Apple are not stifling innovation or halting progress though. Apple have no control over any market to be able to do that.

Apple Safari browser might become the new Internet Explorer
WebKit engine is well behind the competition
Apple are not stifling innovation or halting progress though. Apple have no control over any market to be able to do that.
Apparently we should all still be beholden to Ma Bell, because the government had no business breaking it up.Because capitalism doesn’t work on its own. In fact it does not work at all. Just look at the work. Maybe you will also see that you have no clue what communism is.
A judge is probably not going to force Apple to allow developers to bypass parental controls. So, "just hyperlinks" is not going to be enough.They don't need to code anything. They just need to allow hyperlinks
It will be interesting (based on your comment) to see if current customers actually do move away from Apple's payment system to any of the other potential options. Any discussion in the filings allowing the dev options to offer a lower price "outside" of the apple payment system? (ie: pay XYZ directly and the cost is $5..if you pay via Apple, it's $7.99)You can still use Apple's payment system. All this does is allow devs to give you another option.
No no... not that at all. Those two abused their monopoly powers in one market by trying to gain monopoly in another. You can have a huge company, even a monopoly, so long as that monopoly power is not abused. When you get huge, you do have to play by a different set of rules, however. That's how the monopoly law works.Kinda like how a judge can fine Microsoft $1M a day for giving away internet explorer for free. Not to mention the government once broke up AT&T when they got too large. Read up your history and you'll see how this free country is run.
More like $7.99 via apple and $7.50 directly to developer. If the developer lowers the iap by $3 it means the value of the iap was overpriced to begin with.It will be interesting (based on your comment) to see if current customers actually do move away from Apple's payment system to any of the other potential options. Any discussion in the filings allowing the dev options to offer a lower price "outside" of the apple payment system? (ie: pay XYZ directly and the cost is $5..if you pay via Apple, it's $7.99)
I suspect 99% of people will still pay through Apple's system because it's trustworthy and really convenient. I think this option is more likely to appeal to people who make niche but well loved apps for a small community of power users or professionals, where the dev can actually give users an explanation of why they'd prefer their users use a different payment method.It will be interesting (based on your comment) to see if current customers actually do move away from Apple's payment system to any of the other potential options. Any discussion in the filings allowing the dev options to offer a lower price "outside" of the apple payment system? (ie: pay XYZ directly and the cost is $5..if you pay via Apple, it's $7.99)
And we as consumers really made out big time with the breakup. Cell phone service is bar-none with world class leading speeds with monthly unlimited rates merely a pittance. Consumers really didn't make out in the scheme of things.Apparently we should all still be beholden to Ma Bell, because the government had no business breaking it up.
We’d all be using rotary dial phones and paying $10/minute for long distance, and we’d like it that way, damnit, cuz FREEDOM!
What parental controls? The safari parental controls would work the same as they work with the aforementioned hyperlinks that are already forced to developersA judge is probably not going to force Apple to allow developers to bypass parental controls. So, "just hyperlinks" is not going to be enough.
Customers' expectations for purchases in the app are that parental controls will work.What parental controls? The safari parental controls would work the same as they work with the aforementioned hyperlinks that are already forced to developers
If you mean financial information, I don't think a judge is going to force anyone to give their kids a credit card
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.
While I agree with being happy with Apple's setup as a user - you wouldn't be handing CC info to random devs. It would be PayPal/Stripe/Square/Amazon/Google...companies that likely have already swiped your credit card in retail stores or online. If a dev won't refund then their carrier for purchases would like to know as they don't want scams running on their payment systems.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.
Hmm.., that's not how I read it.You can still use Apple's payment system. All this does is allow devs to give you another option.
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.
How would your kids get your credit card information?Customers' expectations for purchases in the app are that parental controls will work.
Parental controls in safari are really easy to bypass, Apple has no control over websites playing by the rules.
In the app, going through Apple's API's, they have control.
It's the same as the Peugeot dealer being forced to allow its competitors to conduct business on their premises.Isn't this the same as if I buy a Peugeot car and want to add bits or replace parts, Peugeot says I have to buy from them? I can if I want to, but I can also buy from other places? Sounds fair to me. Sounds like choice.
Apple is not the only company with a Apps Store, Google and MS have it too. So it is not something innovating or exclusive to Apple.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.
How is this impacting anyone other than safari users though? How does it stop Firefox, Edge and Chrome from innovating? As I said, Apples actions are by definition self limiting due to being vertically integrated and thus don’t hurt competition.![]()
Apple Safari browser might become the new Internet Explorer
WebKit engine is well behind the competitionwww.theregister.com
LOL, I don't have kids. What epic wants is for it to be as frictionless as in app purchase. So the credit card information will already be on file and ready to use.How would your kids get your credit card information?
If your kids are already buying stuff on the web without your permission, that is your problem
I don't agree. What would be the point of linking outside the App Store if Apple can still demand a cut?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.
Apple was the first with an App Store that was worth using.Apple is not the only company with a Apps Store, Google and MS have it too. So it is not something innovating or exclusive to Apple.
You obviously don't follow the markets very well. Every quarter, the pro-Apple analysts have to explain the importance of Apple services to the general investors. Other than a brief headline, I doubt if this change would have any significant effect on Apple share price as long as iPhone sales stay steady. Arguably, this change might actually increase iPhone sales even if it lowers app revenue.If Apple loses the Game App portion of the App Store, their market cap gets cut in half !
To increase competition? The judge herself said Apple are still entitled to charge a commissionI don't agree. What would be the point of linking outside the App Store if Apple can still demand a cut?