3 ms·

> The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Rogers' decision in 2023, finding that Epic had "failed to prove the existence of sub

> The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Rogers' decision in 2023, finding that Epic had "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives" to Apple's system. What does this mean? Does Apple even allow any alternatives?

granzymes 3y ago
It means that Epic failed to identify a better way for Apple to collect its 30%/15% fee than mandating developers use its in-app purchase system. Epic’s cert petition at the Supreme Court focused on the argument that it’s unfair that their identified solution needed to be equally or less burdensome, but the Supreme Court turned them away.
- cubefox 3y ago
  To be clear, equally or less burdensome for whom?
  - granzymes 3y ago
    For Apple, since the court found that they have a right to collect their fee.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Okay, then it's clear why Epic couldn't do anything.
kelnos 3y ago
I assume they mean that you can use an Android phone, instead. Which I think is preposterous, but... there we are.