Apple seeks stay on allowing external links & purchases during injunction violation appeal...

AppleInsider

Even though Apple has already allowed apps to start linking out to external purchase options, the company has asked the U.S. District Court in Northern California to stay enforcement during the appeal.

Apple is asking for a stay during injunction violation appeal

Apple has found itself in hot water after a judge ruled that the company was willfully violating an injunction over anti-steering rules. Apple followed the judge's demands and filed an appeal, but now it is asking for one more thing.

According to a report from 9to5Mac, which discovered the filing, Apple is asking the U.S. District Court for a stay on enforcement of the new requirements set by the judge. Apple was told it must immediately allow apps to link out to websites and enable external purchase options, which it has, but Apple hopes to stop having to do this while it appeals.

The situation is the result of Apple trying to find ways to monetize external purchases while still removing anti-steering rules. It is the only ruling Apple actually lost in the Epic vs Apple debacle, which has cost Epic Games at least a billion.

If a stay is granted, it might mean Apple will reverse approved app updates for Spotify, Kindle, and others. It will also likely mean that Epic CEO Tim Sweeney's planned return of Fortnite to iPhone will be halted.

There's no doubt that Apple will want to seek ways to monetize purchases made outside of the App Store while still following the rule of law. However, the courts don't seem to agree that Apple is owed anything if purchases are made externally for apps that were distributed on iPhone.

Apple's monetization of the App Store relies heavily on developers using its payment systems, which means Apple can take a 30% or 15% cut of every purchase or subscription. If every app and game can simply link out to a website, Apple could find itself in a situation where it can't make money on any app on the App Store beyond the annual developer fee.

While there are arguments to be made about how much Apple is owed, it surely isn't nothing. That is likely what Apple hopes to define with its appeals.



Read on AppleInsider

quakerotis

Guilty, predatory, limiting are all ways I would describe Ap[ple and its behavior.

They are as bad as MSFTwas in the 90s.

I guess they'll just have to bribe a government for protect… , oopsie.

Have fun with the fascists.

BTW- the actual definition of fascism involves a govt that creates winners and losers within an economy based on fealty to the state.

The brown shirts come later.

foregoneconclusion

Video game console manufacturers charge 30% commission for games sold in their 1st party digital stores, don't allow 3rd party digital stores and also collect 30% commission on physical units sold in 3rd party retail stores. So there is a precedent for collecting commission on sales made outside the 1st party digital store. Epic has tried to claim that it's okay for consoles to do that specifically because they don't make as much profit on hardware but that is not a legal argument. There aren't any laws that control commission levels that companies can charge based on profit levels elsewhere in their business. 

edited 10:06AM

s.metcalf

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

foregoneconclusion

quakerotis said:

Guilty, predatory, limiting are all ways I would describe Ap[ple and its behavior.

Apple chose to use the video game console model for its commissions. It's not like what they were doing was unprecedented. If anything, that way of doing business had been standardized for companies that made their own operating system and exclusively ran it on their own hardware. 

pichael

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

eriamjh

I find Apple’s arguments compelling in the legal sense.  

22july2013

pichael said:

s.metcalf said:

Don’t be evil, Apple.

As for us users, take the effort to buy your subscriptions outside the app where possible and you’ll likely pay less.  A small bit of effort but it goes a long way when you add up the savings over time.

Fantastic idea… and then you can use all that money saved to continue paying for the subscription after the point you want to cancel it as there is no easy way to unsubscribe. Or their weak card processing system gets hacked and you lose all your financial details. 

You and I agree, but many people (e.g., "s.metcalf") want to force business models on us that we don't want to deal with. If I wanted to deal with Google's model, I would buy phones that run Google software. I want the freedom to be able to choose Apple's model. If Apple is forced to follow Google's horrible model, there would be little reason for me to buy from Apple.