3 ms·
How are they possibly in compliance? The judgement was about Apple's "steering practices", not just allowing 3rd party payment processing. They're clearly maki
by dns_snek 3y ago
How are they possibly in compliance? The judgement was about Apple's "steering practices", not just allowing 3rd party payment processing.
They're clearly making Apple's in-app purchases the preferential choice by prohibiting developers from using anything but a single plain text link, and scaring users with strongly worded warnings.
- tiltowait 3y agoHow are they not? IIUC, the ruling said Apple has to allow devs to link to an alternative payment processor (i.e. Netflix can now link to netflix.com instead of the absurd rigmarole they had to endure before). Apple now allows devs to do this, with certain requirements (namely, a 27% commission). Since the court said Apple is allowed to collect a commission, those requirements don't seem to be (to this non-lawyer) illegal. Are the strongly worded warnings untrue? Absolutely no one should be surprised by the new policy. Every podcast I listened that discussed the matter when the judge handed down the initial verdict predicted this outcome.