4 ms·
The author makes quite a few leaps in logic that I am unable to follow. Maybe they are right but their reading of the judgement is contrary to how most in and o
by jjcon 5y ago
The author makes quite a few leaps in logic that I am unable to follow. Maybe they are right but their reading of the judgement is contrary to how most in and out of the media are reading it and I’d expect a clearer explanation than this.
- syspec 5y agoMost of the media has gotten it wrong, which is why epic is appealing the decision. The judge ruled 9/10 claims in apples favor
- jjcon 5y agoIt is that 1/10 that is in question by this article. My point is, if everyone else has it wrong they at least need to explain their reasoning, this article didn’t logically flow at least in my mind.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoApple is not appealing.
- RobotCaleb 5y agoI agree but I'm not sure which way you meant
- GeekyBear 5y agoThe only part of the ruling that Apple lost is over a point they had previously conceded to settle the Japanese antitrust investigation. >SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges. https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation-2021-09-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra... They might want to challenge the notion that a California law can be used to force a change in the way you do business in other states, but that's about it.
- martimarkov 5y agoWhich part specifically are you not understanding? I had some issues understanding it all as well but by the 3rd time I read through it - I think I got the logic.
- mruszczyk 5y agoThe media is likely reporting incorrectly here. Apple has come out and stated that they view the judgement as a major win for their side and Epic has come out and said they intend to appeal. The cliff notes I've seen on why are that Apple is legally not a monopoly, does not have to provide an alternative payment processor 'in-app' and may still legally charge a commission fee on each purchase, even if completed through an external payment processor.
- jjcon 5y agoApple has never been known to admit defeat. One can hardly go by their reactions as a barometer of how the case went.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoApple has not announced any intent to appeal.
- kelnos 5y agoIt seems like the media outlets are reporting solely on the one-page injunction, and have ignored the 185-page post-trial order that appears to clearly spell out how wrong the media is here. It's also telling that Apple's official stance on this is that they've won[0], and Epic's is that they're disappointed and will appeal. Apple would not be so happy about this if they had to allow other in-app payment systems and forego their 30% cut. And if they did, Epic would be a lot happier about this ruling, and might even just call it a win right here. [0] The one concession that Apple must make under this injunction -- allowing app developers to link to information about alternative payment methods on other platforms -- is a concession they are already making due to a recent ruling in a Japanese antitrust case[1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation-2021-09-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
- ec109685 5y agoJapanese ruling only affects Reading apps.