Good summary from Nilay (of The Verge)
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 Wins Major Victory as Apple is Ordered to Comply With App Store Anti-Steering Injunction [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This closing, as pointed out by Federico, is phenomenal
This judge cut right through the Apple 🐴💩
This judge cut right through the Apple 🐴💩
Well, I shouldnt be too harsh on a modern education. At least kids know about fallacies and existence of internet trolls.
Economic systems work best in predictable environments. Government (or better said “judge with questionable economic, business or IT knowledge”) suddenly rushing to ruin existing and proven to work excellently Existing contracts is not quite the definition of Predictability.
Decision will be overturned by Supreme Court. Regrettably not in current decade most likely.
Edits not to be political.
Economic systems work best in predictable environments. Government (or better said “judge with questionable economic, business or IT knowledge”) suddenly rushing to ruin existing and proven to work excellently Existing contracts is not quite the definition of Predictability.
Decision will be overturned by Supreme Court. Regrettably not in current decade most likely.
Edits not to be political.
Last edited:
I’m not a fan of epic games, and I love Apple, but Apple brought this ruling on itself. Apple saw the battle coming years before any of these cases landed in court and before the EU imposed strict and often ridiculous regulations on Apple. Instead of attempting to self-regulate in a manner that could have mitigated their current legal woes, they made a calculated decision to wait for the court battles. Apple arrogantly thought they would prevail on all fronts. They haven’t.
Last edited:
Most of that will go straight into Epic’s pockets. Both companies, in this case, are petulant children.
As a developer this is great news. Our app falls into a category where in app purchases do not work and therefore we need a custom licensing solution. But because Apple's stubbornness they told us the best option is to not offer in app sign up and make users go to a website in order to facilitate transactions (which is a horrible user experience) instead of in app.
Hang on, I thought all judgements like this were because Europeans are jealous and want Apple’s money. How do we explain this coming from a US court?
I feel like two things can be true:
1. Apple charges more than they strictly need to for a service.
2. Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide services for free.
I don’t know where that line is, nor do I think everyone will agree with one or both premises.
To use an imperfect analogy, it would seem weird to me if a store with an open shelf spot was forced to allow me to place my wares on that shelf without me compensating them in some way. Especially if my product competed with other products the store was offering. Now, I’d *want* it to be free, and the store would *want* it to not be free, of course!
If there was a universe where Apple could be held in contempt for not allowing enough links or a low enough price, why wasn’t that set by the judge? Can someone explain that?
I know parenting is simpler, but I’d never tell my kids to “eat less candy” and then punish them for eating less, but not as little as I expected them to.
Anyone want to try and explain to me where my analogies break down?
1. Apple charges more than they strictly need to for a service.
2. Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide services for free.
I don’t know where that line is, nor do I think everyone will agree with one or both premises.
To use an imperfect analogy, it would seem weird to me if a store with an open shelf spot was forced to allow me to place my wares on that shelf without me compensating them in some way. Especially if my product competed with other products the store was offering. Now, I’d *want* it to be free, and the store would *want* it to not be free, of course!
If there was a universe where Apple could be held in contempt for not allowing enough links or a low enough price, why wasn’t that set by the judge? Can someone explain that?
I know parenting is simpler, but I’d never tell my kids to “eat less candy” and then punish them for eating less, but not as little as I expected them to.
Anyone want to try and explain to me where my analogies break down?
As I mentioned above, Epic offered its users a ~20% discount for direct payments when it surreptitiously implemented them in Fortnite on iOS.
Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. This is the end of the road.
It’s not an Apples to Apples comparison.
Worth noting that no company is your friend.
As opposed to whom? Apple? The company that requires you to have a credit card attached to an account in order to do family sharing? Yeah....
Verge siding with 9th circuit is kinda predictable.
You’re going after the judge. I wonder, do you do this for all judges, or only those whose rulings you don’t like?
I agree 100%
I just don't agree with that user only calling Tim Sweeney "GREEDY" when his store and company use the same tactics Apple & Tim Cook do.
Yeah, every large company is driven by greed.
Alex Roman, Apple VP of Finance, lied under oath here.
🫠
Some of the details here on the Apple side are really gross.
I really hope we can all look at Apple a bit more objectively and skeptically around here.
They are not a white knight
🫠
Some of the details here on the Apple side are really gross.
I really hope we can all look at Apple a bit more objectively and skeptically around here.
They are not a white knight
I have never seen that argument. I didn’t even think the company’s suing for this were even EU companies? I have read the argument that the EU has gone too far, into territory that may not be good for users or Apple.
It was a quote, my friend. Maybe she actually is an excellent Judge in some other field.
Regulating existing contracts from the Bench is a Bad idea.
Edit: If we think people shouldn’t be entering such contracts lets get a Law on that.
Convenience, if nothing else. I'm still annoyed every time that I can't purchase a Kindle book via a direct link from the iOS/iPadOS Kindle app. Hopefully that will change. It's one reason I started also using an Android tablet.
To be fair nobody cries like Apple about "fairness". The same Apple who tried to get out of paying Qualcomm royalties on the patents that allow the iPhone to actually transmit data. Ol' Timmy flat out lied that QCOM was charging them a (one time) fee of 5% on the price of the whole phone. He knew that wasn't true and that their rate was lower and had a cap so they were paying $5-8 per phone which they claimed was excessive. But hey- taking 20-30%, even when someone doesn't use your market place or billing service is totally fair.
At this point, I’m not sure why Tim Cook isn’t sitting behind bars.
- Apple Intelligence, which was securities fraud.
- Contempt of court for this court order.
- Apple Intelligence, which was securities fraud.
- Contempt of court for this court order.
Yeah, because parents these days are sure to accept the responsibility of their kids acts instead of suing Apple...oh wait
I wish. An underdog Apple would innovate more which means better products for us