31 ms·

Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

1165 points by shayneo 1y ago

flawn 1y ago
https://archive.ph/ZQLtD https://archive.ph/ZQLtD
- firloop 1y ago
  Apple News+ link: https://apple.news/AlNSjMktVT9afQICM2yRVYw https://apple.news/AlNSjMktVT9afQICM2yRVYw
  - whateveracct 1y ago
    nice ty. i always have so much trouble finding these links but i have Apple News+. is there an easy way to do it? i always have to manually go through issues.
    - sophiebits 1y ago
      In Safari you can hit the Share button at the bottom then pick News.
      - Mayzie 1y ago
        Odd. That is not there for me and I cannot add it :( I have the same problem as OP. I wish it were simple.
        eddyg 1y ago
        The “News” icon (to open a paywalled article in Apple News) only appears in the Share sheet in Safari.app proper.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        It’s a bit amusing to me that this sounds like another, different anti-trust issue. Apple’s browser having this feature, which other browser vendors (presumably) can’t add, to open another app would also look bad to an EU judge.
    - williamscales 1y ago
      Usually if the article is on Apple News+ it will come up if you search the headline on the “following” tab
  - jillyboel 1y ago
    why do we want an apple link that just redirects to the original article? is this just "look at me i'm a mac user" levels of spam?
    - AntonyGarand 1y ago
      I believe this is a way to use their own apple news subscription to access the article instead of using the archive version: It only redirects if you're not logged in to apple news.
      - jillyboel 1y ago
        So it's spam in the eyes of everyone who doesn't happen to subscribe to their service of choice? If they want to read an article through their news app they are of course free to do so, but why spam that link?
        colpabar 1y ago
        Is it really spam if it was posted a single time? Just downvote it and collapse the thread if you don't want to see it.
        bmacho 1y ago
        And flag it, bc it's a no value ad.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        If someone submit a Spotify link as an HN submission, I'd hope that's flagged for spam too.
        firloop 1y ago
        I’m sorry for posting it.
    - redwall_hp 1y ago
      Apple News+ is a bundle subscription to many otherwise paywalled newspapers, so people who have it can read it through there. If you view it on an Apple device, it takes you to the Apple News app and opens it there, rather than redirecting.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  The article is short enough that it makes more sense to quote it in full than to provide an archive link: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating a ruling in an antitrust case that required the company to loosen certain restrictions it imposes on software-makers in its App Store. > Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. > “Apple willfully chose not to comply with this court’s injunction,” she said in the ruling. “It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers.” She referred the case to federal prosecutors to determine whether a criminal contempt investigation is appropriate. > The order is the latest twist in the long-running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games, developer of the popular videogame “Fortnite.”
  - xp84 1y ago
    There’s more than this, though.
    - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
      ...wait, there is? It's not in the archive.is link!
      - virgoerns 1y ago
        WSJ probably updated the article. Here's the newer link: https://archive.is/20250501040217/https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-violated-antitrust-ruling-federal-judge-finds-66b85957 https://archive.is/20250501040217/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a...
        codetrotter 1y ago
        Makes sense. The original link says “updates to follow as news develop” at the bottom. And I guess they really meant that – that they were planning on expanding on it already when they first published the initial, short version of it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mil22 1y ago
About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate."
- stillatit 1y ago
  So what is the punishment for outright lying under oath?
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying under oath: your word now means nothing to honest people.
    - usefulcat 1y ago
      I've not seen the one from 1988; I'll have to check that out. I've long enjoyed the one from '66. I also heartily recommend both seasons of Wolf Hall. About Cromwell rather than More, but still fascinating.
      - 1y ago
cyberax 1y ago
Finally. The AppStore rules are ridiculous. Apple has zero moral justification for them. They are quadruple-dipping: 1. Consumers pay premium prices for Apple devices. 2. Developers have to pay $100 a year to be able to publish an app. 3. Developers need to buy expensive Apple hardware to develop for iOS. XCode doesn't work on Linux or Windows. 4. And on top of it, Apple also wants 30% of all the gross app sales. All while their tools that developers _have_ to use are buggy and often nigh unsusable (Apple Connect....). But wait, there's more! To keep the stronghold on developers, Apple is not allowing third-party apps to use JITs, resulting in a huge amount of time wasted to work around that.
- m463 1y ago
  also, you can't install software on your own device. Even when you can, you have to ask apple permission.
  - arresin 1y ago
    The broader consumer base will install anything a bad actor wants them to and then blame the manufacturer for not stopping them with some draconian rule.
    - smt88 1y ago
      The Play Store proves you absolutely wrong about this. It was an unfiltered Wild West until very recently.
    - TheDong 1y ago
      Please, side-loading is usually an annoying involved process targeted at developers which the average consumer cannot accidentally do. A bad actor would have better luck telling a victim "just ship me your phone and login password for some emergency maintenance" than instructing a user through sideloading an app onto their smart fridge. I, personally, would be happy if iOS had android-style side-loading where you have to enable developer mode, promise you're not an idiot, and go from there.
mrcwinn 1y ago
The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those expenses come nowhere close to the ~$30 billion in App Store commission Apple generates every year.
- m3kw9 1y ago
  The math of a one time fee is different than a percentage. Not sure what you are getting at by presenting a business model that doesn’t make sense as an argument
- ivanmontillam 1y ago
  Were they transparent, what would inhibit developers from bargaining against the costs and benefits shown? Sometimes that also outweighs the benefits of transparency. You just can't show anything to anyone without kicking a wasp's nest. I am not defending Apple, if anything, I am pro-Android here, but I understand the pickle they'd be in, were they be transparent with the cost structure.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Well, yeah. It would have shown that their commissions are nothing but rent-seeking.
    - ivanmontillam 1y ago
      Exactly my point! This would kick the wasp's nest of "they (Apple) don't need this much money to operate, they can do well with 10% profit!" Which is very hard to admit, that profit margins are arbitrary when you, indeed, dominate the market. Apple doesn't want (nor need) to give anyone a handle to anyone to make them accountable. It is not a charity. (Again, I'm not defending Apple, but I do defend corporate liberties, in general.)
Vt71fcAqt7 1y ago
I'm glad this happened, although I would have prefered if the result came from a new law eg. the Open App Markets Act rather than have to rely on what is or is not legally considered a market in terms of the sherman act etc.
medhir 1y ago
once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavior with the courts in this example.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox
  - medhir 1y ago
    I’m principled in my stance, I think if you own said Xbox you should be able to load software on that as well.
  - scq 1y ago
    Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well. Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.
    - udev4096 1y ago
      At the very least, sony doesn't get offended with new jailbreaks while nintendo will chase you down for even browsing an emulator's website
  - t_sawyer 1y ago
    Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs. We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.
    - 1y ago
lapcat 1y ago
A non-paywalled article, containing the link to the full decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672
bze12 1y ago
Their entire setup was egregious. They charge 27% for purchases made using external payment processors. Including Stripe fees that's net-zero (not even accounting for any chargeback risks). They severely limit how you can display the external purchase link too, and display an obnoxious warning screen when you tap it. I would be surprised if a single developer adopted it. https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
- tech234a 1y ago
  Only one I'm aware of is Delta Emulator by Riley Testut [1]. [1]: https://www.macstories.net/news/an-app-store-first-delta-adds-patreon-link-for-purchase-and-perks/ https://www.macstories.net/news/an-app-store-first-delta-add...
- kubb 1y ago
  Wasn’t there a recent EU fine for Apple for preventing developers from promoting alternative distribution channels within their apps, or linking to external subscription websites? Half of the entire HN was like „EU bad, how dare you regulate them”. What gives?
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Brands_and_consumer_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Brands_and_c...
  - openplatypus 1y ago
    HN is mostly US audience. EU = bad US = good
    - CalRobert 1y ago
      Seems to depend on time of day
      - 1y ago
EcommerceFlow 1y ago
The timing of this with Tim Sweeney's interview with Lex Friedman is great. Watching a few hours of it, it's no wonder he hasn't slowed down in the slightest in this fight against Apple, he is unrelenting in his focus.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  [flagged]
hereme888 1y ago
The judge should slap them in the wrist! Just like last time. Served them well...
cuuupid 1y ago
Does this mean Apple will have to give up their % fees or that they have to allow third party app stores in the US? And when does that go into effect?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- galleywest200 1y ago
  > Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. The ruling means this starts immediately it seems, as I cannot see a date listed anywhere.
  - rahkiin 1y ago
    So : make a free app. Ask people to buy the non-free version on a website. Apple gets 0. No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? The app store itself would be a gigantic loss leader that has to be paid for by iphone sales. If console makers have to do the same, consoles triple in price
    - enragedcacti 1y ago
      > No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? They should go down the hall and ask the MacOS developers how they do it.
    - gotimo 1y ago
      ...Apple makes revenue on the devices? On any monthly subscriptions you take with them? On the developers paying for licenses? And let's not act as if people would use iOS if they couldn't have their apps. It is so much of a net gain to Apple to allow people to develop their apps there's a good chance it's indirectly profitable without any direct revenue from IAP's.
thealexliang 1y ago
"Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anti-competitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anti-competitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple." I'd recommend skimming through the whole thing because Judge Rogers just eviscerates Apple over and over.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  It's so good... but also it has taken so, so long to get here. The US should've done something about the app store tax a long time ago. People thought Apple won their case, but it... really just took time to get here. You get to try malicious compliance with judges exactly once, and then you're over.
  - BLKNSLVR 1y ago
    Shoot me down with examples here, but my impression is that the US (historically, not just in the last three months) will never hurry to curtail the ability of a US company to make profit. With the possible exception of when a US company egregiously flouts laws that already exist. Effective regulation isn't a strength of the US.
    - VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
      The US has no problem with regulating its industries. It just doesn't do it pre-emptively out of fear the way the EU does. It actually lets business develop before assessing any damages.
      - poincaredisk 1y ago
        So you're arguing that it's s still to early to assess Google, Meta, Amazon and other big tech? Somehow I don't think that's right and EU realized the need of regulation much earlier.
brudgers 1y ago
Unless the fine is the better part of a trillion dollars, it won’t make any difference. Apple has close to 1/2 trillion in revenue a year. A few billion is rounding error.
- bobmcnamara 1y ago
  Or toss Tim Apple in the huscow for contempt.
  - ncallaway 1y ago
    I don’t think that’s likely with the referral to the US attorney. I think Cook will probably find that there is a dollar value that will get Trump to instruct a us attorney to drop charges
  - willhslade 1y ago
    Hoosegow?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bobmcnamara 1y ago
      It's Ozark-Germanic for Hoosegow, though I may have heard it as far west as Amarugia.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- sureIy 1y ago
  Some country recently fined Apple every day until they resolved the issue. I think such solution would both help push Apple to actually resolve the issue and do so in a timely manner. As much money as they have, no shareholder wants to see a $1m/day expense on the balance sheet.
  - 1y ago
yieldcrv 1y ago
> iPhone users are accustomed to using the App Store to make digital purchases, and changing their behavior could prove difficult Apple Pay on websites works flawlessly and is great for impulse purchases. Its the same as the inapp experience. I think this user experience will be fine.
amazingamazing 1y ago
all these big companies being hypocrites. congress should just pass a law that you can't be big and end the charades.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  I think that's actually the effect of anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws. There's a point where companies get "too big to fail"/"too big to jail" and have outsize effect on the country (especially if the country is stupid enough to pass a Citizens United law that explicitly allows them to do this). Anti-trust laws are the main way that the government tries to prevent this, and haven't really been used since Reaganomics decided that big == efficient. Until recently. Passing a law that companies cannot exceed a certain size (market cap as a percentage of GDP, I guess?) would probably be a simpler way of achieving this. Though, obviously, the accounting profession would roll up its collective sleeves and declare "challenge accepted".
  - sosull 1y ago
    With only a passing knowledge of the field, I'm aware that the standard of monopolistic effect varies between the EU and US (neither specifically uses financial size as the standard). In the EU it's about whether there is sufficient competition in the market, whereas in the US it's about whether the price is sufficiently competitive.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      In US it's basically "whether there's harm to the consumer", which is so nebulous that large monopolists can often successfully argue that their abusive practices are a net benefit (usually by arguing that prices are lower). It wasn't always like that, though. We used to have antitrust with serious teeth in this country. And then it literally got borked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox
sensanaty 1y ago
Is there any hope of a non-joke fine here? Or are we just looking at another kiss of the wrists as them and Google and all the other big tech cos fuck literally everyone over?
- semiquaver 1y ago
  The important penalty isn’t a fine, it’s a forced change of behavior to comply with the injunction. The referral for criminal contempt charges will end up being a slap on the wrist if they are even charged though.
  - bpodgursky 1y ago
    No this is actually going get Tim Cook's attention. Contempt can mean actual jail time for execs.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  A fine isn't even necessary: Apple's App Store business just ended. Between app sales and IAP it has a 30% tax. If an app developer swaps out for a Stripe portal they're paying 3% and probably at least doubling their own profit margin. Only an idiot would still be selling apps through Apple's payments next week. The only way Apple will make any money at all on apps is if it drops it's fees to 10% or below.
  - clhodapp 1y ago
    A fine is still necessary because (as per the original ruling), they should have never foisted their store on people seventeen years ago when they first launched it and certainly should not have done so when the court ordered them to stop four years ago. If there isn't a fine, the message will be that it's fine to profit off of ignoring court orders until you face thread of contempt charges.
    - simondotau 1y ago
      When Apple first launched the App Store, developers everywhere were praising Apple for offering such favourable terms.
pcvetkovski 1y ago
Groundbreaking. We just released Crosspay, a cross-platform in-app subscriptions SDK for iOS, Android, macOS, Linux, Windows, and Web apps, enabling users to purchase subscriptions once, and use anywhere. As this ruling becomes effective, we will also enable users to choose their payment method on any platform, instead of being tied to Apple App Store. However, apps that charge $1 or less per transaction will continue to pay over 30% in fees (e.g. Stripe charges 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction) See more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43714552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43714552
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  I vouched this comment because I found it genuinely helpful, I was looking for cross payment service for my apps that work across all platforms (they're in Flutter, do you support that?).
w_for_wumbo 1y ago
This is huge, because it means that anyone buying an iPhone or apple product going forward is knowingly supporting this behaviour. I fully expect this to be the ruin of Apple.
- canogat 1y ago
  Apple is still a hardware company. A loss of revenue from software and services sales is far from ruinous for Apple.
- brailsafe 1y ago
  This seems like a bit of a reach tbh. It's no doubt hopefully huge, but by buying a product you're not implicitly agreeing with every or any element of internal company politics that occured during its production. I buy Macbooks because I tend to like most aspects of them, but use mostly Pixel phones, does that mean I support literally anything Tim Cook or leadership does to produce anything else? Not really, I just use the tools that work for me.
- 77pt77 1y ago
  > I fully expect this to be the ruin of Apple. Apple products are status products. Especially in the USA. No one will care.
- eviks 1y ago
  What is the magic information dissemination service that guarantees that every future customer knows?
  - w_for_wumbo 1y ago
    This is human communication. If you make an ethics-based decision and communicate that with friends or family, they then have to make the conscious choice to continue supporting the business with this practice or seek alternatives. People who care about humans will support businesses that care about humans.
- bzzzt 1y ago
  If that's the bar you're setting nobody would buy Microsoft or Google since they also got convicted of monopolistic practices.
gamblor956 1y ago
"She also referred the case to prosecutors for potential criminal investigation into the company and a top finance executive." That's big. You really have to piss off a judge for them to refer a case for criminal investigation.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  i think all you need to do is commit a crime
dchest 1y ago
"In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s perspective, of the “execs” on the project, Mr. Schiller was at the top. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:4–6 (Onak).) One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” (CX-206.4.) To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.” (Id.) I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. I knew they had to have discussions about the scare screen, but come on! This is pure evil.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  Want something even more evil? I got you. When saurik sued Apple for antitrust reasons over Cydia[1] (which sadly ended up going nowhere), at some point a hearing was held where his lawyer accidentally read out something that was supposed to be protected/sealed. Apple's lawyer quickly interjected, but what saurik's attorney got to read before ended up in the official transcript[2], and it's straight up disgusting. From p.18: "For example, something where -- they are talking about an iOS update that, quote, broke Cydia Impactor. Where they said, it feels too good to destroy someone's spirit. We did something else today that will kill him again with a little smiley emoticon. That, we can specifically talk about with respect to Cydia." [1] For those not in the know, Cydia was the de-facto App Store for jailbroken iDevices, the prominent third-party marketplace before AltStore. [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18730843/75/saurikit-llc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18730843/75/saurikit-ll...
  - saurik 1y ago
    FWIW, the lawsuit went pretty far--all the way to an appeals court--but failed on what was ostensibly a statute of limitations issue that made very little sense and feels wrong :/. I still intend to write a giant article about it at some point, and probably do a long interview / lamentation about it on t3dotgg's YouTube channel... it just has felt so difficult to approach as the whole thing was so upsetting :(.
snowwrestler 1y ago
It’s a shame Phil Schiller has gotten sidelined. He always seemed like a good guy and a big part of the “soul” of Apple as it made its resurgence under Jobs after the NeXT merger.
- clhodapp 1y ago
  Phil Schiller was one of the strongest voices against cross-platform messaging interoperability. He's just as bad as the rest of them.
  - AnonHP 1y ago
    But isn’t that orthogonal to this topic? Being strong on not allowing or losing to competition from a business standpoint vs. advocating that it’s a good idea to follow the judicial directives without playing around?
    - clhodapp 1y ago
      He was an advocate for illegal anti-competitive business behavior. How do I know it was probably illegal? Because Apple finally caved and implemented RCS once it started leaking through backchannels that a legal case was being built against them.
  - snowwrestler 1y ago
    You can’t guarantee E2E across messaging networks. Apple still doesn’t do it, and neither does Signal, WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.
    - jlokier 1y ago
      Sure you can. The services just need to agree protocols. The tech & cryptography part is not difficult these days. We've had guaranteed E2E for email since PGP in 1991, though not many people cared enough to use it. None of the services you listed do it, but that's because they don't want to, not because it can't be done. It's a business decision problem, not a technical problem.
xuki 1y ago
> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  I’m liking Phil more than I expected to.
  - syndeo 1y ago
    Ironically, not really the shill as many would think.
- pornel 1y ago
  This worries me beyond anti-competitive stuff. If Tim Cook is willing to lie and cheat for extra revenue, I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments. Services revenue line must keep going up, and their ad business is a growth opportunity.
  - Mindwipe 1y ago
    I mean, if Apple were ever serious there would be a way to have applications installed on iOS without having to tell Apple. They were never serious.
  - 20after4 1y ago
    Similar to how Google merged with DoubleClick and threw out the whole "don't be evil" policy. My luke-warm take is that the advertising industry is inherently evil.
gok 1y ago
[flagged]
ChadNauseam 1y ago
Here is the wording from the judge: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/3a81ee5d-5103-4306-b9c1-9d21ea60b0a3.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/3a81ee5d-5103-4306-...
rafaelcosta 1y ago
There's a whole class of sh*t-software that only exists (and is profitable) because users subscribe to them and then forget – primarily because the subscription fee is charged as "Apple" on their Credit Card. I wonder what's gonna happen with this type of scam.
- redleather 1y ago
  Nothing? The ruling is that app developers get to choose how they communicate to users, or how they charge in-app fees. The kind of shady developers you describe would simply continue to use Apple, as it benefits them to do so.
  - rafaelcosta 1y ago
    Right now, yes, but there's a potential to: - Most legit services move to a web based Apple Pay (note to the unaware reader: this is NOT In-App Purchases and has never had 30% fees) due to the ease of implementing and lower fee (easier to do cross platform + web) - Non-legit developers keep the In-App flow Over time this would skew In-App Purchases to be scammy-only (and therefore, easier to spot). I'm sure people at Apple consider this possibility too – and therefore, now that there's actual competition, IAP flows will probably have to change to prevent this and compete for actual developer preference (and keep it a viable legit-developer choice)
    - ENGNR 1y ago
      So they should probably just scrap the 30% fee. At the very least scrap it if the user was linked directly to the app. And just make the also huge commission on the payments.
- pasc1878 1y ago
  If through Apple it is easy to cancel and all subs are listed in one place. If done through third parties directly the scammers will not make unsubscribing easy and it will not be as easy to find out where you are subscribing. Thus I expect the scamming to increase.
newbie578 1y ago
Finally vindicated! For years we were arguing with the Apple fanboys here on HN about what Apple is doing and how it is wrong, immoral and illegal. Glad to see something starting to happen. I just wonder what are the next excuses going to be?
bgro 1y ago
Besides nothing, I wonder what penalty they’ll face.
smugma 1y ago
Full 80 page court transcript: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
caseyy 1y ago
Many people blame the EU for targeting US companies when it passes anti-monopoly and pro-consumer laws, or penalizes the companies for breaking them. Now that US courts are doing it more, it seems that corporations abusing their monopoly powers are the problem, not EU laws. But what do I know.
- resource_waste 1y ago
  I don't really know this issue, I don't study it. But from afar: >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I've essentially not considered EU audiences because I'm small and focus on the engineering + product directed toward 'everyone except Europe' because it feels like near anarchy. >This is precision work. These companies get too big and anger the wrong person, so they get knocked. However, we obviously see that when its so big, these violations last significantly longer and often can go unpunished.
  - ginko 1y ago
    >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I've essentially not considered EU audiences because I'm small and focus on the engineering + product directed toward 'everyone except Europe' because it feels like near anarchy. The DMA specifically only applies to platforms with more than 45 million active users.
  - graemep 1y ago
    >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I That is true of some EU laws. Many have a disproportionate impact on smaller companies. GDPR for example, and the early versions of VATMOSS in terms of things I have dealt with. Also, non EU laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act. Not just in technology. It is also true of UK licensing laws for pubs - an example my attention was drawn to by comments made by the SEO of a big pub company as giving it an advantage. On the other hand the EU's DMA and a lot of competition regulation gets that right.
    - Wobbles42 1y ago
troad 1y ago
The court decision itself is worth reading for a revealing look behind the curtain. [0] >> In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” [...] One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.” [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
- bitpush 1y ago
  Jesus Christ. How worse can they be? Willfully malicious
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Now we will have corporate training programs teaching us to say "inform the user" when we mean "scare the user", and then this wont show up in court. Just like how Microsoft taught us to never say "crush the competition". They will do all the same things though.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Then that training will get called into evidence (like Google’s prior training re: anti competitive training) to prove they were being intentionally anti-competitive, and rinse repeat.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        I’ve worked for one BigTech company in my career and there were a list of banned words we couldn’t say in writing. The one word I remember we couldn’t say was “moat”.
plst 1y ago
Responding to a comment by bn-l, but also to the general sentiment about Apple and untrusted code I often see on hacker news. > The broader consumer base will install anything a bad actor wants them to and then blame the manufacturer for not stopping them with some draconian rule. Has this even happened? Has anyone ever sued and won the case with a laptop manufacturer (or Microsoft or Apple), because they downloaded and executed an executable with malware on their computer? Do average people really blame Microsoft for malware? I would kind of agree that they should, but not because Microsoft allows people to run untrusted code, but because the security model of Windows (and other PC operating systems) is still bad. But not because it allows people to run unsigned code. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should return to security model of old operating systems - smartphone OSes definitely got that right, except for the part that forces users to give up control of their devices. It's just that the argument, that allowing people to install software not signed by Apple on their own devices would make iPhones insecure, is totally unsubstantiated to me. I see some people still arguing that (ex. older) people will do what they are told and will install shady software. If Apple really cares, they could provide a switch that allows users to disable installing "unverified" software. Maybe ask about it during setup. Maybe allow locking it until factory reset, or allow head of icloud family to control it. There are many options to keep some people secure from all unverified apps, while allowing others to run them. Not to mention that the idea that all apps not signed by Apple are somehow malicious is just bad. You could have other entities than Apple verify code. Currently, even running apps you yourself wrote, on your own hardware, is hard and limited. For no good reason. The only reason Apple is blocking other stores, or preventing people from installing homebrew, is to collect more money. It's good that they are investing into security of their software and hardware, but in this particular case, security is used only as a distraction.
- wpm 1y ago
  > . If Apple really cares, they could provide a switch that allows users to disable installing "unverified" software. This exists on the Mac. You can configure Gatekeeper to always allow unsigned executables and packages to run, and skip the "You should move this to the Trash it could damage your computer" BS prompts. You can only do this with a Configuration Profile.
amai 1y ago
Related: https://mobilegamer.biz/apples-phil-schiller-refuses-to-fix-app-review-and-needs-to-get-his-meaty-paws-off-the-app-store/ https://mobilegamer.biz/apples-phil-schiller-refuses-to-fix-...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
neallindsay 1y ago
Apple should abandon the console model for iPhones (and iPads, etc.). It's corrosive. By my back-of-the napkin math (subtracting an estimate of Google's quarterly search payments from Apple's stated "services" revenue and comparing to iPhone revenue), Apple would make the same amount of money by just charging me an extra 25% when I bought a phone. I would gladly pay that up-front instead of indirectly when I buy apps.
- MarioMan 1y ago
  A 25% price jump would cause much grumbling. That being said, I’d like to believe that there’s a real market for bootloader unlocked iPhones.
- klabb3 1y ago
  Its not a dollar value. It’s an ongoing percentage based tax on your business relationships and consumption with other providers. For instance, say Netflix has an iOS app with 10M installs. Apple wants 30% of the subscription revenue even though their costs are static. The only variable cost is payment infrastructure which to some degree is proportional to amounts (fraud etc). But what is the market value of that? A couple percent at most? Are apple even taking any risk? And honestly, Apple could easily take 5-10% and I’m sure lots of vendors would still use them due to user preference - it’s trustworthy, provided an overview of ongoing subscriptions, and importantly you can cancel without being on a 30min retention call with absolute garbage companies. But that needs to be played out by the markets. Competition will make Apples option cheaper and most likely competitors will step up to match the UX at lower prices. Free markets, like democracy, have this paradox of tolerance, ie bad faith players can abuse the very system to destroy it in self-interest.
  - neallindsay 1y ago
    I was looking at quarterly revenue numbers—it seems like a dollar value to me.
willchang 1y ago
What was Alex Roman's lie? I'm having a hard time figuring that out.
- n4r9 1y ago
  It's not very clear in OP, but is reported better in other places. > Apple employees attempted to mislead the Court by testifying that the decision to impose a commission was grounded in AG’s report. The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases. > The Court finds that Apple did consider the external costs developers faced when utilizing alternative payment solutions for linked out transactions, which conveniently exceeded the 3% discount Apple ultimately decided to provide by a safe margin. Apple did not rely on a substantiated bottoms-up analysis during its months-long assessment of whether to impose a commission, seemingly justifying its decision after the fact with the AG’s report. > Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases […] Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023. > Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court. https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/01/a-senior-apple-exec-could-be-jailed-in-epic-case-its-time-to-end-this-disaster/ https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/01/a-senior-apple-exec-could-be-...
rrgok 1y ago
I’ve always been critical of headlines that frame the company as the culprit—especially when the company can’t be sent to prison or face personal consequences. No, it wasn’t "Apple" that violated antitrust laws—Tim Cook approved the actions. Apple doesn't make decisions on its own; it operates under the direction and vision of the people in charge. It's far too convenient for C-level executives to reap the rewards when their leadership drives profits, only to shift blame to "the company" when things go wrong. Accountability should work both ways.
- Wobbles42 1y ago
  No one ever suggests that we hold the owners of companies liable for what their companies do. I know that this is the entire point of limited liability corporations -- to divorce ownership from responsibility -- but maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
- jorams 1y ago
  I agree with the core of your sentiment, but I don't think moving the framing from the company to the person is the answer. It makes it too easy for a company to put the blame on an individual that has conveniently been fired (either for the relevant reason or any other) and then act like the problem is solved. The individuals most responsible should face personal consequences. The company should also face consequences. As they say: One bad apple spoils the bunch. (no pun intended)
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Works where archive.ph is blocked, no Apple surveillance disguised as "convenience", no Javascript: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN Read the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
jim201 1y ago
I am concerned that the App Store has become the norm. For many young people, iPhones and iPads have been their only computer. Many have never seen a world where app developers can distribute independently. The NYT had an article out about ruling, and the number of people supporting the App Store was astounding. I think Apple has done a great job marketing the App Store as the reason for the security/UX of their platform, when in reality, it's the OS. It's the OS that requires apps to get permission before accessing my location, it's the OS that isolates apps from each other, it's the OS that provides an easy way to install/uninstall packages. The confusion between benefits of the OS/benefits of the App Store combined with many peoples' unfamiliarity with third party distribution has made it more difficult to convince people of the merit of these antitrust suits.
- parhamn 1y ago
  I like this decision. But I also like that I can cancel all my IAP subs in the settings quickly. Maybe stripe could set up consumer accounts to do the same.
  - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
    And under this decision, you will be still be free to only subscribe to apps that go through Apple and allow you to cancel that way
    - parhamn 1y ago
      Hmm. I'm already considering switching our app to stripe only to ease billing reconciliation. Managing users who made in app purchases who want regular web access as well has been a pain.
      - gumby271 1y ago
        Perhaps the added competition will encourage Apple to improve this, they haven't had any reason to make it better so far.
  - 1y ago
mijoharas 1y ago
So what actually happens here? Other than the possible contempt for the guy who lied under oath (and some bad press), doesn't this injunction just mean that apple has to do... what it was already previously ordered to do? Are there no fines or consequences for them doing this? Am I missing something else here?
- cyral 1y ago
  Previously they were ordered to allow outside payments. Apple “complied” by requiring a 27% cut on all outside payments (slight discount to cover the cost of Stripe or whatever), a massive scary popup saying that outside sites can’t be trusted, and the link wasn’t allowed to be in the “payment flow” (where else would it be?), and the right to audit your finances. There were some other things but that’s what I remember as being the most egregious. Since this basically defies what the court would require, they are now explicitly telling Apple that none of that is allowed, and that there cannot be any restrictions on placement or styling of links to outside payments. As the judge said, no reasonable person would believe that their actions are complying with that they were instructed to do. > Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the coverup made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
ksec 1y ago
2025, this marks 11+ years I have been saying that App Store is not sustainable. They should have made a separate Game Store and continue to collect those 30% from games, which protect 75% to 80% of their current App Store revenue. Then 5 - 6% for all subscription based services like Netflix and Spotify. If you include the Credit Card Processing and other tax / VAT report this is a fair amount I think most company would be on board. And 10% for everything else. Including Tipping and other IAP etc. Apple would have protected most of their App Store revenue, generate lots of good will and continue their walled garden path. But for whatever reason over the years every time I mentioned it I get downvoted. Now it may be too late. The damage to developer relationship, to many business and to its brand.
neonate 1y ago
https://archive.ph/9BKTB https://archive.ph/9BKTB
1970-01-01 1y ago
Google, Apple, Facebook all receiving judicial face slaps these past few days! Let's continue with Amazon, Microsoft, and the other supergiant corporations.
matt3210 1y ago
Apple will get their money. Expect other costs to make up for any lost costs because of this.

1165 points by shayneo 1y ago

flawn 1y ago

https://archive.ph/ZQLtD https://archive.ph/ZQLtD

firloop 1y ago
Apple News+ link: https://apple.news/AlNSjMktVT9afQICM2yRVYw https://apple.news/AlNSjMktVT9afQICM2yRVYw
- whateveracct 1y ago
  nice ty. i always have so much trouble finding these links but i have Apple News+. is there an easy way to do it? i always have to manually go through issues.
  - sophiebits 1y ago
    In Safari you can hit the Share button at the bottom then pick News.
    - Mayzie 1y ago
      Odd. That is not there for me and I cannot add it :( I have the same problem as OP. I wish it were simple.
      - eddyg 1y ago
        The “News” icon (to open a paywalled article in Apple News) only appears in the Share sheet in Safari.app proper.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        It’s a bit amusing to me that this sounds like another, different anti-trust issue. Apple’s browser having this feature, which other browser vendors (presumably) can’t add, to open another app would also look bad to an EU judge.
  - williamscales 1y ago
    Usually if the article is on Apple News+ it will come up if you search the headline on the “following” tab
- jillyboel 1y ago
  why do we want an apple link that just redirects to the original article? is this just "look at me i'm a mac user" levels of spam?
  - AntonyGarand 1y ago
    I believe this is a way to use their own apple news subscription to access the article instead of using the archive version: It only redirects if you're not logged in to apple news.
    - jillyboel 1y ago
      So it's spam in the eyes of everyone who doesn't happen to subscribe to their service of choice? If they want to read an article through their news app they are of course free to do so, but why spam that link?
      - colpabar 1y ago
        Is it really spam if it was posted a single time? Just downvote it and collapse the thread if you don't want to see it.
        bmacho 1y ago
        And flag it, bc it's a no value ad.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        If someone submit a Spotify link as an HN submission, I'd hope that's flagged for spam too.
      - firloop 1y ago
        I’m sorry for posting it.
  - redwall_hp 1y ago
    Apple News+ is a bundle subscription to many otherwise paywalled newspapers, so people who have it can read it through there. If you view it on an Apple device, it takes you to the Apple News app and opens it there, rather than redirecting.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
The article is short enough that it makes more sense to quote it in full than to provide an archive link: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating a ruling in an antitrust case that required the company to loosen certain restrictions it imposes on software-makers in its App Store. > Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. > “Apple willfully chose not to comply with this court’s injunction,” she said in the ruling. “It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers.” She referred the case to federal prosecutors to determine whether a criminal contempt investigation is appropriate. > The order is the latest twist in the long-running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games, developer of the popular videogame “Fortnite.”
- xp84 1y ago
  There’s more than this, though.
  - Wowfunhappy 1y ago
    ...wait, there is? It's not in the archive.is link!
    - virgoerns 1y ago
      WSJ probably updated the article. Here's the newer link: https://archive.is/20250501040217/https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-violated-antitrust-ruling-federal-judge-finds-66b85957 https://archive.is/20250501040217/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a...
      - codetrotter 1y ago
        Makes sense. The original link says “updates to follow as news develop” at the bottom. And I guess they really meant that – that they were planning on expanding on it already when they first published the initial, short version of it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mil22 1y ago

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate."

stillatit 1y ago
So what is the punishment for outright lying under oath?
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying under oath: your word now means nothing to honest people.
  - usefulcat 1y ago
    I've not seen the one from 1988; I'll have to check that out. I've long enjoyed the one from '66. I also heartily recommend both seasons of Wolf Hall. About Cromwell rather than More, but still fascinating.
    - 1y ago

cyberax 1y ago

Finally. The AppStore rules are ridiculous. Apple has zero moral justification for them. They are quadruple-dipping: 1. Consumers pay premium prices for Apple devices. 2. Developers have to pay $100 a year to be able to publish an app. 3. Developers need to buy expensive Apple hardware to develop for iOS. XCode doesn't work on Linux or Windows. 4. And on top of it, Apple also wants 30% of all the gross app sales. All while their tools that developers _have_ to use are buggy and often nigh unsusable (Apple Connect....). But wait, there's more! To keep the stronghold on developers, Apple is not allowing third-party apps to use JITs, resulting in a huge amount of time wasted to work around that.

m463 1y ago
also, you can't install software on your own device. Even when you can, you have to ask apple permission.
- arresin 1y ago
  The broader consumer base will install anything a bad actor wants them to and then blame the manufacturer for not stopping them with some draconian rule.
  - smt88 1y ago
    The Play Store proves you absolutely wrong about this. It was an unfiltered Wild West until very recently.
  - TheDong 1y ago
    Please, side-loading is usually an annoying involved process targeted at developers which the average consumer cannot accidentally do. A bad actor would have better luck telling a victim "just ship me your phone and login password for some emergency maintenance" than instructing a user through sideloading an app onto their smart fridge. I, personally, would be happy if iOS had android-style side-loading where you have to enable developer mode, promise you're not an idiot, and go from there.

mrcwinn 1y ago

The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those expenses come nowhere close to the ~$30 billion in App Store commission Apple generates every year.

m3kw9 1y ago
The math of a one time fee is different than a percentage. Not sure what you are getting at by presenting a business model that doesn’t make sense as an argument
ivanmontillam 1y ago
Were they transparent, what would inhibit developers from bargaining against the costs and benefits shown? Sometimes that also outweighs the benefits of transparency. You just can't show anything to anyone without kicking a wasp's nest. I am not defending Apple, if anything, I am pro-Android here, but I understand the pickle they'd be in, were they be transparent with the cost structure.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Well, yeah. It would have shown that their commissions are nothing but rent-seeking.
  - ivanmontillam 1y ago
    Exactly my point! This would kick the wasp's nest of "they (Apple) don't need this much money to operate, they can do well with 10% profit!" Which is very hard to admit, that profit margins are arbitrary when you, indeed, dominate the market. Apple doesn't want (nor need) to give anyone a handle to anyone to make them accountable. It is not a charity. (Again, I'm not defending Apple, but I do defend corporate liberties, in general.)

Vt71fcAqt7 1y ago

I'm glad this happened, although I would have prefered if the result came from a new law eg. the Open App Markets Act rather than have to rely on what is or is not legally considered a market in terms of the sherman act etc.

medhir 1y ago

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavior with the courts in this example.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox
- medhir 1y ago
  I’m principled in my stance, I think if you own said Xbox you should be able to load software on that as well.
- scq 1y ago
  Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well. Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.
  - udev4096 1y ago
    At the very least, sony doesn't get offended with new jailbreaks while nintendo will chase you down for even browsing an emulator's website
- t_sawyer 1y ago
  Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs. We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.
  - 1y ago

lapcat 1y ago

A non-paywalled article, containing the link to the full decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672

bze12 1y ago

Their entire setup was egregious. They charge 27% for purchases made using external payment processors. Including Stripe fees that's net-zero (not even accounting for any chargeback risks). They severely limit how you can display the external purchase link too, and display an obnoxious warning screen when you tap it. I would be surprised if a single developer adopted it. https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

tech234a 1y ago
Only one I'm aware of is Delta Emulator by Riley Testut [1]. [1]: https://www.macstories.net/news/an-app-store-first-delta-adds-patreon-link-for-purchase-and-perks/ https://www.macstories.net/news/an-app-store-first-delta-add...
kubb 1y ago
Wasn’t there a recent EU fine for Apple for preventing developers from promoting alternative distribution channels within their apps, or linking to external subscription websites? Half of the entire HN was like „EU bad, how dare you regulate them”. What gives?
- timschmidt 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Brands_and_consumer_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Brands_and_c...
- openplatypus 1y ago
  HN is mostly US audience. EU = bad US = good
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    Seems to depend on time of day
    - 1y ago

EcommerceFlow 1y ago

The timing of this with Tim Sweeney's interview with Lex Friedman is great. Watching a few hours of it, it's no wonder he hasn't slowed down in the slightest in this fight against Apple, he is unrelenting in his focus.

zozbot234 1y ago
[flagged]

hereme888 1y ago

The judge should slap them in the wrist! Just like last time. Served them well...

cuuupid 1y ago

Does this mean Apple will have to give up their % fees or that they have to allow third party app stores in the US? And when does that go into effect?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
galleywest200 1y ago
> Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. The ruling means this starts immediately it seems, as I cannot see a date listed anywhere.
- rahkiin 1y ago
  So : make a free app. Ask people to buy the non-free version on a website. Apple gets 0. No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? The app store itself would be a gigantic loss leader that has to be paid for by iphone sales. If console makers have to do the same, consoles triple in price
  - enragedcacti 1y ago
    > No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? They should go down the hall and ask the MacOS developers how they do it.
  - gotimo 1y ago
    ...Apple makes revenue on the devices? On any monthly subscriptions you take with them? On the developers paying for licenses? And let's not act as if people would use iOS if they couldn't have their apps. It is so much of a net gain to Apple to allow people to develop their apps there's a good chance it's indirectly profitable without any direct revenue from IAP's.

thealexliang 1y ago

"Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anti-competitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anti-competitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple." I'd recommend skimming through the whole thing because Judge Rogers just eviscerates Apple over and over.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
It's so good... but also it has taken so, so long to get here. The US should've done something about the app store tax a long time ago. People thought Apple won their case, but it... really just took time to get here. You get to try malicious compliance with judges exactly once, and then you're over.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  Shoot me down with examples here, but my impression is that the US (historically, not just in the last three months) will never hurry to curtail the ability of a US company to make profit. With the possible exception of when a US company egregiously flouts laws that already exist. Effective regulation isn't a strength of the US.
  - VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
    The US has no problem with regulating its industries. It just doesn't do it pre-emptively out of fear the way the EU does. It actually lets business develop before assessing any damages.
    - poincaredisk 1y ago
      So you're arguing that it's s still to early to assess Google, Meta, Amazon and other big tech? Somehow I don't think that's right and EU realized the need of regulation much earlier.

brudgers 1y ago

Unless the fine is the better part of a trillion dollars, it won’t make any difference. Apple has close to 1/2 trillion in revenue a year. A few billion is rounding error.

bobmcnamara 1y ago
Or toss Tim Apple in the huscow for contempt.
- ncallaway 1y ago
  I don’t think that’s likely with the referral to the US attorney. I think Cook will probably find that there is a dollar value that will get Trump to instruct a us attorney to drop charges
- willhslade 1y ago
  Hoosegow?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobmcnamara 1y ago
    It's Ozark-Germanic for Hoosegow, though I may have heard it as far west as Amarugia.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
sureIy 1y ago
Some country recently fined Apple every day until they resolved the issue. I think such solution would both help push Apple to actually resolve the issue and do so in a timely manner. As much money as they have, no shareholder wants to see a $1m/day expense on the balance sheet.
- 1y ago

yieldcrv 1y ago

> iPhone users are accustomed to using the App Store to make digital purchases, and changing their behavior could prove difficult Apple Pay on websites works flawlessly and is great for impulse purchases. Its the same as the inapp experience. I think this user experience will be fine.

amazingamazing 1y ago

all these big companies being hypocrites. congress should just pass a law that you can't be big and end the charades.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
marcus_holmes 1y ago
I think that's actually the effect of anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws. There's a point where companies get "too big to fail"/"too big to jail" and have outsize effect on the country (especially if the country is stupid enough to pass a Citizens United law that explicitly allows them to do this). Anti-trust laws are the main way that the government tries to prevent this, and haven't really been used since Reaganomics decided that big == efficient. Until recently. Passing a law that companies cannot exceed a certain size (market cap as a percentage of GDP, I guess?) would probably be a simpler way of achieving this. Though, obviously, the accounting profession would roll up its collective sleeves and declare "challenge accepted".
- sosull 1y ago
  With only a passing knowledge of the field, I'm aware that the standard of monopolistic effect varies between the EU and US (neither specifically uses financial size as the standard). In the EU it's about whether there is sufficient competition in the market, whereas in the US it's about whether the price is sufficiently competitive.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    In US it's basically "whether there's harm to the consumer", which is so nebulous that large monopolists can often successfully argue that their abusive practices are a net benefit (usually by arguing that prices are lower). It wasn't always like that, though. We used to have antitrust with serious teeth in this country. And then it literally got borked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox

sensanaty 1y ago

Is there any hope of a non-joke fine here? Or are we just looking at another kiss of the wrists as them and Google and all the other big tech cos fuck literally everyone over?

semiquaver 1y ago
The important penalty isn’t a fine, it’s a forced change of behavior to comply with the injunction. The referral for criminal contempt charges will end up being a slap on the wrist if they are even charged though.
- bpodgursky 1y ago
  No this is actually going get Tim Cook's attention. Contempt can mean actual jail time for execs.
ocdtrekkie 1y ago
A fine isn't even necessary: Apple's App Store business just ended. Between app sales and IAP it has a 30% tax. If an app developer swaps out for a Stripe portal they're paying 3% and probably at least doubling their own profit margin. Only an idiot would still be selling apps through Apple's payments next week. The only way Apple will make any money at all on apps is if it drops it's fees to 10% or below.
- clhodapp 1y ago
  A fine is still necessary because (as per the original ruling), they should have never foisted their store on people seventeen years ago when they first launched it and certainly should not have done so when the court ordered them to stop four years ago. If there isn't a fine, the message will be that it's fine to profit off of ignoring court orders until you face thread of contempt charges.
  - simondotau 1y ago
    When Apple first launched the App Store, developers everywhere were praising Apple for offering such favourable terms.

pcvetkovski 1y ago

Groundbreaking. We just released Crosspay, a cross-platform in-app subscriptions SDK for iOS, Android, macOS, Linux, Windows, and Web apps, enabling users to purchase subscriptions once, and use anywhere. As this ruling becomes effective, we will also enable users to choose their payment method on any platform, instead of being tied to Apple App Store. However, apps that charge $1 or less per transaction will continue to pay over 30% in fees (e.g. Stripe charges 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction) See more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43714552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43714552

satvikpendem 1y ago
I vouched this comment because I found it genuinely helpful, I was looking for cross payment service for my apps that work across all platforms (they're in Flutter, do you support that?).

w_for_wumbo 1y ago

This is huge, because it means that anyone buying an iPhone or apple product going forward is knowingly supporting this behaviour. I fully expect this to be the ruin of Apple.

canogat 1y ago
Apple is still a hardware company. A loss of revenue from software and services sales is far from ruinous for Apple.
brailsafe 1y ago
This seems like a bit of a reach tbh. It's no doubt hopefully huge, but by buying a product you're not implicitly agreeing with every or any element of internal company politics that occured during its production. I buy Macbooks because I tend to like most aspects of them, but use mostly Pixel phones, does that mean I support literally anything Tim Cook or leadership does to produce anything else? Not really, I just use the tools that work for me.
77pt77 1y ago
> I fully expect this to be the ruin of Apple. Apple products are status products. Especially in the USA. No one will care.
eviks 1y ago
What is the magic information dissemination service that guarantees that every future customer knows?
- w_for_wumbo 1y ago
  This is human communication. If you make an ethics-based decision and communicate that with friends or family, they then have to make the conscious choice to continue supporting the business with this practice or seek alternatives. People who care about humans will support businesses that care about humans.
bzzzt 1y ago
If that's the bar you're setting nobody would buy Microsoft or Google since they also got convicted of monopolistic practices.

gamblor956 1y ago

"She also referred the case to prosecutors for potential criminal investigation into the company and a top finance executive." That's big. You really have to piss off a judge for them to refer a case for criminal investigation.

fsckboy 1y ago
i think all you need to do is commit a crime

dchest 1y ago

"In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s perspective, of the “execs” on the project, Mr. Schiller was at the top. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:4–6 (Onak).) One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” (CX-206.4.) To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.” (Id.) I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. I knew they had to have discussions about the scare screen, but come on! This is pure evil.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
Want something even more evil? I got you. When saurik sued Apple for antitrust reasons over Cydia[1] (which sadly ended up going nowhere), at some point a hearing was held where his lawyer accidentally read out something that was supposed to be protected/sealed. Apple's lawyer quickly interjected, but what saurik's attorney got to read before ended up in the official transcript[2], and it's straight up disgusting. From p.18: "For example, something where -- they are talking about an iOS update that, quote, broke Cydia Impactor. Where they said, it feels too good to destroy someone's spirit. We did something else today that will kill him again with a little smiley emoticon. That, we can specifically talk about with respect to Cydia." [1] For those not in the know, Cydia was the de-facto App Store for jailbroken iDevices, the prominent third-party marketplace before AltStore. [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18730843/75/saurikit-llc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18730843/75/saurikit-ll...
- saurik 1y ago
  FWIW, the lawsuit went pretty far--all the way to an appeals court--but failed on what was ostensibly a statute of limitations issue that made very little sense and feels wrong :/. I still intend to write a giant article about it at some point, and probably do a long interview / lamentation about it on t3dotgg's YouTube channel... it just has felt so difficult to approach as the whole thing was so upsetting :(.

snowwrestler 1y ago

It’s a shame Phil Schiller has gotten sidelined. He always seemed like a good guy and a big part of the “soul” of Apple as it made its resurgence under Jobs after the NeXT merger.

clhodapp 1y ago
Phil Schiller was one of the strongest voices against cross-platform messaging interoperability. He's just as bad as the rest of them.
- AnonHP 1y ago
  But isn’t that orthogonal to this topic? Being strong on not allowing or losing to competition from a business standpoint vs. advocating that it’s a good idea to follow the judicial directives without playing around?
  - clhodapp 1y ago
    He was an advocate for illegal anti-competitive business behavior. How do I know it was probably illegal? Because Apple finally caved and implemented RCS once it started leaking through backchannels that a legal case was being built against them.
- snowwrestler 1y ago
  You can’t guarantee E2E across messaging networks. Apple still doesn’t do it, and neither does Signal, WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.
  - jlokier 1y ago
    Sure you can. The services just need to agree protocols. The tech & cryptography part is not difficult these days. We've had guaranteed E2E for email since PGP in 1991, though not many people cared enough to use it. None of the services you listed do it, but that's because they don't want to, not because it can't be done. It's a business decision problem, not a technical problem.

xuki 1y ago

> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 1y ago
I’m liking Phil more than I expected to.
- syndeo 1y ago
  Ironically, not really the shill as many would think.
pornel 1y ago
This worries me beyond anti-competitive stuff. If Tim Cook is willing to lie and cheat for extra revenue, I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments. Services revenue line must keep going up, and their ad business is a growth opportunity.
- Mindwipe 1y ago
  I mean, if Apple were ever serious there would be a way to have applications installed on iOS without having to tell Apple. They were never serious.
- 20after4 1y ago
  Similar to how Google merged with DoubleClick and threw out the whole "don't be evil" policy. My luke-warm take is that the advertising industry is inherently evil.

gok 1y ago

[flagged]

ChadNauseam 1y ago

Here is the wording from the judge: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/3a81ee5d-5103-4306-b9c1-9d21ea60b0a3.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/3a81ee5d-5103-4306-...

rafaelcosta 1y ago

There's a whole class of sh*t-software that only exists (and is profitable) because users subscribe to them and then forget – primarily because the subscription fee is charged as "Apple" on their Credit Card. I wonder what's gonna happen with this type of scam.

redleather 1y ago
Nothing? The ruling is that app developers get to choose how they communicate to users, or how they charge in-app fees. The kind of shady developers you describe would simply continue to use Apple, as it benefits them to do so.
- rafaelcosta 1y ago
  Right now, yes, but there's a potential to: - Most legit services move to a web based Apple Pay (note to the unaware reader: this is NOT In-App Purchases and has never had 30% fees) due to the ease of implementing and lower fee (easier to do cross platform + web) - Non-legit developers keep the In-App flow Over time this would skew In-App Purchases to be scammy-only (and therefore, easier to spot). I'm sure people at Apple consider this possibility too – and therefore, now that there's actual competition, IAP flows will probably have to change to prevent this and compete for actual developer preference (and keep it a viable legit-developer choice)
  - ENGNR 1y ago
    So they should probably just scrap the 30% fee. At the very least scrap it if the user was linked directly to the app. And just make the also huge commission on the payments.
pasc1878 1y ago
If through Apple it is easy to cancel and all subs are listed in one place. If done through third parties directly the scammers will not make unsubscribing easy and it will not be as easy to find out where you are subscribing. Thus I expect the scamming to increase.

newbie578 1y ago

Finally vindicated! For years we were arguing with the Apple fanboys here on HN about what Apple is doing and how it is wrong, immoral and illegal. Glad to see something starting to happen. I just wonder what are the next excuses going to be?

bgro 1y ago

Besides nothing, I wonder what penalty they’ll face.

smugma 1y ago

Full 80 page court transcript: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

caseyy 1y ago

Many people blame the EU for targeting US companies when it passes anti-monopoly and pro-consumer laws, or penalizes the companies for breaking them. Now that US courts are doing it more, it seems that corporations abusing their monopoly powers are the problem, not EU laws. But what do I know.

resource_waste 1y ago
I don't really know this issue, I don't study it. But from afar: >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I've essentially not considered EU audiences because I'm small and focus on the engineering + product directed toward 'everyone except Europe' because it feels like near anarchy. >This is precision work. These companies get too big and anger the wrong person, so they get knocked. However, we obviously see that when its so big, these violations last significantly longer and often can go unpunished.
- ginko 1y ago
  >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I've essentially not considered EU audiences because I'm small and focus on the engineering + product directed toward 'everyone except Europe' because it feels like near anarchy. The DMA specifically only applies to platforms with more than 45 million active users.
- graemep 1y ago
  >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I That is true of some EU laws. Many have a disproportionate impact on smaller companies. GDPR for example, and the early versions of VATMOSS in terms of things I have dealt with. Also, non EU laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act. Not just in technology. It is also true of UK licensing laws for pubs - an example my attention was drawn to by comments made by the SEO of a big pub company as giving it an advantage. On the other hand the EU's DMA and a lot of competition regulation gets that right.
  - Wobbles42 1y ago

troad 1y ago

The court decision itself is worth reading for a revealing look behind the curtain. [0] >> In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” [...] One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.” [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

bitpush 1y ago
Jesus Christ. How worse can they be? Willfully malicious
- Jensson 1y ago
  Now we will have corporate training programs teaching us to say "inform the user" when we mean "scare the user", and then this wont show up in court. Just like how Microsoft taught us to never say "crush the competition". They will do all the same things though.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Then that training will get called into evidence (like Google’s prior training re: anti competitive training) to prove they were being intentionally anti-competitive, and rinse repeat.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      I’ve worked for one BigTech company in my career and there were a list of banned words we couldn’t say in writing. The one word I remember we couldn’t say was “moat”.

plst 1y ago

Responding to a comment by bn-l, but also to the general sentiment about Apple and untrusted code I often see on hacker news. > The broader consumer base will install anything a bad actor wants them to and then blame the manufacturer for not stopping them with some draconian rule. Has this even happened? Has anyone ever sued and won the case with a laptop manufacturer (or Microsoft or Apple), because they downloaded and executed an executable with malware on their computer? Do average people really blame Microsoft for malware? I would kind of agree that they should, but not because Microsoft allows people to run untrusted code, but because the security model of Windows (and other PC operating systems) is still bad. But not because it allows people to run unsigned code. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should return to security model of old operating systems - smartphone OSes definitely got that right, except for the part that forces users to give up control of their devices. It's just that the argument, that allowing people to install software not signed by Apple on their own devices would make iPhones insecure, is totally unsubstantiated to me. I see some people still arguing that (ex. older) people will do what they are told and will install shady software. If Apple really cares, they could provide a switch that allows users to disable installing "unverified" software. Maybe ask about it during setup. Maybe allow locking it until factory reset, or allow head of icloud family to control it. There are many options to keep some people secure from all unverified apps, while allowing others to run them. Not to mention that the idea that all apps not signed by Apple are somehow malicious is just bad. You could have other entities than Apple verify code. Currently, even running apps you yourself wrote, on your own hardware, is hard and limited. For no good reason. The only reason Apple is blocking other stores, or preventing people from installing homebrew, is to collect more money. It's good that they are investing into security of their software and hardware, but in this particular case, security is used only as a distraction.

wpm 1y ago
> . If Apple really cares, they could provide a switch that allows users to disable installing "unverified" software. This exists on the Mac. You can configure Gatekeeper to always allow unsigned executables and packages to run, and skip the "You should move this to the Trash it could damage your computer" BS prompts. You can only do this with a Configuration Profile.

amai 1y ago

Related: https://mobilegamer.biz/apples-phil-schiller-refuses-to-fix-app-review-and-needs-to-get-his-meaty-paws-off-the-app-store/ https://mobilegamer.biz/apples-phil-schiller-refuses-to-fix-...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

neallindsay 1y ago

Apple should abandon the console model for iPhones (and iPads, etc.). It's corrosive. By my back-of-the napkin math (subtracting an estimate of Google's quarterly search payments from Apple's stated "services" revenue and comparing to iPhone revenue), Apple would make the same amount of money by just charging me an extra 25% when I bought a phone. I would gladly pay that up-front instead of indirectly when I buy apps.

MarioMan 1y ago
A 25% price jump would cause much grumbling. That being said, I’d like to believe that there’s a real market for bootloader unlocked iPhones.
klabb3 1y ago
Its not a dollar value. It’s an ongoing percentage based tax on your business relationships and consumption with other providers. For instance, say Netflix has an iOS app with 10M installs. Apple wants 30% of the subscription revenue even though their costs are static. The only variable cost is payment infrastructure which to some degree is proportional to amounts (fraud etc). But what is the market value of that? A couple percent at most? Are apple even taking any risk? And honestly, Apple could easily take 5-10% and I’m sure lots of vendors would still use them due to user preference - it’s trustworthy, provided an overview of ongoing subscriptions, and importantly you can cancel without being on a 30min retention call with absolute garbage companies. But that needs to be played out by the markets. Competition will make Apples option cheaper and most likely competitors will step up to match the UX at lower prices. Free markets, like democracy, have this paradox of tolerance, ie bad faith players can abuse the very system to destroy it in self-interest.
- neallindsay 1y ago
  I was looking at quarterly revenue numbers—it seems like a dollar value to me.

willchang 1y ago

What was Alex Roman's lie? I'm having a hard time figuring that out.

n4r9 1y ago
It's not very clear in OP, but is reported better in other places. > Apple employees attempted to mislead the Court by testifying that the decision to impose a commission was grounded in AG’s report. The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases. > The Court finds that Apple did consider the external costs developers faced when utilizing alternative payment solutions for linked out transactions, which conveniently exceeded the 3% discount Apple ultimately decided to provide by a safe margin. Apple did not rely on a substantiated bottoms-up analysis during its months-long assessment of whether to impose a commission, seemingly justifying its decision after the fact with the AG’s report. > Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases […] Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023. > Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court. https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/01/a-senior-apple-exec-could-be-jailed-in-epic-case-its-time-to-end-this-disaster/ https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/01/a-senior-apple-exec-could-be-...

rrgok 1y ago

I’ve always been critical of headlines that frame the company as the culprit—especially when the company can’t be sent to prison or face personal consequences. No, it wasn’t "Apple" that violated antitrust laws—Tim Cook approved the actions. Apple doesn't make decisions on its own; it operates under the direction and vision of the people in charge. It's far too convenient for C-level executives to reap the rewards when their leadership drives profits, only to shift blame to "the company" when things go wrong. Accountability should work both ways.

Wobbles42 1y ago
No one ever suggests that we hold the owners of companies liable for what their companies do. I know that this is the entire point of limited liability corporations -- to divorce ownership from responsibility -- but maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
jorams 1y ago
I agree with the core of your sentiment, but I don't think moving the framing from the company to the person is the answer. It makes it too easy for a company to put the blame on an individual that has conveniently been fired (either for the relevant reason or any other) and then act like the problem is solved. The individuals most responsible should face personal consequences. The company should also face consequences. As they say: One bad apple spoils the bunch. (no pun intended)

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Works where archive.ph is blocked, no Apple surveillance disguised as "convenience", no Javascript: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN Read the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

jim201 1y ago

I am concerned that the App Store has become the norm. For many young people, iPhones and iPads have been their only computer. Many have never seen a world where app developers can distribute independently. The NYT had an article out about ruling, and the number of people supporting the App Store was astounding. I think Apple has done a great job marketing the App Store as the reason for the security/UX of their platform, when in reality, it's the OS. It's the OS that requires apps to get permission before accessing my location, it's the OS that isolates apps from each other, it's the OS that provides an easy way to install/uninstall packages. The confusion between benefits of the OS/benefits of the App Store combined with many peoples' unfamiliarity with third party distribution has made it more difficult to convince people of the merit of these antitrust suits.

parhamn 1y ago
I like this decision. But I also like that I can cancel all my IAP subs in the settings quickly. Maybe stripe could set up consumer accounts to do the same.
- jobs_throwaway 1y ago
  And under this decision, you will be still be free to only subscribe to apps that go through Apple and allow you to cancel that way
  - parhamn 1y ago
    Hmm. I'm already considering switching our app to stripe only to ease billing reconciliation. Managing users who made in app purchases who want regular web access as well has been a pain.
    - gumby271 1y ago
      Perhaps the added competition will encourage Apple to improve this, they haven't had any reason to make it better so far.
- 1y ago

mijoharas 1y ago

So what actually happens here? Other than the possible contempt for the guy who lied under oath (and some bad press), doesn't this injunction just mean that apple has to do... what it was already previously ordered to do? Are there no fines or consequences for them doing this? Am I missing something else here?

cyral 1y ago
Previously they were ordered to allow outside payments. Apple “complied” by requiring a 27% cut on all outside payments (slight discount to cover the cost of Stripe or whatever), a massive scary popup saying that outside sites can’t be trusted, and the link wasn’t allowed to be in the “payment flow” (where else would it be?), and the right to audit your finances. There were some other things but that’s what I remember as being the most egregious. Since this basically defies what the court would require, they are now explicitly telling Apple that none of that is allowed, and that there cannot be any restrictions on placement or styling of links to outside payments. As the judge said, no reasonable person would believe that their actions are complying with that they were instructed to do. > Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the coverup made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.

ksec 1y ago

2025, this marks 11+ years I have been saying that App Store is not sustainable. They should have made a separate Game Store and continue to collect those 30% from games, which protect 75% to 80% of their current App Store revenue. Then 5 - 6% for all subscription based services like Netflix and Spotify. If you include the Credit Card Processing and other tax / VAT report this is a fair amount I think most company would be on board. And 10% for everything else. Including Tipping and other IAP etc. Apple would have protected most of their App Store revenue, generate lots of good will and continue their walled garden path. But for whatever reason over the years every time I mentioned it I get downvoted. Now it may be too late. The damage to developer relationship, to many business and to its brand.

neonate 1y ago

https://archive.ph/9BKTB https://archive.ph/9BKTB

1970-01-01 1y ago

Google, Apple, Facebook all receiving judicial face slaps these past few days! Let's continue with Amazon, Microsoft, and the other supergiant corporations.

matt3210 1y ago

Apple will get their money. Expect other costs to make up for any lost costs because of this.