4 ms·

I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Users can make a purchase for their app outside of

I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Users can make a purchase for their app outside of the App Store. But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission - and the net cost to developer is HIGHER than using Apple. Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the implementation but this definitely makes it murkier - can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? In any case it buys Apple more years of high rents, and possible indefinite victory (forever rents). Ultimately not great for users (as any monopoly isn’t) but I don’t expect a large business to act any different. I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business.

blibble 3y ago
> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. it's borderline contempt of court > I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business. I'd be pretty mad if I was the judge, they might like my 2nd ruling even less
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Hopefully the judge isn't like that. Bit of a silly character trait for a judge.
  - blibble 3y ago
    turns out courts don't like people treating them with contempt
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Doesn't mean you get angry, though. Just judge and move on.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont think the courts are bothered at all. Apple is complying with the ruling, and exercising the rights the court agreed it has.
- gruez 3y ago
  >it's borderline contempt of court I don't see how that's the case when judge explicitly mentions that apple is entitled to be paid for their IP.
- nodamage 3y ago
  The judge literally suggested Apple could do this in her ruling: "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." "The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods."
tomrod 3y ago
> can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? Yes, antitrust activity isn't solely based on the market concentration (HHI) but also on the _actions_ taken by large players. Monopolistic or monopsonistic activity results in net loss to consumer welfare.
wraptile 3y ago
> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple Are we pretending this giant abusive corporation is some cool movie gangsta or something? What is to respect here? Some c-suits dodging laws? The cult of apple never fails to surprise me - it's not that special lol.
- tekknik 3y ago
  compared to every other company out there, they are special. I also trust apple a heck of a lot more than even epic with my personal info.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Not at all. Both the district court as well as the 9th circuit who affirmed the district court’s judgment explicitly stated that only the anti-steering guideline needs to be scrapped, that Apple is still entitled to their commission because it serves as payment for their IP and that Apple would be entitled to include an auditing provision in their developer agreement. In fact, the courts noted how cumbersome this auditing process and after the fact collection of the commission would be. In other words, this is not only fully sanctioned by the courts, but the expected outcome. > But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission There was no reframing. It was always defined as such. Or to be more specific, the developer agreement always designated Apple as an agent to the developer, akin to a literary agent, and explicitly defined the commission as a payment for those agent services and Apple’s IP. The commission has also never legally been tied to IAP or payment through the App Store, but rather directly tied to sales in general. All the big parties that are now acting “shocked” that Apple would do this, such as Epic and Spotify, etc, have well paid legal departments that explained all of the above to the people in charge, so none of this is a surprise to any of them. They just bank on you not knowing so you’ll be a willing pawn in their push to make their profits go up. > Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the implementation but this definitely makes it murkier - can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? There’s nothing to challenge. The courts have spoken and SCOTUS declined to hear the case. It’s the law of the land and honestly, spelled out in a crystal clear plain language way in the judgments. None of this should be surprise to anyone.

blibble 3y ago

> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. it's borderline contempt of court > I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business. I'd be pretty mad if I was the judge, they might like my 2nd ruling even less

robertlagrant 3y ago
Hopefully the judge isn't like that. Bit of a silly character trait for a judge.
- blibble 3y ago
  turns out courts don't like people treating them with contempt
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Doesn't mean you get angry, though. Just judge and move on.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont think the courts are bothered at all. Apple is complying with the ruling, and exercising the rights the court agreed it has.
gruez 3y ago
>it's borderline contempt of court I don't see how that's the case when judge explicitly mentions that apple is entitled to be paid for their IP.
nodamage 3y ago
The judge literally suggested Apple could do this in her ruling: "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." "The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods."

tomrod 3y ago

> can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? Yes, antitrust activity isn't solely based on the market concentration (HHI) but also on the _actions_ taken by large players. Monopolistic or monopsonistic activity results in net loss to consumer welfare.

wraptile 3y ago

> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple Are we pretending this giant abusive corporation is some cool movie gangsta or something? What is to respect here? Some c-suits dodging laws? The cult of apple never fails to surprise me - it's not that special lol.

tekknik 3y ago
compared to every other company out there, they are special. I also trust apple a heck of a lot more than even epic with my personal info.

turquoisevar 3y ago

> They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Not at all. Both the district court as well as the 9th circuit who affirmed the district court’s judgment explicitly stated that only the anti-steering guideline needs to be scrapped, that Apple is still entitled to their commission because it serves as payment for their IP and that Apple would be entitled to include an auditing provision in their developer agreement. In fact, the courts noted how cumbersome this auditing process and after the fact collection of the commission would be. In other words, this is not only fully sanctioned by the courts, but the expected outcome. > But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission There was no reframing. It was always defined as such. Or to be more specific, the developer agreement always designated Apple as an agent to the developer, akin to a literary agent, and explicitly defined the commission as a payment for those agent services and Apple’s IP. The commission has also never legally been tied to IAP or payment through the App Store, but rather directly tied to sales in general. All the big parties that are now acting “shocked” that Apple would do this, such as Epic and Spotify, etc, have well paid legal departments that explained all of the above to the people in charge, so none of this is a surprise to any of them. They just bank on you not knowing so you’ll be a willing pawn in their push to make their profits go up. > Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the implementation but this definitely makes it murkier - can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? There’s nothing to challenge. The courts have spoken and SCOTUS declined to hear the case. It’s the law of the land and honestly, spelled out in a crystal clear plain language way in the judgments. None of this should be surprise to anyone.