It’s one clueless Judge who is making this decision. Once an intelligent tech savvy court hears the details of this case they will shake their heads in amazement that Judge Rogers ruled this way.
I do not believe that the US has one of these.
So you disagree with her other rulings favoring Apple in the larger case too then? Thought not.
You thought wrong.
There was a lot she got wrong in the first case. I have made it extremely clear throughout the years that our government isn't capable of making sensible rulings about tech because they just can't be bothered, and that applies to my US judiciary as well for the most part.
Wrong math to get to the right answer is still the wrong math in the first place.
Allow side loading and kick Spotify et al off the App Store. If alternate stores are allowed like the EU, there will be no argument that Apple can’t enforce rules for its own store since there will be choice. Let the freeloaders fend for themselves.
Isn’t Epic banned from the US App Store anyway? I thought the original ruling stated that since Epic violated the TOC of being a developer that Apple was fully within their right to terminate their developer account.
So this isn’t a win for Epic, but rather Epic pretending it cares about other developers by saying they’re “fighting for the little guy”.
It always seemed to me that Apple should have privately negotiated with Epic. When you broadcast that you solely set the price that puts the antitrust spotlight on you.
I understand why developers are happy with this ruling however it is rather bizarre that a judge can mandate this. If you sell a product on Amazon you pay Amazon a commission. It seems only right that a company that provides the platform for developers to sell their wares gets paid for it? Surely the costs of hosting that platform, coding, design, security, maintenance and advertising and promoting it are worth something? This is a core Apple business. If developers are not happy with this then let them leave the platform and promote their own apps themselves? Mandating that Apple give them effectively free hosting is crazy. As an Apple user I am happy to pay a little more to cover the security And frankly ease of use that Apple provides. This seems deeply unfair.
Rulings are one thing for the court, remedies are entirely different and they are usually bad in the case of tech. The Apple case is an example in that 'anti steering' is something that many of us would agree with. However this judge has placed a value on Apple's IP that allows the App Store to exist...'zero'. I do not agree. It is worth a lot and all the developers know that. Perhaps the smart people at Apple will figure out something to salvage this. An appeal? That will not work here. The judge is angry and the judge is clear. As an aside, the same issue of remedies will come up with Google which has had 2 rulings against it. We understand the rulings but the remedies that are being suggested?... Break up Google? Sell off Chrome? ... none make sense, but then again, judges are experts in law, not experts in business. Absolutely Apple should have done something concrete about anti steering, and the judge would not have had to wade into remedies that in summary, will harm Apple more than help developers.
I, for one, shall only get apps from the official Apple Store. I’d much rather have the protection of Apple and its security.
A conceit you hold due entirely to marketing. With numerous security breaches including scam apps, apps with false premises, apps that have been found to collect far more information than Apple's cursory and worthless review process supposedly vets... and on and on. This is the result of zero competition and zero reason for Apple to do anything but protect its 15/30% moat.
Abdicate your responsibilities, eventually suffer the consequences. Stupid is its own reward.
As a developer of a subscription based app I’m actually concerned by type resultant actions that will be taken after this ruling. Why? Well let’s go through them:
1. At the moment I pay $99 per year for access to the development tools, APIs and ability to distribute through the Apple App Store regardless of how many apps I ultimately build and publish. 2. I list an app for free and I can monetise through advertising or just have it as a loss leader for exposure if I want. A cost to Apple for hosting it but not to me. 3. I sell a subscription to my app and I receive 70% in the first year and 85% in the second year, BUT if I did have subscriptions sold outside the App Store via online or someone that was on Android that subscribed and switched then Apple gets nothing. 4. I don’t have to deal with payments, marketing, distribution, publishing, etc. most of the effort sits with Apple and that’s fine by me.
Now what could happen to the above is huge:
1. That annual access fee could stick around, but what if that now gets restricted to no listed apps and you now need to pay for listing each app? 2. What if you now have to pay for access to each API Apple currently offers as included? 3. What if you now have to pay for each download of your app regardless of if it’s free or paid or continued to be in use (or some combination of the two)? 4. What if the listing fee is simply to put it on the store, but to have it able to found in search you now need to pay for that ability? 5. They may not care about me having a subscription anymore, but I now need to pay a whole series of charges whether someone subscribes or not. 6. Now I have to deal with payments and all of the regulations and data protection rules that entails - a huge burden for a small developer, especially when you are subject to GDPR. 7. My accounting system now has to be far more complicated because of all the above potential fees, whereas before it was dead easy… 30% year one, 15% year two.
The changes to the charging structure are not out of the question, and there appears to be nothing in the order that would prevent these changes from being imposed. My point is that what looks like a win could easily change to a disaster that benefits big name developers only.
nubus said: What does matter is that the VP of Finance lied under oath to subvert the verdict and Apple knew he was doing so. Another judge came to the same conclusion. And so this is becoming a criminal investigation against the VP and Apple. Cook or the board must act on it.
Lying under oath and intentionally withholding evidence is typically going to result in a negative verdict. I don't agree with the idea that 30% is supracompetive OR that app developers need to be able to steer customers within the app. But Apple really blew it with the aforementioned behavior.
I was going to post a comment about this before all the Apple haters jumped in and started spouting nonsense about this being a big win for developers and consumers, but then I decided why bother. It's obvious we're all screwed anyway. This isn't even a big enough issue to be a bump in the road.
Patreon has already said it will decrease prices by 30%. I'd call that a big win. Apple has been hiding this from the judge exactly because it IS a big deal to their profits.
Don't expect that decrease to last very long. This was never about lowering prices for consumers. It was about increasing revenue.
neoncat said: This is the result of zero competition and zero reason for Apple to do anything but protect its 15/30% moat.
Apple has said that 17% commission is approximately the break even point for the App Store. So the difference between "supracompetitive" and "break even" is 13% apparently. That's one of the bizarre aspects of the ruling, IMO. 13% markup is treated as being onerous for competition.
What a disgusting ruling, that only takes into account the whims of these 2 companies (Epic and Spotify) and not the billions of users that use Apple products, and the user experience. What the fuck is in it for Apple, if companies can use Apple's massive platform, which Apple has invested tens of billions of dollars in and is an incredibly lucrative storefront, if devs can just use it as a free funnel for their own paid products?
Also can't wait for App Store listings to be spammed with a fuckload of links and buttons, making it as trashy as most ad invested websites. Insane how a judge can make a decision like this, that materially compromises the user experience of anyone who uses an Apple device, while likely not understanding most aspects and implications behind it.
Why the fuck should devs be able to advertise to billions of people using Apple's storefront and get a free ride? Why are they entitled to that? That concept is insane in the real world.
Funny things which don't seem to be emphasized enough here either in the article or the comments. In the original ruling Apple was
1. Allowed to charge a 'reasonable' fee (based on any math of Apple's choosing) for developers using external payment systems.
2. Was allowed to have 'reasonable' restrictions on how developers advertised third party payment systems.
3. Was allowed to warn users that they were leaving the apple payments ecosystems (they still are).
The operative word being 'reasonable'. Apple brought current ruling on itself by 'unreasonable' behavior if we are being generous and deliberate lying and misleading as per the Judge's interpretation!
What a disgusting ruling, that only takes into account the whims of these 2 companies (Epic and Spotify) and not the billions of users that use Apple products, and the user experience. What the fuck is in it for Apple, if companies can use Apple's massive platform, which Apple has invested tens of billions of dollars in and is an incredibly lucrative storefront, if devs can just use it as a free funnel for their own paid products?
Also can't wait for App Store listings to be spammed with a fuckload of links and buttons, making it as trashy as most ad invested websites. Insane how a judge can make a decision like this, that materially compromises the user experience of anyone who uses an Apple device, while likely not understanding most aspects and implications behind it.
Why the fuck should devs be able to advertise to billions of people using Apple's storefront and get a free ride? Why are they entitled to that? That concept is insane in the real world.
You are completely ignoring the underlying reason for her anger. What is your opinion of that?
Apple likes to say it has 'values' (famously when the Irish state aid case hit the news). How do those values fit in with what the judge is accusing Apple of? Is that OK?
The judge heard the arguments and reached a conclusion. I can understand that you personally don't like it but I wouldn't call it 'disgusting'. She largely sided with Apple, too IIRC.
This ruling is meaningless. All this fuss over nothing. No one is going to leave the walled garden which offers the utmost in security, ease of use and convenience to go to some 3rd party and keep adding in different subscriptions everywhere. Not going to happen. Also you think Epic is going to reduce prices for the consumer? No way! They are keeping all that profit so again why would the consumer ever leave?!. Plus let Epic get a taste of all the logistics and customer service expenses required. They’ll be running back to Apple. This ruling is a complete non event. Have a great day!
Patreon has already said it will decrease prices by 30%. I'd call that a big win. Apple has been hiding this from the judge exactly because it IS a big deal to their profits.
Don't expect that decrease to last very long. This was never about lowering prices for consumers. It was about increasing revenue.
Prices can go down or not, but one thing is sure: The incitement to invest in apps for iOS is up. Not only for the removal of the 43% tariff. Software companies can now get a connection to users (as mentioned in the verdict). This is huge to any business.
So could a developer have a free app-store app gutted of any real useful features, direct the user to a developer's site to basically sell them what makes the app become the app, and sidestep any fees from Apple, all the while using Apple's platform to distribute their app?
It certainly looks like it. And apparently Apple can't even demand that the developer make clear that Apple isn't doing the payment clearing to ensure there is no cheating. If this is the case, as it appears to be, the previous rulings in Apple's favor are essentially meaningless, and Apple's application services revenue model has been essentially blown to smithereens and then had the blown up bits run through an atomizer, and the resulting atoms then dumped into a black hole. They were certainly overcharging, as Apple does with most things, but the protected Apple App ecosystem is (was?) itself a good thing for the most part, even if Apple had taken it to an extreme.
Comments
There was a lot she got wrong in the first case. I have made it extremely clear throughout the years that our government isn't capable of making sensible rulings about tech because they just can't be bothered, and that applies to my US judiciary as well for the most part.
Wrong math to get to the right answer is still the wrong math in the first place.
So this isn’t a win for Epic, but rather Epic pretending it cares about other developers by saying they’re “fighting for the little guy”.
As has been mentioned endlessly if you want an open platform then buy an Android phone!
Yes I’m an Apple fanboy and Yes I’m a stockholder too. This ruling will help no one and hurt me.
Abdicate your responsibilities, eventually suffer the consequences. Stupid is its own reward.
1. At the moment I pay $99 per year for access to the development tools, APIs and ability to distribute through the Apple App Store regardless of how many apps I ultimately build and publish.
2. I list an app for free and I can monetise through advertising or just have it as a loss leader for exposure if I want. A cost to Apple for hosting it but not to me.
3. I sell a subscription to my app and I receive 70% in the first year and 85% in the second year, BUT if I did have subscriptions sold outside the App Store via online or someone that was on Android that subscribed and switched then Apple gets nothing.
4. I don’t have to deal with payments, marketing, distribution, publishing, etc. most of the effort sits with Apple and that’s fine by me.
Now what could happen to the above is huge:
1. That annual access fee could stick around, but what if that now gets restricted to no listed apps and you now need to pay for listing each app?
2. What if you now have to pay for access to each API Apple currently offers as included?
3. What if you now have to pay for each download of your app regardless of if it’s free or paid or continued to be in use (or some combination of the two)?
4. What if the listing fee is simply to put it on the store, but to have it able to found in search you now need to pay for that ability?
5. They may not care about me having a subscription anymore, but I now need to pay a whole series of charges whether someone subscribes or not.
6. Now I have to deal with payments and all of the regulations and data protection rules that entails - a huge burden for a small developer, especially when you are subject to GDPR.
7. My accounting system now has to be far more complicated because of all the above potential fees, whereas before it was dead easy… 30% year one, 15% year two.
The changes to the charging structure are not out of the question, and there appears to be nothing in the order that would prevent these changes from being imposed. My point is that what looks like a win could easily change to a disaster that benefits big name developers only.
Also can't wait for App Store listings to be spammed with a fuckload of links and buttons, making it as trashy as most ad invested websites. Insane how a judge can make a decision like this, that materially compromises the user experience of anyone who uses an Apple device, while likely not understanding most aspects and implications behind it.
Why the fuck should devs be able to advertise to billions of people using Apple's storefront and get a free ride? Why are they entitled to that? That concept is insane in the real world.
Apple likes to say it has 'values' (famously when the Irish state aid case hit the news). How do those values fit in with what the judge is accusing Apple of? Is that OK?
The judge heard the arguments and reached a conclusion. I can understand that you personally don't like it but I wouldn't call it 'disgusting'. She largely sided with Apple, too IIRC.
Where exactly do things go from here?