You're kidding yourself if you think any company Apple's size doesn't have an army of lawyers.
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 Faces Developer Lawsuit After Defying App Store Injunction
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe the problem is…. That’s where the money is… because they violated a court order? Imagine that!
Appeals are such a joke. Delay delay delay, to the point you already made billions.
And now the never going to be launched CarPlay 2.0 as well.
Hey, you want to be like Android & Windows, and download content with no idea how well it's coded, or what malware may be embedded in it, go right ahead. Apple isn't ripping anyone off. Apple is protecting its customers by testing the apps on the Apple Store, and it's only reasonable that the developers pay a fee for that assurance, since it costs Apple money to do that testing. But no one seems to understand that in this forum. Probably because most haven't experienced what untested code can do to your computer and your network. Or your bank account/credit, thanks to getting apps through the Apple Store. You want to side-load, feel free. I'll pass.
It's not a real case. The Apple Store provides testing for developers, and assures Apple users that products they buy on the Apple Store are safe from malware, exploits and just plain old bad coding. It costs Apple money to perform that function, and they charge for it. But if you want to side-load untested software, it's your business. And your problem when it steals your debit card information and drains your bank account. Or kills your drive.You know, these bottom-feeders have at least a real case and are not sueing someone else for using never-seen-before "round corners"
The problem is that the Apple store protects you from bad code, malware, viruses and exploits. It costs Apple money to do that, and they charge developers a fee for that testing. That's just good business. So go ahead and use one of those web-based bypasses to get your apps. Enjoy your empty checking account, while you get bombarded by ads from Russian porn sites.
Anyone who is defending Apple on this thread:
I strongly urge you to listen to the latest Upgrade podcast, where they discuss this issue.
Then come back here and tell us if you still think that way.
Jason Snell has been reporting on Apple - and been a ‘critical friend’ of them since the early 90s - and what he doesn’t know about Apple probably isn’t worth knowing.
Needless to say, he’s pretty scathing about how they’ve behaved in this case and presents a very cogent takedown of them with his co-host.
I strongly urge you to listen to the latest Upgrade podcast, where they discuss this issue.
Then come back here and tell us if you still think that way.
Jason Snell has been reporting on Apple - and been a ‘critical friend’ of them since the early 90s - and what he doesn’t know about Apple probably isn’t worth knowing.
Needless to say, he’s pretty scathing about how they’ve behaved in this case and presents a very cogent takedown of them with his co-host.
Apple has the win and basically snatches defeat from victory. They just had to play by the rules and not play the victim. They won! But no, let's ignore Phil, who apparently is the only voice of reason inside the executive suite.
Its widely and well documented how poorly Apple protects people. So clearly they don't need that much money.
What?! Who said that? What nonsense. However, you can find plenty of proof for what I'm saying about misrepresenting population for fun and international profit.
I thought only certain types of apps could do that? And it’s 100% determined by Apple who can/cannot? Didn’t the Hey email app get into trouble because they submitted an app that didn’t do anything without an account/subscription and all they presented in the app was a log-in screen? If I remember correctly they had to build minimum functionality into the app without requiring an account with them in order to get the app on the App Store.
Correct, should be interesting to see how an edge case like that plays out with this new ruling.
What is the 30% based on? Has Apple ever provided a detailed account of what makes up the 30% and why it’s reasonable? Maybe 30% made sense in 2008 when the App Store first launched. Why does it still make sense 17 years later?I wouldn’t say ungrateful. They don’t have anything to be grateful for. They don’t know about the days when cellular carriers would take a 90% cut of developer sales for smart phones. I WOULD say killing the golden goose, though.
At some point I think the courts will side with developers when it comes to the arbitrary nature of Apple’s rules. It’s OK for Netflix, Spotify and Kindle to be non-functional if you’re not logged in but not an indie email app? Where is the logic? I guess Apple would argue the big dogs get preferential treatment all the time across all kinds of industries so the App Store shouldn’t be treated differently?
Cook testified, in a US House Antitrust Subcommittee meeting, that "all developers are treated equally"...but like these documents show, and what was already known and and obvious, is that what is said in public and what is said internally are often completely different.
The uneven application of their own rules is quite damning. Or heaven forbid you somehow piss off Apple and your app is stuck in approval limbo. I think we haven't seen the last of people taking Apple to task. But I think their size and unlimited money shields them from would-be plantiffs which is a crime
I agree but my guess is Apple would argue some apps are more valuable to the platform and that’s why they got/get special treatment.
but should apple have to approve each movie or tv show on Netflix? as well having rules saying to add an movie / tv show you must update the app?
Should bestbuy get 30% of your cable TV bill? 30% of your nexflix sub cost from an TV?
Should Dell get 30% of your WOW sub? 30% of your adobe CC sub?
For games apps it's not like apple is makeing the content or hosting. Same thing with Netflix. Now if for that 30% apple covered all hosting then 30% can be a very good deal.
Should bestbuy get 30% of your cable TV bill? 30% of your nexflix sub cost from an TV?
Should Dell get 30% of your WOW sub? 30% of your adobe CC sub?
For games apps it's not like apple is makeing the content or hosting. Same thing with Netflix. Now if for that 30% apple covered all hosting then 30% can be a very good deal.
Apple is appealing. Wonder if this makes the developer suit premature.
Apple is being sued by developers unhappy with the company's "willful violation" of the anti-steering injunction the court ordered as part of its legal battle with Epic Games. A company called Pure Sweat Basketball has teamed up with law firm Hagens Berman to file a class-action lawsuit against Apple in an attempt to win some money for developers.
The lawsuit focuses on the recent Apple vs. Epic Games decision where Apple was found to be in contempt of court. Back in 2021, Apple was ordered to relax its anti-steering rules that prevent developers from directing customers to purchase options outside of the App Store. Because of appeals, Apple didn't have to comply until January 17, 2024, but when it did, Apple did so in a way that the court said was anticompetitive.
Apple forced developers to pay between 12 and 27 percent in commission when customers made a purchase through an app using an external payment link, which was an issue because developers also had to pay payment processors. Apple also had strict rules allowing only a single link and it used scare screens to try to prevent customers from making purchases outside of the App Store.
Apple last week was forced to change its U.S. App Store policies to support external payment links in apps with no restrictions, a decision that Apple is appealing, but the class action lawsuit argues that developers should be compensated for the trouble. It claims that Apple's moves to circumvent the injunction cost developers "billions of dollars" in revenue.
Due to Apple's anti-steering implementation, only 34 developers of 136,000 took advantage of the external payment link option before the terms were changed last week, and the lawsuit is seeking restitution for all U.S. developers who offered in-app purchases for non-zero prices between January 17, 2024 and when Apple fully complied with the original injunction.
Apple should be forced to disgorge all of its "ill-gotten gains," according to the lawsuit. The law firm that's handling the case, Hagens Berman, previously secured a $100 million settlement for developers over Apple's App Store fees.
Article Link: Apple Faces Developer Lawsuit After Defying App Store Injunction
My bank CEO says all customers are treated equally. Yet larger customers get special treatment such as reduced interest rates. Is the CEO lying?