Apple Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle

[DEMinSoCAL]

1) There are more than two companies that offer App Stores. 2) Yes, but if you want the benefits of selling to the customers at the Mall of America you have to deal with the rules at the Mall of America. 3) Web apps exist, free apps with off-site subscriptions exist. There are plenty of ways to reach Apple's customers.

Developers don't have a "right" to access to Apple's customers any more than I have a "right" to access the Mall of America's customers. If I want access to those customers, then I need to abide by the rules.


As someone who has lived in another country, the idea that it's harder to switch OSes than to move to another country is absolutely ridiculous. Next time you need a new phone, buy one from another manufacturer. Done.

It's also not like Apple hasn't been abundantly clear about being a closed ecosystem the entire time the iPhone has existed.

That doesn't make it legal. It just makes it years of abusing a system and getting away with it. It's 100% anti-competitive and Apple is finally having to change it's ways.

 

[rp2011]

My main issue is that we're not talking about monopoly or innovation. Apple created the modern smartphone, and did it as the underdog to the existing cellphone market at the time. Apple is the reason for the innovation; they created and bet the farm to bring it to market. Plus, there is CHOICE. Cheaper choice. With a far larger market share worldwide. A lot of people may even say a better choice. This and the EU seem to be about something else. PROTECTING a consumer who doesn't care to be protected. Apple consumers never asked or care to be "PROTECTED" by anyone other than Apple's walled Garden. And for developers who may not find it viable all of a sudden, there is Android, there for them with arms wide open.

I see this as opening up the Garden to riff-raff. Might as well get an Android device if this opens the floodgates to sideloading, likely far more malicious apps and malware. App developers started to care when they wanted a bigger cut. At the beginning, it was an entirely new platform where everyone wanted to be a part of.

I truly think Apple should be able to operate and protect its business how they think best. Apple is doing a good job with it, and its consumers are not complaining. These are new, made-up rules by clueless judges and politicians. It has nothing to do with the free market. As a matter of fact, Apple's continuous development of a product manufactured via such monumental economies of scale has made Android viable. Has made all the budget Android phones viable. Samsung can manufacture even more, the low-end models made possible from the trickle-down effect via paid-off R&D, tooling, and its existing manufacturing chain.

Apple has lifted all boats and manufacturing. There is a "cut your nose to spite your face" element ot all of this clueless, not well thought out, consumer "protection". All that's the truth, whether anybody wants to admit it or not.

 

[surferfb]

That's interesting though I believe too late -- Apple already tried to appeal that ruling back in 2021 and lost. Generally findings of fact aren't appealable and now the issue isn't whether the original ruling was correct but rather whether Apple complied with it. Apple is being penalized for not complying. Just like you can go to jail for not paying your taxes even if you thought the tax imposed was not fair.

Yep, I'm absolutely not a lawyer, so I have no idea how that plays into things. Apple's filing cites cases and rules that state an injunction that was filed erroneously in cases like this cannot be enforced, but obviously it won't be as simple as that.

It is an abuse of discretion to deny relief when a federal judgment based on state law conflicts with a state judgment on the same state-law claim, even when the federal judgment was affirmed in an earlier appeal. See Venoco, LLC v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., 2022 WL 1090947, at *2–3 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2022).

In the filing, Apple also makes a (what seems to me, as a layman, pretty strong) argument that they were complying with the judge's order, but obviously there isn't anyone in there rebutting their arguments, so no idea how strong that argument actually is.

 

[Stuwil]

Having now read Apple's lawyers' filing, with the large and important caveat that I am not a lawyer, and obviously the document is an argument designed to convince people that Apple is correct, it does seem as if the judge made a couple of important errors.

Most importantly, I did not realize that a California court ruled, and a California Appeals court upheld, that the exact same anti-steering provision that the Judge Rogers found violated California law did not violate California law. And Judge Rogers just ignored that fact and said it did. That seems to be a pretty big issue, since I would assume California courts, not federal ones, would be the authority on what does or does not violate California law.

Without a stay, these extraordinary intrusions into Apple’s business will cause grave irreparable harm. Depriving Apple of control over core features of the App Store is, standing alone, sufficient to warrant a stay," the company wrote.

Is that a joke?

I think it’s very silly to imply that an experienced individual in her field of work doesn’t know the law on Apple’s behalf
To imply she targeted them because they where mucking her about

 

[surferfb]

That doesn't make it legal. It just makes it years of abusing a system and getting away with it. It's 100% anti-competitive and Apple is finally having to change it's ways.

Actually, literally everything Apple has done with regards to this case has been declared legal, 90% by the same judge who issued the order Apple is appealing. The one thing she said wasn't legal (under California state law), a California court has ruled WAS legal under California state law, so the judge was wrong about that.

 

[surferfb]

Without a stay, these extraordinary intrusions into Apple’s business will cause grave irreparable harm. Depriving Apple of control over core features of the App Store is, standing alone, sufficient to warrant a stay," the company wrote.

Is that a joke?

I think it’s very silly to imply that an experienced individual in her field of work doesn’t know the law on Apple’s behalf
To imply she targeted them because they where mucking her about

It's also very silly to assume that an even very experienced individual can't make a mistake, or have a different interpretation of the law that other, higher courts will.

And I don't see anywhere where Apple implies she targeted them, just that she's wrong about on several things she used to make her judgement, most importantly, that Apple's conduct violated state law, which has since been proven to be incorrect - which seems to be a pretty big deal to me as a layman.

Again, I am sure Epic's lawyers will have an equally convincing argument as to why the arguments Apple makes are wrong. I've literally only read one side of the argument.

 

[Stuwil]

It's also very silly to assume that an even very experienced individual can't make a mistake, or have a different interpretation of the law that other, higher courts will.

And I don't see anywhere where Apple implies she targeted them, just that she's about on several things she used to make her judgement, most importantly, that Apple's conduct violated state law, which has since been proven to be incorrect - which seems to be a pretty big deal to me as a layman.

Again, I am sure Epic's lawyers will have an equally convincing argument as to why the arguments Apple makes are wrong. I've literally only read one side of the argument.

If you actually read it Apple spokes person implies that because they have made it as difficult as possible then they are implying she came down on them like a tonne of bricks
By adding things into the ruling

So bully is now crying that they are being bullied by a judge

 

[aidler]

Basically exactly the point I'm making and why I think Apple will be granted the emergency stay. It would certainly be unprecendented for a judge to be able to force Apple to give it's products and services away for free even as a punitive measure. I've never heard of any other company being legally obliged to do that.

Apple isn’t required to give away anything for free. The apps in question are free, and Apple doesn't charge anything for free apps.
The question is whether Apple should be able to charge a commission for additional services inside the apps for which it is not providing anything.
It's basically a price to use the App Store payment system, and Apple made its usage mandatory. The court ruling requires Apple to allow developers to use alternative payment systems outside of the App Store for additional in-app services.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In court documents filed Wednesday, Apple called the district court's order "extraordinary"

Extraordinary defiance and malicious (non) compliance with court orders deserve extraordinary punishment.

 

[surferfb]

Extraordinary defiance and malicious (non) compliance with court orders deserve extraordinary punishment.

I'd encourage you to read the filing if you have time - I'd be interested in hearing your take on it - particularly Apple's arguments about whether or not it was complying.

 

[rjp1]

When I read the title that they seek to pause this - at first I thought they had come to their senses, read the room and decided to just drop it. Nope, they are still not getting it.

 

[Graphate]

The current court system for deciding these cases is not fit for purpose with judgements and appeals dragging on for years.

There should be a panel of expert judges who decide these cases and issue final judgements with no appeals.

Well, it sounds like the idea you’re describing is arbitration. And there’s a reason you are oftentimes forced into agreeing to arbitration as a consumer or employee by large corporations. The reason is not fairness.

[…]

These cases should go straight to the highest court available, if that’s the Supreme Court then fine go straight there.

Great let’s abolish all trial courts and lower appellate courts! But… I propose that if the Supreme Court makes a mistake, we have another court above them to correct those mistakes, we can call it the Supreme Court of Appeals. And if that Supreme Court of Appeals happens to make another error, let’s have a final staging place on appeal for some cases that are unique or important, and we can call it the Super Supreme Court of Appeals.

I disagree with you. The law is very much black and white. That’s the whole point of having laws. Something is either legal or not.

Well, laws are generally supposed to have some flexibility to apply equitably, but not indiscriminately. If you’re exceeding the speed limit, that’s breaking the law, but what if you accelerated to avoid being rear-ended by someone behind you? Should the law apply indiscriminately to both parties, or should it be applied equitably? And that’s just speeding; now imagine it’s an action that causes death. There are a number of factors to consider if a crime was committed in the first place, let alone what the penalty should be.

In the civil realm, it’s even less black and white.

 

[bzgnyc2]

1) There are more than two companies that offer App Stores.

There are only two practical phone OS and one of them is Apple's. Accessing 3rd party apps for the iPhone requires use of Apple's app store.

I have no issue with the Mac App store charging this fee -- as long as Apple doesn't block installation of 3rd party applications outside the Mac App store.

2) Yes, but if you want the benefits of selling to the customers at the Mall of America you have to deal with the rules at the Mall of America.

Again the Mall of America analogy is bad for the reasons discussed previously.

3) Web apps exist, free apps with off-site subscriptions exist. There are plenty of ways to reach Apple's customers.

iPhone owners don't belong to Apple.

Developers don't have a "right" to access to Apple's customers any more than I have a "right" to access the Mall of America's customers.

Developers don't have a right to Apple's customer list or prominent placement in their store but just because I use an iPhone doesn't mean I belong to Apple.

Even with the Mall of America example, which doesn't generally apply, retailers at Mall of America can include any communications materials with their products they want and I as the customer can choose to go back to Mall of America or go to any other physical store or website listed on the communications material included in the product.

If I want access to those customers, then I need to abide by the rules.

If the rules are legal. Apple's rules forbidding certain communications with customers or including links to alternate payment methods were deemed not legal.

As someone who has lived in another country, the idea that it's harder to switch OSes than to move to another country is absolutely ridiculous.

And yet fewer people do -- in both directions.

Next time you need a new phone, buy one from another manufacturer. Done.

Yeah if I don't care about my data or apps and all the data within them. Which I could actually deal with if I wanted the distraction but 95% of people?

I guess "number portability" was a farce we didn't need. If you didn't like your carrier, just switch. Anyone who cares will just track down your new number. Done!

It's also not like Apple hasn't been abundantly clear about being a closed ecosystem the entire time the iPhone has existed.

In the beginning we were all going to use web apps and then the app store opened and even Jobs said "we didn't expect it to be this big". Originally it was designed to break even, not to be a significant source of income for Apple

Steve Jobs also said, "It will take until February (2008) to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once: provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."

At the time, Apple had shown commitment to an open platform on the Mac -- adopting and promoting open standards -- and one adopting the iPhone at that time could have reasonably expected the iPhone to be an open platform along the lines of the Mac and consistent with the above.

 

[jarman92]

"A federal court cannot force Apple to permanently give away free access to its products and services, including intellectual property," Apple's lawyers wrote in the motion.

Yeah this is a strong argument. The breadth of the relief provided is extraordinary, particularly in an order to enforce an injunction.

 

[zorinlynx]

Freaking hell Apple, you lost. Give it up already and work on competing fairly with other payment systems.

 

[bzgnyc2]

It's also very silly to assume that an even very experienced individual can't make a mistake, or have a different interpretation of the law that other, higher courts will.

And I don't see anywhere where Apple implies she targeted them, just that she's wrong about on several things she used to make her judgement, most importantly, that Apple's conduct violated state law, which has since been proven to be incorrect - which seems to be a pretty big deal to me as a layman.

Where was it proven that Apple's conduct did not violate state law? That judgement was entered into law and denied on appeal. It may or may not be correct but it wasn't proven incorrect.

Whether her response to Apple's compliance will survive appeal remains to be seen but either way it won't prove one way or the other whether Apple's original conduct violated state law.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

Because people love to whine and cry.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Freaking hell Apple, you lost. Give it up already and work on competing fairly with other payment systems.

Nope. Like I said. They'll keep fighting it until they get a competent judge.

 

[surferfb]

Where was it proven that Apple's conduct did not violate state law? That judgement was entered into law and denied on appeal. It may or may not be correct but it wasn't proven incorrect.

Whether her response to Apple's compliance will survive appeal remains to be seen but either way it won't prove one way or the other whether Apple's original conduct violated state law.

A California court adjudicated the exact same claim in another case and ruled in favor of Apple. Then a California Appeals court affirmed the first court's ruling, and the California Supreme Court denied review. So it's settled law in California that Apple's conduct did not violate the state law in question. The California judgement even referenced Judge Rogers and said it wasn't persuasive. See Page 20 of Apple's filing linked in the article.

The judgment for Apple in Beverage directly conflicts with the judgment against Apple here. The federal judgment rests on the district court’s determination that California courts would find Apple’s anti-steering provisions “unfair” under the UCL. In Beverage, the California courts adjudicated the exact same claim against Apple and reached the opposite conclusion, expressly rejecting the federal courts’ construction of state law. See id. at 756 n.6 (“We … do not find [the federal] decisions persuasive on the precise issue presented by this appeal.”).

 

[Graphate]

Nope. Like I said. They'll keep fighting it until they get a competent judge.

This judge is competent, competent judges can and do, make errors, all the time. That’s not to say an error or not was made. But this is precisely why the US judiciary has the appellate courts.

 

[bzgnyc2]

A California court adjudicated the exact same claim in another case and ruled in favor of Apple. Then a California Appeals court affirmed the first court's ruling, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Apple claims it was the exact same claim but I don't read it that way. I'll be curious to see how Epic responds and how the appeals court will address. In the Beverage case you mention, Beverage was an iPhone customer seeking to bring a class-action suit and the ruling was that plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under available legal regimes as a matter of law. Not clear to me that a case brought by customers of the iPhone is applicable to a case brought by developers for the iPhone.

So it's settled law in California that Apple's conduct did not violate the state law in question. The California judgement even referenced Judge Rogers and said it wasn't persuasive. See Page 20 of Apple's filing linked in the article.

I would not consider it settled law in CA. At best a claim by Apple that a ruling in another case is relevant to this case.

And the issue is now not the original finding of fact and subsequent remedies imposed by the judge but whether Apple complied with them and the appropriate penalties for not doing so. if Apple didn't want to comply with the 2021 ruling because of this 2024 ruling, it should have gone back to the judge to get relief from the 2021 remedy after the 2024 ruling. They can't just decide not to comply and justify retroactively from a possibly related ruling.

 

[surferfb]

Apple claims it was the exact same claim but I don't read it that way. I'll be curious to see how Epic responds and how the appeals court will address. In the Beverage case you mention, Beverage was an iPhone customer seeking to bring a class-action suit and the ruling was that plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under available legal regimes as a matter of law. Not clear to me that a case brought by customers of the iPhone is applicable to a case brought by developers for the iPhone.

I will be interested to see Epic's filing as well. It's my understanding the court found Epic to be a "consumer" of App Store services for purposes of the UCL, but I am not a lawyer and fully admit I haven't dug into Beverage any more than what is stated in Apple's filing.

I would not consider it settled law in CA. At best a claim by Apple that a ruling in another case is relevant to this case.

Again, not a lawyer, but California courts ruling it is allowed is a pretty big strike against a Federal court saying "California courts would find this isn't allowed. Of course I am assuming Apple's lawyers are framing it correctly (which might be a big assumption given some of the allegations in this case).

And the issue is now not the original finding of fact and subsequent remedies imposed by the judge but whether Apple complied with them and the appropriate penalties for not doing so. if Apple didn't want to comply with the 2021 ruling because of this 2024 ruling, it should have gone back to the judge to get relief from the 2021 remedy after the 2024 ruling.

They did, and apparently the judge ignored it, again if Apple's filing is to be believed (emphasis mine, citations omitted):

The district court did not even address the conflict between the judgments, instead noting that Beverage did not “change” California law. But ironically, that proves Apple’s point: The anti-steering rule has never been “unfair” under the UCL, as Apple has maintained since day one; and the California courts have now rendered a final judgment in favor of Apple that the anti-steering rule is not unfair. [...] In our system of dual sovereignty, the state courts’ judgment on the same state-law claim controls. Apple is thus likely to succeed in establishing that the two requirements challenged here cannot be imposed as a matter of federal law.

They can't just decide not to comply and justify retroactively from a possibly related ruling.

Agree 100%. I encourage you to read the whole thing though. Apple makes what seems to me a pretty good argument that it was complying. Obviously, as you point out, it's just one side of the argument though.

 

[LinkRS]

Honest question here, outside of your (empirical you) moral objection that a IAP fee isn't fair to the developer, how does this effect the consumer? I go into an iOS app, and it shows me the cost, I click the button and that is what it costs me, there is no tacked on fee, it isn't like how sales tax is calculated in the US, it costs that. If the developer wants to make more money, they can just set their iOS App Store price higher, nothing prevents that.

I thought (and may be mistaken) that the ruling only prevented Apple from disallowing apps providing links and information about alternative payment options. However, why would I as a customer choose one over the other? Apple Pay (my go to) is reliable, keeps protected info on-device, and I trust it. In order for me as a consumer to consider a different one, it would need to have some sort of incentive. The prevailing idea being insinuated is that the alternative payment options offer the product for less. However, again as a consumer, if it isn't a significant difference, I still might choose Apple Pay anyway, due to trust.

As a developer, I have only dabbled in free apps, and have never attempted to monetize them. However,, I have never thought negatively of the Apple Payment fee, as they are doing all of the heavy lifting. To me, even at 30%, that is less than it would cost me to run my own store, advertise, and curate customer base. The only developers that *should* be complaining are those that are published on multiple platforms, and make more revenue from the other non-Apple platforms to compare with iOS. You could also argue that if the fee they paid Apple has changed over the years, they would have a leg to stand on as well. Otherwise, it has been this way from the start, they are not losing anything despite the Apple fee?

It seems to me that this is more of a moral argument based on opinion, vices an actual revenue argument? I would love to be enlightened if I have any of this wrong?

 

[delsoul]

Nothing says fascism like forcing a company to let others take advantage of what they built. If you’re doing well, we’re going to make sure you let someone else ride your coattails. No exceptions. Epic is so pathetic. Maybe Apple should sue and force Epic to show big, huge Apple advertisements in all of its games.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Nothing says fascism like forcing a company to let others take advantage of what they built. If you’re doing well, we’re going to make sure you let someone else ride your coattails. No exceptions. Epic is so pathetic. Maybe Apple should sue and force Epic to show big, huge Apple advertisements in all of its games.

Fascism?
I do not think it means what you think it means