5 ms·
Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow other payment processors." But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e. Apple c
by etchalon 5y ago
Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow other payment processors."
But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e. Apple can't tell developers they can't link out to other payment options on the web.
- cblconfederate 5y agoIt says they can't prohibit developers (so they must allow) adding links to non-IAP. OTOH it doesnt force apple to allow any link, they can still filter which payment providers are allowed
- dannyw 5y agoViolating an injuction via a technicality will land you in court again.
- cblconfederate 5y agoWould it be a violation?
- etchalon 5y agoProbably. "Letter of the law" vs. "the spirit". Judges are not fans of people trying to be "technically in compliance".
- cblconfederate 5y agoi dont think the spirit is to allow developers to engage in scammy behavior. Apple can still refuse the app based on its other rules.
- simondotau 5y agoAnd there's nothing in the ruling that says Apple can't still demand a cut from in-app sales transacted through another mechanism. It's more work for Apple, but they're still legally entitled to do it, if developers must agree to Apple's terms in order to use their intellectual property.