4 ms·

The headline is wrong to claim that Epic lost to Apple. Epic didn't get everything they wanted, but: > U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Ap

The headline is wrong to claim that Epic lost to Apple. Epic didn't get everything they wanted, but: > U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must allow app developers to “steer” customers to alternatives to the tech giant’s payment processing service, which collects a 30 percent fee on most digital transactions. That was previously not allowed by the company, and marks a major victory for developers which have long complained of the tight grip the tech giant holds over its App Store on the roughly one billion iPhones currently in use. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-epic-decision-judge-market-monopoly/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-e... So even if this case is weaker, and even if a weaker case leads to a worse outcome for Epic (not guaranteed), Epic might still win something they desire.

labcomputer 3y ago
From your source: > Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic, said in a tweet that, “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers.” Also, > Epic lost, though, on the foundational allegation of its lawsuit. Epic tried to convince Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s App Store was in itself a “market,” over which Apple is a monopolist, and wanted the judge to force Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment processing systems on its phones. My understanding is that Apple must allow app devs to tell customers about alternatives (and even provide a link to those alternatives), but Apple is still allowed to dictate what the in-app payment options are.
- leereeves 3y ago
  That's my understanding as well, so I guess the question is: if you lose on one claim, and win on another, and win a significant change in terms, did you win or lose the case?
willseth 3y ago
They lost on almost all the claims - critically, any claim that would have allowed them to circumvent app store fees - so it's reasonable to simply say that they lost. The anti-steering provision was the one exception.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Even Apple said that steering customers to other payment methods is a way to avoid app store fees: > To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers, Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. As always, developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking place outside of their app or the App Store. Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a... Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't this ruling give developers the option of "steering" directly from the app instead of via email, and thereby circumvent app store fees?
  - programmarchy 3y ago
    That'd actually be significant, because Apple used to be incredibly strict about this. For example, I had an App Store submission that showed a privacy policy in a WebView, but through a series of clicks on the header or footer of that page you could get to a pricing page and purchase a subscription. That was enough for a rejection.
  - willseth 3y ago
    Yes, as I stated above, the judge ruled against Apple's anti-steering provision. But that is a small win in light of the other rulings. It's also tied up in courts on appeal, so nothing has actually gone into effect. Even if the anti-anti-steering ruling is eventually upheld, I suspect all that will end up being allowed is stating the alternative pricing, not actually integrating linking and payment via redirects between web and app.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      > It's also tied up in courts on appeal, so nothing has actually gone into effect. The rulings against Epic are also being appealed, so by that standard it would still be wrong to say that Epic lost.

labcomputer 3y ago

From your source: > Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic, said in a tweet that, “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers.” Also, > Epic lost, though, on the foundational allegation of its lawsuit. Epic tried to convince Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s App Store was in itself a “market,” over which Apple is a monopolist, and wanted the judge to force Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment processing systems on its phones. My understanding is that Apple must allow app devs to tell customers about alternatives (and even provide a link to those alternatives), but Apple is still allowed to dictate what the in-app payment options are.

leereeves 3y ago
That's my understanding as well, so I guess the question is: if you lose on one claim, and win on another, and win a significant change in terms, did you win or lose the case?

willseth 3y ago

They lost on almost all the claims - critically, any claim that would have allowed them to circumvent app store fees - so it's reasonable to simply say that they lost. The anti-steering provision was the one exception.

leereeves 3y ago
Even Apple said that steering customers to other payment methods is a way to avoid app store fees: > To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers, Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. As always, developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking place outside of their app or the App Store. Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a... Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't this ruling give developers the option of "steering" directly from the app instead of via email, and thereby circumvent app store fees?
- programmarchy 3y ago
  That'd actually be significant, because Apple used to be incredibly strict about this. For example, I had an App Store submission that showed a privacy policy in a WebView, but through a series of clicks on the header or footer of that page you could get to a pricing page and purchase a subscription. That was enough for a rejection.
- willseth 3y ago
  Yes, as I stated above, the judge ruled against Apple's anti-steering provision. But that is a small win in light of the other rulings. It's also tied up in courts on appeal, so nothing has actually gone into effect. Even if the anti-anti-steering ruling is eventually upheld, I suspect all that will end up being allowed is stating the alternative pricing, not actually integrating linking and payment via redirects between web and app.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    > It's also tied up in courts on appeal, so nothing has actually gone into effect. The rulings against Epic are also being appealed, so by that standard it would still be wrong to say that Epic lost.