3 ms·
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 ruli
by thaumasiotes 2y 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 2y agoThere’s more than this, though.
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago...wait, there is? It's not in the archive.is link!
- virgoerns 2y agoWSJ 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 2y agoMakes 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.
- muro 2y agoThe court decision is worth the read, you can skip all articles.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoFor me, the archive.ph link now hits a CAPTCHA. Full article, works where archive.ph is blocked, no Javascript required, no tracking^1: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN 1. Archive.{is,md,ph,etc.} puts the reader's IP address in a "spy pixel" URL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_pixel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_pixel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316085
- catlikesshrimp 2y agoI am not hitting any captcha. On the other hand, the internet archive offers the same service with better credentials web.archive.org
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoArchive.{is,md,ph,etc.} is not the same "service" as archive.org For example, the later does not serve fulltext WSJ articles https://web.archive.org/web/20250501001608if_/https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-violated-antitrust-ruling-federal-judge-finds-66b85957 https://web.archive.org/web/20250501001608if_/https://www.ws... The CAPTCHA, a "service" from Cloudflare, is hit when using archive.{is,ph,md,etc.} at 207.241.237.3 If not using that IP, then will not necessarily hit CAPTCHA. One can switch to another address that works without CAPTCHA, such as 185.101.35.175 Until it too has problems; only a matter of time