teejay2012

Apple was clearly very slow to respond to the first ruling. Anti steering could have been reasonable rather than brutal. The judge was obviously peeved at being ignored by Apple's slow walk and new ruling went too far.

Not surprising. Apple clearly does not retain the best lawyers and Apple majorly annoyed the judge by slow walking her orders. Not sure that Apple will lose that much. I personally will not share payment credentials with each and every developer,  so I will stay with Apple for IAP unless there is a signficant discount. While having a choice is user friendly, could Apple force developers to be 'in' or 'out' as far as payments, and offer perks to those that remain 'in', like app development tools at a discount, longer lead times for new iOS features, accelerated reviews of submitted apps, etc. Apple spends money on the App Store. They should not give it away for free.

Does it matter what Trump says the tariff is going to be? Mexico and Canada had a fully executed trade agreement with the US, one that Trump himself negotiated, approved and signed, and 1 month into office, he tore it up. Trump changes his mind as much as New England weather. No one trusts him or the US anymore.

A lot of cheering going on with the China story today. As a reminder, Canada and Mexico had a solid trade deal with the US, one that Trump's previous administration negotiated over 2 years. And then Trump broke that deal in one day. Message? Trump can't be trusted with any trade deal. His signature means nothing. The US can't be trusted with any trade deal. The US lost its 'reliability brand' when Trump took over. It doubt it will ever get it back. The world is moving on.

I am not sure why Apple can not have a unique agreement and contract with each developer, or at least the largest ones. Netflix does not pay the 30%, albeit it has a very large base of iPhone users and AFAIK rules for streamers are different. But couldn't Apple renegotiate with others and have as part of the contract, clauses that define a firm but fair share of revenue? Courts are good for identifying issues that need correction, but are generally terrible with 'remedies'. Apple should have read the room and did something concrete the first time around on anti steering, as an angry judge is not what you want.