10 ms·
Epic celebrates "the end of the Apple Tax" after court win in iOS payments case
- nobody9999 11mo agoOriginal Title (too long for title box): Epic celebrates “the end of the Apple Tax” after appeals court win in iOS payments case
- ChrisArchitect 11mo agoAre these the same thing? Different framing, confusing details: Apple wins partial reversal of sanctions in Epic Games antitrust lawsuit https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-appeals-court-partly-reverses-sanctions-against-apple-epic-games-antitrust-2025-12-11/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... (https://archive.ph/Cbi3f https://archive.ph/Cbi3f) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46237312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46237312
- nobody9999 11mo ago>Are these the same thing? Both articles appear to point at the same 9th circuit appeals court ruling: The Ars piece points at: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/US-Court-of-Appeals-for-the-Ninth-Circuit-December-11-.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/US-Co... Which appears to be the same ruling as the Reuters piece links to: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdqxweopo/Epic%20v%20Apple%20-%209th%20Circuit%20order%20-%2020251211.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdqxweopo/... As such, I believe that, yes, this is the same ruling reported by both Ars and Reuters.
- bilbo0s 11mo agoWell, yeah.. Devil's always in the details. But in this instance, any even partial win is still a win. Something is better than nothing.
- muro 11mo agoThe ruling says Apple can: insist on Apple IAP links/buttons to be the same as buttons/links to external payments. But they can't ask for the outgoing links/buttons to be less prominent charge for links/buttons to external payment, but not as they please. One interpretation is that it has to be based on real cost and can't in any way be tied to IAP costs. can't use scare screens on external purchases
- Bad_Initialism 11mo agoTim Cook has been absolutely fantastic for Apple shareholders and absolutely awful for anyone else, particularly the customers. The walled garden has to end. There is no excuse for making people pay a premium price for an iPad Pro that can't run a third party web browser or do software development in any meaningful way. Outside of a very narrow use case, the iPad product range is useless, despite the endless rantings of the brainwashed fanboys. Source: used to be one. Left the ecosystem when they started treating the RFCs like toilet paper.
- innagadadavida 11mo agoHard disagree. Tim should focus on fixing their software. It has become extremely buggy and it needs to be fixed. No one buying an iPad cares about running some custom browser and supporting it is pointless and is what makes the software emote complex and worse. He should take better care of his paying customers rather than engaging with opinionated activists.
- Barbing 11mo agoYou hopeful for this? Per Gurman: >For iOS 27 and next year’s other major operating system updates — including macOS 27 — the company is focused on improving the software’s quality and underlying performance. -via Bloomberg -18d Edit: almost can’t be true if they’re going to try to push Siri hard :-/
- codexb 11mo agoAt one point, there was a case for preventing scammy and fraudulent apps. For a long time, the ios App store had a much higher quality than android. But now? There are tons of scammy and fraudulent apps on the app store. If you try to search for any popular app, you'll be presented with a dozen apps that look similar with similar names and logos.
- bogwog 11mo agoLike when you search for anything "AI" and get bombarded with a wall of minimalist goatse
- pjmlp 11mo agoWhile having Epic Store, Fortnite "mini store", and being perfectly fine with Nintendo, Sony and XBox.
- madeofpalk 11mo agoWhy do you think Epic is okay with Nintendo, Sony, and XBox?
- ribosometronome 11mo agoBecause the three of them are all making their store business decisions outside of CA such that it's far harder to have California law applied to them?
- madeofpalk 11mo agoEpic also sued both Google and Apple in Australia, which is notably outside of CA. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/australia-court-rules-partly-against-apple-google-epic-games-lawsuit-2025-08-12/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/australia-court-rul... I think the simpler answer is that Epic isn’t upset with the arrangement they have with Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony. They’ve done a better job cultivating a relationship with Epic than Apple has who seems to have only contempt for every other developer. https://direct.playstation.com/en-gb/buy-consoles/playstation5-console-1-tb-fortnite-flowering-chaos-bundle https://direct.playstation.com/en-gb/buy-consoles/playstatio... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ubcwin-Switch-Fortnite-Wildcat-Bundle/dp/B08KB5FBH8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ubcwin-Switch-Fortnite-Wildcat-Bund...
- hbn 11mo agoBecause Epic is doing something much closer to those companies and restraints on what they can do would likely affect Epic as well.
- tuna74 11mo agoBecause if console makers can not "control" the platform there will probably not be future consoles which are a big part of Epic's sales.
- jmclnx 11mo agoNow I wonder what this will do to Google ? IIRC, they have been looking into a similar extortion fee for Android Developers.
- ralferoo 11mo agoI received an e-mail earlier this week saying that their new policies will be mandatory by January 28, 2026. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... It's incredibly similar to what Apple had before.
- bogwog 11mo ago> ... the appeals court now suggests that Apple should still be able to charge a “reasonable fee” based on its “actual costs to ensure user security and privacy.” > Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. Wow, one step forward, and one step back. Good job, Epic. The outcome is obviously going to be that Apple's store will have the most apps, with the most up to date versions, and with the most free apps/games. I'm sure Fortnite will do just fine though. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, why would the court allow Apple to act as a gatekeeper for their competitors?
- Spivak 11mo agoBecause Epic hitched their real desire, we want to do digital distribution independent of Apple, to wanting alternative App Stores and alternative payment methods. And Apple responded with a scheme that does the latter without the former. Sure you can use your own payment processor, we're still charging 27% though. Sure you can have your own App Store, you still have to go through the same review process though. It seems some of the cracks in this malicious compliance are starting to show.
- mike_d 11mo agoThere’s a Best Buy a few miles from my house. Why aren't I allowed to put my own products on their shelves, or set up a little folding table next to the phone accessories to sell my own cases? It is not fair to me as a merchant that everyone who wants to buy a phone case goes to Best Buy. That's where all the foot traffic is. It's clearly anti-competitive that they expect me to pay for shelf space I benefit from. And now they want to charge me to verify that the USB-C cables I'm selling actually work? How is that remotely reasonable? Just because most of my cables are faulty and customers will inevitably go complain to their customer service desk, why should I bear that cost? Consumers deserve the right to choose accessories from multiple independent merchants inside Best Buy. Suggesting otherwise is anti-consumer, anti-choice, and proof that you hate open and accessible ecosystems.
- bze12 11mo agoI don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they tried to charge 27%
- adgjlsfhk1 11mo agoI think Apple will have a very hard time arguing that the "reasonable" amount is a percentage of revenue with no cap.
- stockresearcher 11mo agoThey absolutely will and they will absolutely get away with it. It just won’t be anywhere close to 27%. There has been craploads of litigation about “Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” licensing over the last two decades, and fees that are percentages of revenue with no cap have survived and there is no reason to believe any of these legal standards will change. In fact, I think it’s likely that Apple and Google will team up to create a standards body that defines the method for distributing/installing smartphone apps (because this is now in their best interest, not that I want them to). These standards are going to end up using a bunch of patents that you will have to license on FRAND terms. Yes, the cost is going to go down. Yes, Epic is going to benefit a lot more than any indie developer. Such is life
- zamadatix 11mo agoThis isn't related to what's fair in licensing, comparing it as such is Apples to oranges.
- stockresearcher 11mo agoJust you wait
- zamadatix 11mo agoI'm not disagreeing on the conclusion, this argument of why was just not supportive of it.
- ancorevard 11mo ago[flagged]
- mvdtnz 11mo agoSorry what's strange about the choice of words "Sweeney wrote on social media"?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- buellerbueller 11mo agoNothing; it is all trash.
- jrowen 11mo agoKind of the same thing as "it was reported in a newspaper." It would normally be expected of a journalist to cite the specific source if they can.
- londons_explore 11mo agoJournalists love to be vague about sources so you don't go to the source.
- gumby271 11mo agoI mean, they also didn't say "Sweeney wrote (using his Logitech keyboard) on X". The link is right there, I don't see why it matters.
- Someone 11mo ago> Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. That should be more than enough to compensate the employees reviewing the apps to make sure outside payment links are not scams I would think making sure outside payment links aren’t scams will be more expensive than that because checking that once isn’t sufficient. Scammers will update the target of such links, so you can’t just check this at app submission time. You also will have to check from around the world, from different IP address ranges, outside California business hours, etc, because scammer are smart enough to use such info to decide whether to show their scammy page. Also, even if it becomes ‘only’ hundreds of dollars, I guess only large companies will be able to afford providing an option for outside payments.
- ihuman 11mo agoWouldn't that incentivize smaller developers not to update their apps unless absolutely necessary?
- mikkupikku 11mo agoI don't believe iOS app reviewers actually do any of that, even if on paper they do.
- liuliu 11mo agoThey don't need to check outside payment links, until recently (I doubt they do though).
- onion2k 11mo agoThey had to check that app authors hadn't added any.
- makeitdouble 11mo agoThey ferociously check everything that goes out of an app. If you have a hint of a payment button 15 clicked after leaving your support page through the site logo link your app would get immediately flagged for removal unless you deal with it within week or two give to you.
- ralferoo 11mo agoShared the same in a comment below, but probably worth adding as a top level comment. Google are doing exactly the same as Apple previously were doing, mandatory from end of next month - January 28, 2026. Their new requirements: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- x0x0 11mo agoThe US court order still remains in effect afaik, so not in the US. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/15582165 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- rstuart4133 11mo agoI don't know a lot about this, but for example an would app side loaded or delivered via F-Droid be subject to this policy? F-Droid notwithstanding using an alternative app is not a very attractive option right now as there no good alternatives. But if Valve can create an Android app store that competes with the Play store, the in principle situation is very different.
- ralferoo 11mo agoPresumably not, as it's a contractual thing when you upload something to Google Play. Not sure if there are rules about only uploading to Google Play if you use it at all. I've no idea, but I presume it's not even possible to use the Google Play purchasing API if your app isn't on the Play store.
- concinds 11mo agoIt feels like courts are not doing a good job promoting "competition". - Apple shouldn't be able to charge for external payments, come on. - Force prominent disclosure of refund policies. Epic Games doesn't allow them for IAP. Apple does. Epic knows exactly how predatory that is, betting some kids will find ways to spend thousands and the parents will be helpless. Ideally you'd have a law mandating refunds, but without that, there should be mandatory disclosure on the IAP screen, at least for microtransaction games. You can't have fair "competition" when you have an information asymmetry, and if these rulings don't mandate that, you'll open the floodgate for these gaming companies to screw over parents.
- arrosenberg 11mo agoAntitrust laws were written in the early 1900s and updated through the 1950s. Credit cards weren't available until 1966 and didn't become widely used until the 1990s. Digital platforms weren't a thing until the late 90s/early 2000s and the Apple app store didn't exist until 2008. The courts can only enforce the laws on the books. Congress needs to update the laws, but they won't because they are hopelessly corrupt :(
- lesuorac 11mo agoA lot of laws don't need updating. Courts don't allow you to submit false evidence yet somehow they need to update their produces to handle AI generated false submissions? The issue is enforcement. Plain and simple. The anti-trust on the books are fine; no more amount of written laws will make regulators regulate.
- arrosenberg 11mo agoLina Khan did try and regulate. She had some successes, but the major cases w/r/t concentration of power against Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple have all moved slowly and (so far) failed to result in break ups.
- lapcat 11mo ago> - Force prominent disclosure of refund policies. Epic Games doesn't allow them for IAP. Apple does. Apple has no official App Store refund policy, either for IAP or for upfront paid apps. I've already looked for one. There's of course a form to request a refund, but refunds are entirely at Apple's discretion, for any reason or no reason, and Apple often exercises its discretion to refuse refunds.
- briandw 11mo agoWill Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Valve and another software store have to allow mini stores on their platforms? That's to say software with its own payment system, inside of a free app?
- satvikpendem 11mo agoOne can only hope.
- wredcoll 11mo agoValve already provides a store inside someone else's platform.
- Rohansi 11mo agoValve doesn't restrict how you use their devices so you can install whatever you want on them already.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoIt'd be useless because you don't have a Dev kit at home to do this with. You can't just pay $100 and get access to the Nintendo SDK. And I don't think any of the big players are interested in fracturing consoles. Consoles change every 6-8 years so it's a moot point.
- LexiMax 11mo agoThis is factually incorrect. https://developer.nintendo.com/faq https://developer.nintendo.com/faq Q: How much does it cost to develop on Nintendo platforms? A: Registering for the portal and downloading the tools is completely free. Also, if you plan to release a digital only title, you can use the IARC system to retrieve the age rating for no fee, which will allow you to publish in all the participating countries. All that is left is the cost of acquiring development hardware: you will find more information on this inside the portal. Development hardware isn't cheap, but it's also not out-of-sight expensive either. There's a very good reason why you see so many indie games this past generation on Switch.
- pmarreck 11mo agoPeripheral question: Is there any "real" App Store on Linux except for Steam?
- dibujaron 11mo agoNot sure what you mean. apt-get, yum, and even things like snap act like app stores for free apps, no?
- mirzap 11mo agoEven with a non-free package, simply add the repository and you're ready to install it.
- f1refly 11mo agoIt's only a real "App-Store" if it has arbitrary restrictions and you must pay fees to a company, obviously.
- fwip 11mo agoI think a 'real store' generally allows you to exchange money for something. If I wanted to sell software to Linux users, Steam is probably the closest thing to an 'app store' you could expect to find. Windows has the Microsoft Store, and Macs have the Apple Store.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoSome distros have literal stores. But "Linux" isn't a centralized platform the same way Windows and Mac is. Also, the stores for desktop apps just don't really seem to be as effective. Companies are used to hosting their desktop apps on web. Games seems to be more of an exception to the rule, for historical reasons.
- pmarreck 10mo agoSilly. You know what I mean. A way to sell an app. Contributing to open source is nice, but some people want to eat food sometimes.
- codedokode 11mo agoIn my opinion, every manufacturer of a programmable device should not be allowed to prevent the buyer from reprogramming it.
- IshKebab 11mo agoI agree, with maybe minor exceptions. It's probably reasonable that radio hardware can't trivially be reprogrammed to exceed regulated power limits. Or for stuff that is extremely safety critical like pacemakers (though I think for those things it should be mandatory to share source code).
- ryandrake 11mo ago> It's probably reasonable that radio hardware can't trivially be reprogrammed to exceed regulated power limits. No more reasonable than limiting cars to 75mph (which some people, admittedly, are probably in favor of).
- IshKebab 11mo agoI think an 80mph limit would be reasonable (10 over the limit in the UK). I wouldn't be in favour of a hard 75mph because current speed limits are set by social consensus on the basis that they aren't strictly enforced. The police are extremely unlikely to stop you for doing 76mph in a 70, so I don't think your car should.
- fooker 11mo agoI don't think this should be a matter of regulation, as you can create a device that broadcasts powerful signals at almost any frequency, with high school physics and garage engineering. It should very much be enforced though, similar to speed limits on the road. It's much easier to zero in on weird electromagnetic waves than it is to catch people speeding on roads.
- lillecarl 11mo agoBy requiring high-school garage engineering to DOS your local RF services you prevent essentially everyone from doing it. I'm all in to allow free access to reading waves, but broadcasting is regulated for good reason. Today I was in the subway when my Bluetooth headset started lagging, it's happened once before on a highway close to a specific car, this is DOS. The radio spectrum is limited and it must be regulated and follow regulations, enforcement is really hard, it's a lot easier and reasonable to dump it on the manufacturers by locking the juice behind closed firmware.
- websiteapi 11mo agoNow let’s ban all probabilistic digital items like loot boxes.
- jncfhnb 11mo agoAre they still much of a thing? I was vaguely aware of epic dropping them years ago for Fortnite. Different from gacha at least.
- satvikpendem 11mo agoThe "reasonable" fees are not gonna be only a few hundred bucks, it'll still be a percentage of revenue but smaller than 27%. Apple will try to extract as much as possible and will not tolerate a non-percentage fee.
- jncfhnb 11mo agoI don’t see how they could argue for a percentage of revenue model while mandated to do this based on costs?
- satvikpendem 11mo agoIt's Apple, see their malicious compliance until nowand is don't expect it'll be any different in the future, they're gonna argue one way or another.
- jiscariot 11mo agoWill this help other services like Netflix, Spotify? Or am I misreading things. My understanding, at least several years ago, that Netflix was paying as much to Apple in subscription fees, as they did for their AWS hosting. I also noticed when upgrading my Spotify account, I couldn't do that through the iphone app itself - I assumed this was because it would break TOS, or they didn't want to pay a massive chunck of the monthly subscription cost to Apple.
- landr0id 11mo agoApple relaxed these rules shortly after the initial Epic vs Apple lawsuit: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/tech/apple-app-store-changes-intl-hnk https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/tech/apple-app-store-changes-... Apologies for being unable to find a better source at the moment, but it links to this press release: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-comm...
- GeekyBear 11mo agoNetflix and Spotify haven't paid Apple a cut for years. Customers pay subscription fees to them directly and Apple doesn't get a dime.
- madeofpalk 11mo agoTheir problem is that you cannot (could not) sign up for an account from the iPhone app. “You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store” https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...
- amelius 11mo agoWhy didn't Microsoft, back in the 90s, have an app store that businesses had to pay for to sell Windows applications in? I mean, it's certainly not for lack of business insight. And you don't need the internet to sell applications.
- rimunroe 11mo ago> And you don't need the internet to sell applications. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't know how you'd sell them otherwise. How do you do you process a payment without a network connection? The only thing I can think of is offering a catalog in the OS which users could browse and physically order stuff from, but I wouldn't call that a store.
- ThrowMeAway1618 11mo ago>Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't know how you'd sell them otherwise. How do you do you process a payment without a network connection? The only thing I can think of is offering a catalog in the OS which users could browse and physically order stuff from, but I wouldn't call that a store. Not GP but, processing payments absolutely does not require a network connection. Doing so is absolutely not nearly as convenient, but in my adult lifetime it was pretty normal for retailers to pick up a phone, give a customer service rep and/or automated call handler CC info and dollar amounts and get appropriate confirmations. As for a business without an OS interface not being a "store," that's ridiculous on its face. If that were true, we'd have to call 7/11 or any similar place (like those at most gas stations) convenience "locations with items for sale but not a store, because stores are only places with catalogs in my OS," and "places which sell stuff but aren't stores because rimunroe says they can't be a 'store' without a catalog in their OS." Touch grass, friend.
- Gracana 11mo agoYou can probably bet that the dumbest possible interpretation of someone's argument is not what they had in mind.
- orefalo 11mo agoApple can go to hell, their 30% fee is prohibitive. If Jobs was still here, he would have fired all the fat management. shame on you Apple, you are acting like M$!
- Semaphor 11mo agoWhy would jobs of all people have an issue with that?
- benoau 11mo agoHe loved their policy. He wrote it. > “I think this is all pretty simple — iBooks is going to be the only bookstore on iOS devices. We need to hold our heads high. One can read books bought elsewhere, just not buy/rent/subscribe from iOS without paying us, which we acknowledge is prohibitive for many things.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348130/apple-documents-steve-jobs-email-books-amazon-apps-antitrust-investigation-schiller https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348130/apple-documents-...
- Barrin92 11mo ago>shame on you Apple, you are acting like M$! Microsoft, for all their faults, gave us an actual operating system that people could build and distribute executables on as they saw fit with no restrictions, and they did it despite the fact that they owned almost the entire personal computing space. Imagine Microsoft had charged everyone who distributed a Windows executable 30%, they'd have made trillions by now. Bill Gates said once that Microsoft has captured maybe 1% of the value that people have created on top of their software because they don't insert themselves between what users do with each other and I do think they actually deserve some props for that
- whstl 11mo agoNah. Fuck Apple but the only reason Microsoft isn't doing the same thing Apple does with iOS is because they don't have a mobile operating system anymore. Even on Windows, Microsoft has very similar notarization requirements as Apple. Microsoft requires either an ~400-500$/year EV cert (if you don't want to involve Azure), or more recently a $10/month subscription to Azure, which is almost the same as Apple's $99/year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46182546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46182546
- quitit 11mo agoIt's odd to celebrate having the key sanctions unwound. Before this ruling: 1. Apple were prohibited from charging any fee for external/referral purchases. Now this is once again allowed and the district court will work with all parties to develop a reasonable commission. 2. External links were permitted to dominate over IAP options. Now they must have equal size, prominence and quantity. 3. Apple were prevented from showing any kind of exit screen, that is now restored (but it can't be a scare screen). 4. Apple were barred from preventing certain developers/app classes from using external links (such as those enrolled in the News or Video Partner Programs) those are now reversed and Apple can once again prevent them. Epic/Tim Sweeney are trying to spin these recent losses as a win. It's the old marketing playbook of hoping no one reads the fine print.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoIn the context of 2025, the appeals court not just outright throwing out the ruling down below is a win all its own. The celebration is premature but it's a good step forward legally. I think only #4 is a true loss here
- xivzgrev 11mo agoDavid vs Goliath - well done epic
- dabbz 11mo agoIt's more like Goliath vs Bigger Goliath. Small developers/business won't benefit from this change. End-users COULD benefit from this change but the skeptic in me knows Epic won't adjust their prices to reflect the smaller cut they have to pay now.
- css_apologist 11mo agowhen are we going to finally give up on the concept of the app store? it is not efficient, it doesn't incentivize high quality products, and the web proves that security / safety can be done in an open way.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoApple killed the idea of PWAs being viable, similar to killing Flash. 20 years of vendor lock on will make mentality hard to change.
- css_apologist 11mo ago.. or enforcing & updating anti-monopoly policies
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoThis case is more of a "lead a horse to water" situation. Even if Apple fully opened up PWAs there'd only be a small trickle of them as people developed to norms. Its still worth pursuing. Hut the effects may not be what we desire.
- samdoesnothing 11mo ago> the web proves that security / safety can be done in an open way A) the web is full of phishing and other scams, as well as tons of low quality garbage B) the web achieves this security model by limiting applications to a browser sandbox, which imposes restrictions on what the software can do. This is a non starter for many native apps.
- Razengan 11mo agoThis has never been about protecting users but about mobsters getting a bigger cut of the pie. Look at the major companies aligned with Epic on this, like Match.com, and what they do.
- Nevermark 11mo agoWhen can I ship my own web browser with my own JIT? This would be for a clear subset of the web, with strong protections. Obviously, on this venue the question is rhetorical. But Apple's prohibition on any kind of real web competition is a problem.
- bhelkey 11mo ago> When can I ship my own web browser with my own JIT? Do you live in Europe or Japan? If so, you can [1][2]. If not, Apple forbids you from doing so. The US, Department of Justice is suing Apple [3]. Maybe the US will be added to this list. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... [2] https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-apple-must-lift-engine-ban-by-december/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-apple-must-lift-eng... [3] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
- lostmsu 11mo agoHm, the US court case includes cloud gaming platforms. Is there a way for a startup in that area to get on the bandwagon?
- BrenBarn 11mo agoIs this going to involve any concrete penalty for Apple? If not, what incentive do they have to not keep doing the same thing over and over?
- pabs3 11mo agoWe really need a right to repair all software (or at least replace).
- pabs3 11mo ago> their own payment processors Thats another industry that needs more competition.
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 11mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 10mo ago[dead]
- travelguide 10mo ago[dead]
- 6510 10mo agoThe real joke will be when actually useful apps made by actually serious developers will appear on iphones.