Judge Lets Apple Further Delay Implementing App Store Rule Changes From Ongoing Epic Dispute

[MacRumors]

Apple does not yet have to implement changes to its "anti-steering" App Store rules that would allow developers to direct customers to purchase options outside the App Store.

As noted by The Verge, Apple was today granted a motion that prevents it from having to make App Store changes for 90 days, giving the company time to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Apple and Epic Games have been battling in court over Apple's App Store rules since 2020, and in 2021, the judge overseeing the case largely sided with Apple. She decided that Apple was not violating antitrust law with its App Store rules requiring developers to use the in-app purchase system, but part of the ruling did require Apple to update its "anti-steering" rules.

Apple has been ordered to implement App Store changes that will allow developers to use metadata, buttons, links, and other calls to action to direct customers to purchasing mechanisms outside of the App Store, paving the way for developers to implement alternate payment methods.

While an appeal was ongoing, Apple did not have to implement those changes, but the appeal took place in April 2023. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original ruling and again sided with Apple over Epic, but the appeals court also kept the App Store rule change mandate in place.

Apple claims that the App Store changes will "upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the ‌‌‌‌App Store‌‌‌‌," resulting in irreparable harm to Apple and consumers. Apple has also said that it needs time to figure out the "complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues" that the update would cause.

In April, Apple said that while it supported the court's ruling, it disagreed with the App Store changes and was "considering further review." Apple will now request that the Supreme Court hear the case.

At the current time, Apple has 90 days to make a filing with the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, Apple will not need to make App Store changes until the court makes a final ruling. If the Supreme Court does not decide to hear the case, Apple will need to make the changes.

Article Link: Judge Lets Apple Further Delay Implementing App Store Rule Changes From Ongoing Epic Dispute

 

[erikkfi]

I wonder if Harlan Crow owns Apple stock.

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

Apple's App Store. Apple's own rules.

Apple App Store belongs to Apple. It belongs to Apple; thus, it needs to be played with its own rules. If these companies don't like it. Why not come up with their own App Store?

 

[tripsync]

Good. They shouldn't need to anyways.

Apple deserves the cut. Don't like it? Build your own phone. Don't want to spend billions in R&D like Apple did? Build for the Play Store. Don't like Google's Play Store? Build your own Android store. Don't like Android? Build for the web.

Plenty of options but self entitled developers think they get to control Apple's App Store. SMH.

 

[Solomani]

I wonder if Harlan Crow owns Apple stock.

Apple can afford to buy Clarence Thomas another yacht!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[AtomicDusk]

I mean I don't ask Playstation or Xbox to let me buy stuff elsewhere... It'll be interesting to see the supreme court fight, if it gets there

 

[LightProtector]

Apple's App Store. Apple's own rules.

Apple App Store belongs to Apple. It belongs to Apple; thus, it needs to be played with its own rules. If these companies don't like it. Why not come up with their own App Store?

That’s the problem. They aren’t allowing any other stores at the moment.

 

[rafark]

Here we go again

 

[Shirasaki]

So, this basically is the death of any hope for alternative App Store in iOS. Yes, I know the wording says “delayed”, but once it happens, it can happen again, again and Again. There’s not even a timeline, and court process like this can easily drag on for years.
Apple is beyond “too big to fail” at this point.

 

[Premium1]

Apple's App Store. Apple's own rules.

Apple App Store belongs to Apple. It belongs to Apple; thus, it needs to be played with its own rules. If these companies don't like it. Why not come up with their own App Store?

That is the whole issue. Epic wanted to do their own thing but apple still is trying to control everything. Apple always likes to cry about "security" yet MacOS is fine with allowing downloads/sideloading from 3rd party locations.

 

[Wildkraut]

Glad that I’m in the EU…
It’s coming! 🤣

 

[Premium1]

So, this basically is the death of any hope for alternative App Store in iOS. Yes, I know the wording says “delayed”, but once it happens, it can happen again, again and Again. There’s not even a timeline, and court process like this can easily drag on for years.
Apple is beyond “too big to fail” at this point.

Until the EU makes regulations (like they have and apple has to follow) that says about allowing 3rd party app stores. Apple may be "too big to fail" in the US, but outside of the US this is not the case.

 

[Shirasaki]

Until the EU makes regulations (like they have and apple has to follow) that says about allowing 3rd party app stores. Apple may be "too big to fail" in the US, but outside of the US this is not the case.

Isn’t Apple just buying out EU judges as well using their absurd level of profit? I don’t see a problem here.
Or, Apple can just pull out EU market completely, but that’s unlikely to happen.

 

[phenste]

oh my god…the fact that this is seriously going up to the Supreme Court 😂 this whole thing has been an absolute spectacle to watch, regardless of actual opinions on what the outcome should be

 

[oofio2461]

This is what I dislike about iPhone, locked down eco system that you can't fully change to your liking, that's why a have a Rooted LineageOS Phone that I use often, and I don't get viruses from it. (shocker!)

 

[Contact_Feanor]

Isn’t Apple just buying out EU judges as well using their absurd level of profit? I don’t see a problem here.
Or, Apple can just pull out EU market completely, but that’s unlikely to happen

I dont know what banana republic you’re from, but in the EU you don’t just buy out judges. That judge wouldn’t be judge much longer and the one doing the bribing would go to jail.

 

[Premium1]

Isn’t Apple just buying out EU judges as well using their absurd level of profit? I don’t see a problem here.
Or, Apple can just pull out EU market completely, but that’s unlikely to happen.

LOL this isn't the US. If that was the case the EU wouldn't keep making new rules Apple (and others) has to follow (like ability to remove batteries, USB-C, etc).

 

[Shirasaki]

I dont know what banana republic you’re from, but in the EU you don’t just buy out judges. That judge wouldn’t be judge much longer and the one doing the bribing would go to jail.

Maybe EU law prevents such practices in the public eye, but you never know any deal going on behind the scenes. Besides, there would need to be tons of people with strong integrity in the EU legal system to make bribing not happening, and last time I check, people still loves fat paycheck.

 

[Shirasaki]

LOL this isn't the US. If that was the case the EU wouldn't keep making new rules Apple (and others) has to follow (like ability to remove batteries, USB-C, etc).

Let’s hope it is the case, and Apple is willing to adapt EU ruling to US market.

 

[Scipster]

Doesn't the Supreme Court have more pressing issues, like cases that involve First or Fourteenth amendment rights?

Apple should just ask an appeals court to overturn the judge's ruling and be done with it. Problem solved!

 

[MallardDuck]

We all know there's a walled garden. Don't like it? Run android. No one is forcing a developer to sell their product through the app store (just like no one forces a business to sell through wal-mart, target, or amazon).

I detest microtransaction/loot box/gambling/pay to win games, and really don't like software subscriptions either. Does that mean I have a right to a perpetual license? Nope. My only recourse is to not play them (which I do for microtransactions), or suck it up (which I do for most software subscriptions).


If they lose, and are going to have to allow other payment systems, Apple will have to build a new way to monetize the app store. That could include charging for reviews and vetting, paid placement in search results, fees for xcode licenses, etc. That's a complex issue to get right for apps from 10 users to 10 million, but I bet they've already got an internal team working on an 'if we lose' strategy. Don't think for a minute that prices will be cut or Apple's revenue will drop.

 

[atomic.flip]

Apple's App Store. Apple's own rules.

Apple App Store belongs to Apple. It belongs to Apple; thus, it needs to be played with its own rules. If these companies don't like it. Why not come up with their own App Store?

The app ecosystem is what brings value to the iPhones and iPads. How many apps does Apple actually build themselves???

Apple have charged developers for the priviledge of access to beta SDKs for years and they provide little to no actual support for them on a case by case basis.

What about the Trillions in development costs spent investing in iOS as a platform that all combined developers have spent? This cost Apple nothing. They are the richest company in the world and they have the audacity to insist that any and all transactions must go through their paywall????

No you don’t get to do that without competition and guess what the court system is part of the free market.

The courts will decide on the matter and after a Supreme Court hearing it will be a done deal. Until Apple discovers yet another way to squeeze a dollar out of developers. LOL

 

[MallardDuck]

Let’s hope it is the case, and Apple is willing to adapt EU ruling to US market.

If they make an actual removable battery, it'd increase weight and make phones more susceptible to damage, which I wouldn't want.

I suspect they'll get around the ruling by simply not using glue to hold batteries in place, and selling the parts and tools. But if you break it, or use a third party battery, no warranty coverage. I'm ok with that (I'd never put a cut-rate battery into a $1200 phone and risk frying it).

Eventually some company is going to tell the EU (or California) to pound sand on these micromanagement rules.

 

[MallardDuck]

Apple have charged developers for the priviledge of access to beta SDKs for years and they provide little to no actual support for them on a case by case basis.

Apple charges $99/year for developer access. That's trivial.

 

[Naraxus]

Of course. Apple's going to drag their heels kicking & screaming like the two year old they act like.

They're only delaying the inevitable. Apple's going to have alternate app stores and payments whether they want it or not.