if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
Is that because you were already suckered into buying a few such "bridges" and now trying to get rid of them?
Apple can not just ..... turn off their filters to allow links inside an app, to go to a site outside of the app ... like you claim. Where would the protection be for iOS users? Do Apple already have in place a method that would check to make sure links do not lead to installation of malware or to sites that will harvest iOS users financial and personal data? For sure Epic try to get pass the filter and did so for a while, but Epic is more or less a trusted site. So not a lot of harm done to iOS users. But there are 10's of 1000's of iOS developers that would be able to put a link in their app, if Apple were to just turned off the filter. And 1000's more that will all of a sudden "develop" for iOS, as soon as they find out that can put a link inside their app, that leads to a site outside of the app. Can Apple trust that every developers own site, can be trusted as Epic own site? People like you might end up with a few more "bridges", to try to get rid of.
And what about Apple commission? The courts never stated that Apple was not allowed to charge and collect their commission. Do Apple already have in place a reliable non intrusive method of collecting their commission from developers that provide iOS users with a link inside their app, to pay for their purchases outside of iTunes? And even the Judge said that Apple had a legitimate claim to providing a safe ecosystem for iOS users, in order to be competitive with stores on the Android platform.
Apple should not have to compromise security nor give up their commission, just because they can turn off a filter and allow all developers to provide a link inside their app, that leads to a payment site outside their app. And it'll take way more than a day, just to change the terms of their DPLA (Developer Product License Agreement), to reflect the turning off of their filter.
>However, the court also held that defendant had shown valid pro-competative reasons for DPLA's (Developer Product License Agreement) restrictions, namely that the restrictions improved iOS security and increased inter-brand competition with Google Android platform. The court also found that protection of its intellectual property rights and ability to obtain compensation for their use also provided a valid justification for the restriction, though not necessarily to the level of commission. In the final step of the rule of reason analysis, the Court found that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant justification because its two proffered alternatives models that defendant hypothetically could use for its App Store were not proven to be as effective in the pro competitive goals of ensuring security and reliability on the defendant's platform.<
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
"certainly be implemented in less than a day" therefore "Apple is lying"
I dare say that you have no idea what you're talking about - not even in a small confused way either.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
Meanwhile back on Planet Reality... It is obvious you have never dealt with legal agreements or coding. As someone who has dealt with both I can tell you it isn't that simple. Apple needs to draw up new developer agreements and some form of safeguard so if another app with stealth code gets on their store (like that Trezor app that changed after approval) they are covered legally.
"Apple claims that at the time of signing up, the app posed to be a cryptography app used to encrypt iPhone files and passwords and at the time the app developer had highlighted that the app has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. But after the app got submitted, it soon turned into a crypto wallet and slipped right under Apple’s radar. " - iPhone User Lost $600,000 Life Saving From Scam Bitcoin App On Apple's Store
Someone thinks they found what the version of the program Apple reviewed looked like. "Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market such as RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES and many more.
Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market: RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES.
Manage your communication efficiently. Start simply by picking up your crypto and finally write down the items you want to secure. it's that simple (email snipped) DISCLAIMER: We use the word "Crypto" to describe cryptography methods, such as RSA, AES, DES, and it has nothing to do with cryptocurrency."
There you are. In black and white. Apple performed due diligence and who ever wrote that iPhone program looks like they had a backdoor to change how the program not only looked but behaved - sort of like Epic. Apple practiced due diligence and they are still being sued.
Imagine what would happed if the weblink on some program went to site with a keylogger on it. The clueless public would blame Apple.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.
That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.
That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline.
Apple cited the Ninth Circuit's own ruling on an earlier case that using the California statute required a violation of the Sherman Anti trust act to apply. Heck, back in Epic v Apple: Judgment Day - Who Won? Who Lost? ...and Why? (VL538) Hoeg (who is an actual business lawyer) effectively lambasted the way the majority of the media reported the ruling via their headlines. Of those he presented only IGN got it right. He also pointed out that the Judge's one ruling for Epic was on shaky ground because it is not "black letter law" - it is an interpretation of a vague law and felt it was "most likely to suffer on appeal".
I said right here If Hoeg was right then Apple likely would get its injunction and lo and behold they did.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
What do you think Apple is lying about? Apple hasn't, as far as I'm aware, argued that it couldn't technically comply with the injunction by the deadline. It probably could do that fairly quickly.
Apple has argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if was forced to comply with the injunction and it's suggested that having to comply with the injunction in such a short period of time would cause even more harm. I think that's most certainly true.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.
That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline.
It goes to whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm if it had to comply with the injunction or would suffer such harm if it had to comply with the injunction by the original deadline. In that sense, it certainly is a proper consideration when it comes to deciding whether the injunction should be stayed or not. Irreparable harm to the movant is one of the four factors a court is supposed to consider when deciding on issuance of a stay. The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the stay thought Apple sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.
That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline.
It goes to whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm if it had to comply with the injunction or would suffer such harm if it had to comply with the injunction by the original deadline. In that sense, it certainly is a proper consideration when it comes to deciding whether the injunction should be stayed or not. Irreparable harm to the movant is one of the four factors a court is supposed to consider when deciding on issuance of a stay. The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the stay thought Apple sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm.
Fair enough. Not sure I would have come to the same decision, nothing about it says irreparable harm to me, but if a decision has already been made then I guess I'm wrong.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
I exactly! This concept is lost on those that believe everything should be free, while expecting top dollar wages for their time at work.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
Except Apple is lying. It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day. All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app. And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission.
No they don't. They want to, but they don't need to.
Comments
Apple can not just ..... turn off their filters to allow links inside an app, to go to a site outside of the app ... like you claim. Where would the protection be for iOS users? Do Apple already have in place a method that would check to make sure links do not lead to installation of malware or to sites that will harvest iOS users financial and personal data? For sure Epic try to get pass the filter and did so for a while, but Epic is more or less a trusted site. So not a lot of harm done to iOS users. But there are 10's of 1000's of iOS developers that would be able to put a link in their app, if Apple were to just turned off the filter. And 1000's more that will all of a sudden "develop" for iOS, as soon as they find out that can put a link inside their app, that leads to a site outside of the app. Can Apple trust that every developers own site, can be trusted as Epic own site? People like you might end up with a few more "bridges", to try to get rid of.
And what about Apple commission? The courts never stated that Apple was not allowed to charge and collect their commission. Do Apple already have in place a reliable non intrusive method of collecting their commission from developers that provide iOS users with a link inside their app, to pay for their purchases outside of iTunes? And even the Judge said that Apple had a legitimate claim to providing a safe ecosystem for iOS users, in order to be competitive with stores on the Android platform.
Apple should not have to compromise security nor give up their commission, just because they can turn off a filter and allow all developers to provide a link inside their app, that leads to a payment site outside their app. And it'll take way more than a day, just to change the terms of their DPLA (Developer Product License Agreement), to reflect the turning off of their filter.
https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform
>However, the court also held that defendant had shown valid pro-competative reasons for DPLA's (Developer Product License Agreement) restrictions, namely that the restrictions improved iOS security and increased inter-brand competition with Google Android platform. The court also found that protection of its intellectual property rights and ability to obtain compensation for their use also provided a valid justification for the restriction, though not necessarily to the level of commission. In the final step of the rule of reason analysis, the Court found that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant justification because its two proffered alternatives models that defendant hypothetically could use for its App Store were not proven to be as effective in the pro competitive goals of ensuring security and reliability on the defendant's platform.<
therefore "Apple is lying"
I dare say that you have no idea what you're talking about - not even in a small confused way either.
"Apple claims that at the time of signing up, the app posed to be a cryptography app used to encrypt iPhone files and passwords and at the time the app developer had highlighted that the app has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. But after the app got submitted, it soon turned into a crypto wallet and slipped right under Apple’s radar. " - iPhone User Lost $600,000 Life Saving From Scam Bitcoin App On Apple's Store
Someone thinks they found what the version of the program Apple reviewed looked like.
"Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market such as RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES and many more.
Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market: RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES.
Manage your communication efficiently. Start simply by picking up your crypto and finally write down the items you want to secure. it's that simple
(email snipped)
DISCLAIMER: We use the word "Crypto" to describe cryptography methods, such as RSA, AES, DES, and it has nothing to do with cryptocurrency."
There you are. In black and white. Apple performed due diligence and who ever wrote that iPhone program looks like they had a backdoor to change how the program not only looked but behaved - sort of like Epic. Apple practiced due diligence and they are still being sued.
Imagine what would happed if the weblink on some program went to site with a keylogger on it. The clueless public would blame Apple.
Apple has argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if was forced to comply with the injunction and it's suggested that having to comply with the injunction in such a short period of time would cause even more harm. I think that's most certainly true.