I am curious about that too. I am pretty sure Sweeney's thick glasses would shatter in pieces the moment he makes a public apology so I am guessing he would like to keep his glasses unsheathed.
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.
Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple "lost", why Epic is planning to appeal the ruling? Apple, on the other hand, said is pleased with the outcome.
Epic Games vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods
A decision was reached today in the high-profile Epic Games v. Apple trial, with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruling that Apple's...www.macrumors.com
Think again, Apple lost this time.
Epic Games vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods
A decision was reached today in the high-profile Epic Games v. Apple trial, with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruling that Apple's...
Think again, Apple lost this time.
See Sweeney's Tweet. Does this sound like a guy who just won to you?
Epic Games to appeal decision in App Store lawsuit case, as Apple calls it a 'huge win' - 9to5Mac
Epic Games has announced that it plans to appeal the judge’s decision from today’s Epic v. Apple case. Although today’s...
9to5mac.com
Yeah, sure. That's why Epic was ordered to pay damages to Apple equivalent to 30% of the $12 million Epic collected from August to October 2020 and 30% of whatever Epic has collected since October 2020.
That's a pretty strange world you are living in... the "winner" has to pay damages to the loser?! 🤣
Mark
Like I said to you before. Good luck with that. The US judge just ruled today Apple is NOT a monopoly. No good comeback for you after this....
Careful... the judge opted not to rule on whether Apple is not a monopoly.
There's a difference.
So we still don't know if Apple is a monopoly or not.
Exactly. 😂. Not to mention Epic plans to appeal the ruling while Apple calls it a win.
There are multiple facets to this ruling. The take home point (for the consumer, anyway) is that Apple has to allow third party transactions within apps without requiring to take a 30% cut. If I am not mistaken (and maybe I am), that disagreement is what started the entire lawsuit. Obviously it will remain to be seen if they (devs) pass the savings onto the consumer (my guess is that will be infrequent).
Last edited:
True and that’s because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Sort of like innocent until proven guilty. Until Epic can actually prove Apple is a monopoly, the court will only consider it as “not impossible but not yet proven”.Careful... the judge opted not to rule on whether Apple is not a monopoly.
There's a difference.
So we still don't know if Apple is a monopoly or not.
See official quote: “The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”
Yes, absolutely right. Cases like this rarely end solely in favor of one side only. This outcome was totally expected but given the circumstances this is a big loss for Epic and a general win for Apple.
I don’t expect any savings to be passed on to consumer at all. This was about increasing revenue, not reducing cost.
I think it's potentially a big win for devs overall. Even if they don't pass the savings onto the consumer, that's big money they are no longer forced to leave on the table.
I know that Netflix, as an example, does/did offer a normal rate if you logged in and paid from their website and an adjusted (about 30% higher) rate if you paid via in app purchases. I don't know that I have ever really done an in app purchase, so I cannot really speak further as to whether this is common or not.
Lol, the wall has fallen.
US judge rules Apple can't block in-app purchasing
In a mixed verdict in the Epic-Apple case, the judge also ruled that Apple is not a monopolist: "Success is not illegal."
www.zdnet.com
Lame? Yea ok. Whatever. Try explaining to yourself why Epic is planning to appeal the decision while Apple is pleased. Have you seen Sweeney’s tweets? He is having a meltdown.
But IRL there are (usually) multiple supermarkets → so even though you can't get that milk at the market you mentioned, there's another one 10 minutes away that sells it.
But Apple has made it so that there's only one place users can get
I'm in favor of there only being the one
Try harder finding blogs with more negative tone. At the end of the day, Epic is the one appealing. Not Apple.Lol, the wall has fallen.
US judge rules Apple can't block in-app purchasing
In a mixed verdict in the Epic-Apple case, the judge also ruled that Apple is not a monopolist: "Success is not illegal."
Your position would be correct if app developers had only one place to distribute their apps. Apple is neither legally or morally responsible for making its App Store interoperable. I will give you a better analogy: Is Mercedes obligated to sell BMWs in their dealers? Or better yet, can BMW scream “anticompetitive” just because Mercedes would not sell their cars with BMW engines? The answer is no.
As for the milk example. Yes, you can buy the milk from another market but no market is legally responsible for dedicating shelf space on behalf of the other markets. Each market is open for the milk supplier but at no circumstances the law requires the markets to make their own business interoperable.
Last edited:
“Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction “permanently” restraining Apple from prohibiting developers from including external links directing customers to options to make purchases outside of the in-app payment system.”
I think with this, it changed a lot of things. Epic wants to go further, it’s up to them. They may want to continue to give Apple pressure so that they capitulate.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
thehill.com
Careful... the judge opted not to rule on whether Apple is not a monopoly.
There's a difference.
So we still don't know if Apple is a monopoly or not.
The judgement says several times there isn't evidence for Apple being a monopoly.
Unless you have been found by a court* to have monopoly powers, you aren't a monopoly.
*Or given monopoly power by Congress or the state
Nice cherry picking. Yes, we know and Apple is fine that. Epic is not.“Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction “permanently” restraining Apple from prohibiting developers from including external links directing customers to options to make purchases outside of the in-app payment system.”
I think with this, it changed a lot of things. Epic wants to go further, it’s up to them. They may want to continue to give Apple pressure so that they capitulate.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
Is Epic not fine with it? I assumed they ARE, and are simply not fine with the rest of the ruling.
You clearly have a “side”. I just want to regulate and protect the consumers. Once Apple vs Epic is finished, I would gladly go onto Epic vs. USA. I don’t care about either companies. I’m with the market and the consumers.
And Apple is still entitled to it's commissions even though a sale may occur elsewhere.“Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction “permanently” restraining Apple from prohibiting developers from including external links directing customers to options to make purchases outside of the in-app payment system.”
I think with this, it changed a lot of things. Epic wants to go further, it’s up to them. They may want to continue to give Apple pressure so that they capitulate.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
Epic’s main goal wasn’t the alternate payment method. This was their least of their wishes. Apple already expected this ruling and already were switching gears before the ruling.
Weren’t you the one screaming Apple is a monopoly for the last two days here?