Actually no it’s not. In fact it’s anti-competitive in one state. 49 others it’s not.
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 Attempts to Stop Developers Promoting Alternative Payment Options for In-App Purchases in Russia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They made an article when the judgment was given about a month ago, and absolutely nothing has changed since.
Do you expect them to give a daily reminder?
I thought it interesting that apple said they still don’t escape the apple tax if using alternate payments and will simply track transactions and get their cut anyways.
That’s what it’s always been about. If apple can’t get their cut there goes atv+. It’s kinda dependent on selling channels. As well there goes the top gaming company in revenues.
Of course apple is going to defend this tooth and nail.
So not when a corrupt Russian government imposes restrictions that threaten the social and civil liberties of Russian citizens, but only when that same corrupt government threatens Apple's revenue that it finally says something.
Ya paying attention, folks? It's a company, not a cult. Stop defending it when it does wrong.
Ya paying attention, folks? It's a company, not a cult. Stop defending it when it does wrong.
US District Court for the Northern District of California = Federal court.
Introduction To The Federal Court System
Court Role and Structure
These three branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — operate within a constitutional system of “checks and balances.” This means that although each branch is formally separate from the other two, the Constitution often requires cooperation among the branches. Federal laws, for example...
Its decision applies to entire U.S., not just at state level.
Judge specifically mentioned it was California that had the anti-steering provision. Be that as it may, it’s not done until it’s done.US District Court for the Northern District of California = Federal court.
Introduction To The Federal Court System
www.justice.gov
Court Role and Structure
These three branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — operate within a constitutional system of “checks and balances.” This means that although each branch is formally separate from the other two, the Constitution often requires cooperation among the branches. Federal laws, for example...www.uscourts.gov
Its decision applies to entire U.S., not just at state level.
I agree, so did I on Apple suing a gov over their legislation.
A bit far fetched I know, but hey it’s not every day we see a multinational company suing a government over their legislation or legislative decisions. Lets say the international Russian outlook does not look good at all, lacking common sense, so internationally Apple stance might not seam so unreasonable as the Russian decision making processes … who is to know …
Interesting that Apple did not sue the US government or Californian State over a similar federal court decisions. They even appealed for a stay and lost the appeal. Closing to the 9th, the deadline to comply.
Hey, maybe it’s the Russian way … not happy with the outcome? … sue the government …. not familiar with their laws.
Last edited:
A. See app that you like on the App Store
B. See the developer name for the app in the App Store listing
C. Switch to your preferred browser on iOS
D. Search for developer name in browser
E. See all the various options for additional information from/about developer and their products/prices
That's not abusive. That's not anti-competitive. It's a situation that requires the customer to spend a minimal amount of extra time to explore possible alternatives for pricing etc. And it can be done with the exact same hardware that provides access to the App Store. Large companies with highly lucrative mainstream apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle have been very successful in having customers pay for content/subscriptions entirely outside the App Store without any kind of anti-steering policy in place. It's ridiculous for any government court system in the world to treat App Store anti-steering policies as if they're anti-competitive or monopolistic.
B. See the developer name for the app in the App Store listing
C. Switch to your preferred browser on iOS
D. Search for developer name in browser
E. See all the various options for additional information from/about developer and their products/prices
That's not abusive. That's not anti-competitive. It's a situation that requires the customer to spend a minimal amount of extra time to explore possible alternatives for pricing etc. And it can be done with the exact same hardware that provides access to the App Store. Large companies with highly lucrative mainstream apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle have been very successful in having customers pay for content/subscriptions entirely outside the App Store without any kind of anti-steering policy in place. It's ridiculous for any government court system in the world to treat App Store anti-steering policies as if they're anti-competitive or monopolistic.
Last edited:
I’m paying for Netflix, Spotify, Disney+ and Viaplay directly from their websites yet using it on Apple devices without them paying Apple. Why does Apple allow that?
Yes, they only appeal those about money. And 100% never on anything related to their beliefs or morals. Then they always say, hey we had to the law is the law.
But if it’s affecting anything close on their margins and income they fight harder than anyone. Then the tone suddenly turns to the law being wrong
If its so minimal why not simply let the user opt in app for App Store payment or some other. I mean …
A. Google for the App you need … (that is what most people do).
B. Click the Google or the web site link to the App Store.
C. Download the App. Pay the app if not free.
D. Within the App, want to subscribe to the service or buy more content? Click: buy from the App Store; buy from Netflix (open Netflix Site)
Last edited:
That approach is actually more complicated than what already exists. If your choice is to search for the app in a browser to begin with, then you never need to leave the browser to pay for the content/subscription.
For example, this process already exists and is already proven to work without anti-steering rules:
A. Search for 'Netflix' in browser
B. See links to various Netflix sites etc.
C. Pay for Netflix subscription after following link
D. Download Netflix app from App Store and use
There's no reason to change that.
Because the US is telling Russia not to invade Ukraine, or else. Apple is a US company.
That’s supposition as you don’t know what happens behind the scenes.
Sure, appeal is the right thing to do. No double standards. Only something fictionalized to criticize apple as I see it.
Putin needs to be aware that overreach will lead to Apple departing the country and denying Russian people the chance to own best-of-breed products and services anymore.
What is more complicated than spotting the developer name in small letters in the App Store, open a new app, safari, goto Google, input the developer or apps name, click a link to go to the site so on and so forth … There is a fare amount of over simplification in your steps … don’t understand the point of it.
Finally It just depends how you do it. Sometimes you just search on google, click a link to the App Store, download, create the account and subscribe in app. Other times you do it on devs site and than move to the app (its actually more steps). On the other hand you are forgetting the cases where you buy more content or upgrade … quite often it is done in app or at least is initiated there.
But I agree with you. So many millions spent in lawyers, tax payers money in judges, regulators, suing governments … for something that looks so trivial
Cheers.
Finally It just depends how you do it. Sometimes you just search on google, click a link to the App Store, download, create the account and subscribe in app. Other times you do it on devs site and than move to the app (its actually more steps). On the other hand you are forgetting the cases where you buy more content or upgrade … quite often it is done in app or at least is initiated there.
But I agree with you. So many millions spent in lawyers, tax payers money in judges, regulators, suing governments … for something that looks so trivial
Cheers.
Last edited:
Yes but not of only one. Also not only IP but material properties. Not to devalue Apple properties, but not to value theirs at the expense of devaluing others.
Say just as an example “Netflix”, one digital service between millions, its still “Netflix” property including the App, also their streams are either licensed by them or their property, so is all their streaming infrastructure and properties at the service of their customers. Finally there is the device property owned by the “Netflix” customer, inspite of having being built and sold by Apple. What we have in between is a licensed iOS by the customer and a development license granted to the developer. iOS, a marvel indeed, even a necessity in context, yet with neither it would be worth … ok a pint … and not to be confused with either … a grateful balance. The policy around the App Store seams to be confusing values empowered by the chear volume of iPhone sales outhere.
PS: You seam to think that Apple is not getting $$$$$$$$$$ for their $$$. I think they are and is well deserved. But you seam to be worried even now agreeing with the enforcement of Apple charges over products and services not owned, distributed or promoted by their services … ? Claiming that if this practice is cut off it’s a threat to their IP? Makes no sense … the other poster makes even less sense when equating such measure to a security threat to customers and suppliers.
Last edited:
Russia is actually really bad at drafting enforceable laws. Just as with the preloaded Russian apps law they will let Apple come up with some compromise that they will agree on that will totally run contrary to the written law and you will never hear anything about it again. All they want is some headline that states they got Apple to do something and that is the political win they are looking for.