4 ms·

There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore b

There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment method is very anti-consumer.

kevingadd 5y ago
The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away. IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update. "The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut." https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
- kiawe_fire 5y ago
  This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with. This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot. In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else. (That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  This is going to the Supreme Court and will not be settled by a single judge, particularly a California district judge. There is just no incentive for either participant to decide "Oh, if Yvonne Rogers says so, then sure we're changing business models". The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    In the US perhaps but not so in the EU.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Not knowing much about the EU, would a district judge responsible for, say, northern Italy be able to change EU-wide business rules? With no appeal to a broader authority?
      - kergonath 5y ago
        No, not really. A judge would apply the rules as they exist. And then, depending on the case it would follow the local country’s appeal process and possibly end up at the CJEU. But even then it would not change the rules. Any change of rules needs to be drafted by the commission or proposed in parliament, and then accepted by the parliament. The EU does not really do common law. Not like in the US anyway.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        They are not changing the rules, they are changing the status quo by ruling that a currently widespread practice is breaking the law.
treis 5y ago
It's just so obviously anti-competitve and harmful to consumers. If that doesn't get slapped down it's somewhat hard to imagine what possibly would.
- skohan 5y ago
  anti-trust is in a very sad state in the US, and fixing could solve a lot of problem
protoman3000 5y ago
Yeah, they should have made it such that Epic is required to say (“mention”) that any items purchased with V-Bucks from outside the AppStore cannot be used on the iOS app. I don’t see how advertising another platform in their iOS app would be fair, though. It’s not like you’d find it ok if Google pushed ads for the new Pixel phone on the notifications in their iOS apps.

kevingadd 5y ago

The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away. IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update. "The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut." https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...

kiawe_fire 5y ago
This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with. This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot. In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else. (That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
rsj_hn 5y ago
This is going to the Supreme Court and will not be settled by a single judge, particularly a California district judge. There is just no incentive for either participant to decide "Oh, if Yvonne Rogers says so, then sure we're changing business models". The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  In the US perhaps but not so in the EU.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Not knowing much about the EU, would a district judge responsible for, say, northern Italy be able to change EU-wide business rules? With no appeal to a broader authority?
    - kergonath 5y ago
      No, not really. A judge would apply the rules as they exist. And then, depending on the case it would follow the local country’s appeal process and possibly end up at the CJEU. But even then it would not change the rules. Any change of rules needs to be drafted by the commission or proposed in parliament, and then accepted by the parliament. The EU does not really do common law. Not like in the US anyway.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      They are not changing the rules, they are changing the status quo by ruling that a currently widespread practice is breaking the law.

treis 5y ago

It's just so obviously anti-competitve and harmful to consumers. If that doesn't get slapped down it's somewhat hard to imagine what possibly would.

skohan 5y ago
anti-trust is in a very sad state in the US, and fixing could solve a lot of problem

protoman3000 5y ago

Yeah, they should have made it such that Epic is required to say (“mention”) that any items purchased with V-Bucks from outside the AppStore cannot be used on the iOS app. I don’t see how advertising another platform in their iOS app would be fair, though. It’s not like you’d find it ok if Google pushed ads for the new Pixel phone on the notifications in their iOS apps.