Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,805
31,296


Following a virtual hearing earlier today, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has denied Apple's request to delay the implementation of a permanent injunction that will require Apple to make significant App Store changes.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

As part of the judgement in the Apple v. Epic lawsuit, Judge Gonzalez Rogers is requiring Apple to allow developers to add in-app links to outside websites, paving the way for alternate payment options that do not require developers to use the in-app purchase system.

In the original ruling, Apple was given 90 days to implement the changes. Apple in October filed a request asking for more time, and the Cupertino company ultimately wanted to wait to implement any new App Store features until all appeals in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit have concluded.

Apple's request was denied and judge is not providing Apple with any additional time to add the requested App Store functionality, so the changes will need to be made by December 9. Based on the wording of the initial ruling, Apple will be prohibited from restricting developers from including "in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms."

Judge Gonzalez Rogers' said that Apple wanted "an open-ended stay with no requirement that it make an effort to comply," and that there are "multiple avenues" for Apple to comply with the injunction while protecting users.
The Court can envision numerous avenues for Apple to comply with the injunction and yet take steps to protect users, to the extent that Apple genuinely believes that external links would create issues. The Court is not convinced, but nor is it here to micromanage. Consumers are quite used to linking from an app to a web browser. Other than, perhaps, needing time to establish Guidelines, Apple has provided no credible reason for the Court to believe that the injunction would cause the professed devastation. Links can be tested by App Review. Users can open browsers and retype links to the same effect; it is merely inconvenient, which then, only works to the advantage of Apple.
Gonzalez Rogers also said that app developers should be able to choose to use the in-app purchase system or another system. "Consumer information, transparency, and consumer choice is in the interest of the public," she wrote.

Apple attempted to argue that making changes to the App Store rules could "upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the ‌App Store‌," resulting in irreparable harm to Apple and consumers, but that argument was not successful. Apple was also not successful in its argument that it needed more time to work through "the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues" that the required change would cause.

Apple told The Verge that it will appeal to the Ninth Circuit for a stay after being denied by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. "Apple believes no additional business changes should be required to take effect until all appeals in this case are resolved. We intend to ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay based on these circumstances," the spokesperson said.

Along with the request to stay the injunction, Apple in October filed an appeal against the ruling that is requiring it to change the App Store rules, but that appeal may not be able to play out before the December 9 deadline.

Article Link: Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
 
Last edited:

dave420

macrumors 65816
Jun 15, 2010
1,426
276
On this site people seem happy when rulings go against Apple.

Personally I am happy to have Apple handle payments for apps. I don’t want to have to turn over my credit card information to 20 different apps and be worried about data breaches all the time. Also I trust Apple more to refund me for issues than random developers.
 

Chrjy

macrumors 65816
May 19, 2010
1,097
2,110
UK
I'm not sure how I feel about all this. A part of me agrees but I don't like it when a company like Epic try and state that they are looking out for users when it's blatantly obvious they are only interested in their own bank balance.

Also, if I started something successful through hard work and innovation but was then told 'No, you can't do it that way, you must do it like this' then I'd probably be pretty fed up. I appreciate competition and all that but to be told you have to change something you created would be very frustrating.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,144
6,909
On this site people seem happy when rulings go against Apple.

Personally I am happy to have Apple handle payments for apps. I don’t want to have to turn over my credit card information to 20 different apps and be worried about data breaches all the time. Also I trust Apple more to refund me for issues than random developers.
You can still use Apple's payment system. All this does is allow devs to give you another option.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
”With respect to the alleged need for clarification because, anecdotally, some developers may not understand the scope of the injunction, the parties themselves have not indicated any confusion. The Developer Agreement prohibits third party in-app purchasing systems other than Apple’s IAP. The Court did not enjoin that provision but rather enjoined the prohibition to communicate external alternatives and to allow links to those external sites.”

In other words, Apple does NOT have to allow in-app purchasing mechanisms - what Epic tried to do is NOT what the court says Apple has to allow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Meñito

macrumors member
Jul 8, 2015
55
65
On this site people seem happy when rulings go against Apple.

Personally I am happy to have Apple handle payments for apps. I don’t want to have to turn over my credit card information to 20 different apps and be worried about data breaches all the time. Also I trust Apple more to refund me for issues than random developers.
You are right, but also the user has the right to choose the opposite and Apple is preventing and imposing at the same time its commissions, that turn out to be excessive.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
Wait! Did I miss it? What was the outcome?

Apple has to allow third party developers to communicate that they can get better prices outside the App Store, and has to allow links to websites where you can get those prices. All the rest of the relief Epic asked for was denied.

This means Epic is not allowed to do what it tried to do (have in app purchasing go to its own payment processing), isn’t allowed to be an App Store itself, etc.

It’s also not clear, but there are reasons to believe, that the judge would allow apple to demand a percentage of any out-of-IAP purchases - apple could accomplish this by amending the developer agreement, adding an audit provision, etc.
 

Sith_lord

macrumors newbie
Aug 13, 2020
12
63
I feel like people like to be closed minded when it comes to Apple and what Apple thinks is right. Remember this is nothing different then what you do on your Mac on the web. Paying for Amazon purchases, Netflix, Spotify, buying/ downloading apps on the web, paying bills online etc. This is literally the same thing. It’s like asking Apple to only allow the installation and payments of Apps on Macs exclusively through the App Store. I would switch off Mac in heart beat off Apple ever did that.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
I feel like people like to be closed minded when it comes to Apple and what Apple thinks is right. Remember this is nothing different then what you do on your Mac on the web. Paying for Amazon purchases, Netflix, Spotify, buying/ downloading apps on the web, paying bills online etc. This is literally the same thing. It’s like asking Apple to only allow the installation and payments of Apps on Macs exclusively through the App Store. I would switch off Mac in heart beat off Apple ever did that.

yes, that’s why ios is not macos. Toasters aren’t ovens, mopeds aren’t motorcycles, etc. Things are allowed to be different from each other.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
So does this mean I'll finally be able to click a link in the kindle app to take me directly to the book I want to buy, and be able to buy it? Because really that's all I want.

And maybe a way to sign up for Spotify without giving Apple a cut would be nice too.

It seems like you’ll be able to do that sort of thing. However, Apple will likely still get a cut.
 

Chrjy

macrumors 65816
May 19, 2010
1,097
2,110
UK
I feel like people like to be closed minded when it comes to Apple and what Apple thinks is right. Remember this is nothing different then what you do on your Mac on the web. Paying for Amazon purchases, Netflix, Spotify, buying/ downloading apps on the web, paying bills online etc. This is literally the same thing. It’s like asking Apple to only allow the installation and payments of Apps on Macs exclusively through the App Store. I would switch off Mac in heart beat off Apple ever did that.
But it's not exactly the same is it. You can still make all those purchases from your iPhone but it's in relation to the App Store itself not the entire marketplace. You can't use that as a comparison.
 

Realityck

macrumors G4
Nov 9, 2015
10,349
15,584
Silicon Valley, CA
I suspect that Apple already have plans that would implement the changes ordered immediately, but are still trying to get a stay from the courts.

From verge
“This will be the first time Apple has ever allowed live links in an app for digital content. It’s going to take months to figure out the engineering, economic, business, and other issues,” said Apple attorney Mark Perry. “It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers, to protect Apple. And they have to be written into guidelines that can be explained and enforced and applied.”
Why is it exceedingly difficult?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.