a single click unsubscribe option.
The big benefit of centralized payments through Apple for me is that I don’t have to go through some BS song and dance to cancel a subscription.
Though honestly, it should be a federal crime to provide an easy online subscription option without doing the same for cancellation. Companies should be shut down if they make you call to cancel.
Even if it means Apple executives blatantly lying under oath when in the dock in court..
Because Apple aren’t interested as all they want to do is keep the status quo by persevering with the IAP at 30% & no challenge to it whatsoever.
This could all go away if Apple said ok
We will charge about 12% for the payment link commission then that would be probably accepted by the judge because that is a reasonable amount to charge
Even then lol. It's procedural even if they lied, which by their own document submission is very clear.
That’s one of the best things the AppStore has. A lot of times you subscribe in a website and you can’t unsubscribe so what I do is to download the app and sure enough there’s a delete account button there.
If nobody is going to leave why does Apple care and why are they appealing?
I think they would need to lean into shifting all the blame to Luca, who has since departed. They could reasonably say he misrepresented the situation and that, acting in bad faith, he manipulated Tim and discredited Shiller in a deliberate attempt to materially harm the company because he was forced out. They could call his character and mental state at the time into question, through witnesses and expert testimony from mental health professionals.
This would all be predicated on Apple being very contrite and giving up a small portion of control immediately (like they just did) while distancing themselves from the bad actor and making a very public campaign of it.
Like I said, anything is possible with their money and stable of Kaiju lawyers.
Probably true. But you lose 100% of the shots you don't take.
It's in apple's interest to appeal anything they can legally get away with, no matter how frivolous.
As expensive as lawyers are, they have practicially unlimited money and even if they spend 10's of millions on fees, there's billions at stake; so it'd be irresponsible (to their shareholders) to not fight it.
I don’t think they’ll get the entire order thrown out, but I do think the “Apple isn’t allowed to charge commission on links clicked in apps” gets tossed for being unconstitutional under the taking clause (tldr: government can’t take property away for public use without “fair payment”; prior court decisions have established “requiring access to property” is considered “taking property” and intellectual property counts as property under that clause.)
It’s not a slam dunk, but a pretty strong argument that’s likely to have backers on the Supreme Court.
They refused to hear the underlying case, but not the judge’s most recent order, which has a pretty significant constitutional issue.
Not a guarantee they hear it, of course, but it’s a different issue than the one they first turned down. (And honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the appeals court agrees with Apple even before it gets to the SC).
The appeal is colored by the perjury, judges hate forswearing of any sort. I would expect some level of harsh response to support the lower court. It would set a bad precedent otherwise
Even so the appellate court should be looking at the rule of law, not apple’s behavior. But we will see where this goes.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out. It's rare to get such a textbook defining case roll out like this.
Apple should move out of the US, that will show them
As promised, Apple is appealing the contempt of court decision it was hit with last week in its ongoing legal fight with Epic Games. Apple today filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court in Northern California, in the hopes that the Cupertino company might be able to walk back changes that have required it to allow developers to add links to external payment methods to apps.
Last Wednesday, Apple was handed a scathing order to immediately walk back all of its anti-steering policies in the United States. Apple was found to be in violation of a 2021 injunction that required it to let developers direct customers to third-party purchase options outside of apps.
The order initially came from the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit that primarily went in Apple's favor. Apple was found not to have a monopoly and largely won the case, but part of the ruling forced Apple to change some of its App Store rules. Apple did make updates, but it only allowed developers a single link to an external website in apps, and Apple also collected a 12 to 27 percent fee from purchases made on a website through an app.
The judge was not at all happy with how Apple decided to comply with the order, and in her ruling, she said that Apple picked the most anticompetitive option at every turn. As a result, she provided Apple with a detailed list of tweaks to make, and ordered Apple to implement them immediately. "Apple's continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated," read the order.
Apple changed its App Store rules last Thursday. Apple cannot prevent developers from adding links or buttons that direct customers to make purchases outside of the App Store, nor can it dictate how those buttons or links look. Apple also can't collect any fees for purchases made using external links in apps.
In a statement, Apple said that it strongly disagrees with the decision, but Apple was not able to hold off on implementing the new rules during the appeals process, so U.S. developers are able to direct customers to websites to make purchases as of now.
Spotify, Patreon, and others have already submitted app updates with links to make purchases on the web.
Except for confirming Apple's plan to appeal, the notice contains little info, so it's not yet clear what arguments Apple will present to try to convince the appeals court that the judge overseeing the case made a mistake. Apple will need to submit a brief with its legal argument, then Epic Games will have a chance to respond, after which Apple will be able to file a second brief. There could also be oral arguments, so we are looking at several more months before a final decision is made.
Article Link: Apple Appeals Court-Mandated App Store Payment Rule Changes
This. There's a world where they could explain to their shareholders that this is the new new and they'll double down on making IAP something that devs and consumers would want to use.
Instead.. This. And a likely criminal investigation into one of their VPs.
Perhaps there's a fiduciary aspect to what they're doing - but it comes across as bully unable to admit that it was wrong.
Agree 100%, but that still doesn’t mean the judge can impose an unconstitutional remedy.
My only point is It’s an entirely different issue than the ones the courts heard before, so saying “they already declined to hear it” doesn’t have much bearing.
(To be clear, I think Apple should be punished, and that they should just drop it.)
FYI, it basically is a crime now. FTC's 'click-to-cancel' rule was finalized in 2024. However, since it is not a law it can also be revised without Congress.
Perjury can undermine the whole system so such acts are taken seriously. Process issues of that magnitude can trump the legal arguments. Don't show up, get a default judgement whether you were legally in the right or not.