4 ms·

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 the

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.
    - willseth 3y ago
      Huh? That's not even the point. If that is upheld, it will still be an significant and overall loss for Epic. Apple's request for a stay on appeal could have been denied too, but it wasn't, so the appeals court at least doesn't see it as obviously working out in Epic's favor.

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.
  - willseth 3y ago
    Huh? That's not even the point. If that is upheld, it will still be an significant and overall loss for Epic. Apple's request for a stay on appeal could have been denied too, but it wasn't, so the appeals court at least doesn't see it as obviously working out in Epic's favor.