In 2021, a federal judge ruled that Apple had to give his grip on the App Store a bit. On Wednesday, about four years later, the same judge found that Apple failed to do so deliberately and tried to hide his non -compliance in the process. In a strong opinion, Judge Yun Gonzalez Rogers said she would not give Apple a second chance to correct it: instead, she is demanding specific changes to the App Store, and is taking away Apple’s grip after years of unstable changes in response.
The decision describes a deliberate process through which Apple developed a way to comply with the original court order, only “at every step” chosen an anti -comitotive option.
In its 2021 legal battle with Epic Games, Apple won most of the cases. But the company removed the trial with a court order and said that developers should be allowed to add links and buttons to their apps that will instruct users to purchase methods outside the App Store-also called the “anti-steering order”. Perhaps the reflection of how well Apple performed in court, the order did not strictly explain what Apple could do or what could not be done: it was so ambiguous that it opened a flaw through which the company could continue to sell developers on the web.
After the order came down, Apple began to guess which changes it could implement, which would “restrict the decision”, as said in a set of a set of internal meeting.
The court found that Apple decided to combine two bad options
First – And the biggest decision was whether Apple should take a commission at all. Apple considered numerous options: there may be no deduction, but where links were placed, the app can charge developers on the basis of download or any other matriculation, or it can determine a new commission for web purchases and audit developers based on their sales.
Progress began and these ideas were stopped as Apple appealed to the original decision of Gonzalez Rogers through a legal system. When it became clear that Apple would have to comply with it, the company worked on its preferred option: reduce its commission rate and audit.
Apple knew that this was the worst option for developers, the judge wrote in his opinion this week. Apple believes that leaving all the fees will be “very attractive to developers”, even with heavy restrictions on how the web linking process works. Gonzalez Rogers writes, “Apple expected most of the major developers and potentially many medium and small developers offering linkout purchases to their customers.” The company expected that it would lose millions of revenue from millions.
On the contrary, Apple believes its commission and audit approach “best” will be attractive to the best developers.
Finally, Apple decided to combine two different perspectives – as the court saw it, “the most anticotamic option.” Apple mixed the commission and audit approach with restrictions where links could be kept.
Once it was reached on a point of view, the company started meeting to determine what the commission should be. The original order of Gonzalez Rogers states that Apple has been welcomed to receive fees, but the company needs to provide a defensive explanation for this rate – Apple’s standard 30 % fee was basically nothing.
Apple’s executives wanted the ‘scary’ language to warn users
The company tied about different numbers. Some leaders wanted to see that it comes at 20 %. The then Chief Financial Officer Luka teacher wanted to see him 27 %. And when they were discussed, there was still a high level of disagreement about charging the commission. “I have already explained many of my issues with the notion of the Commission,” App Store leader Phil Shaller wrote in an email. “Clearly I am not in the team/fee.”
Finally, Apple CEO Tim Cook decided to select a 27 % commission. The court says Apple knew that the commission would be so high that the external credit card processing fee would make the option unacceptable for developers. And the important thing is that the court found that the number is still nothing but Apple’s profit. The company did not come with the explanation why its services were so valuable that they were worth fees.
From there, Apple began to finish details: How will the outgoing links and buttons work? And what will happen when users tapped them?
Apple realized that more prominent links would be used more, so it wants to restrict their space. The company made fun of links different designs of links. In one version, the links will be added inside the round edges and color background buttons. In another, the links will be presented in a simple text. It finally decided to limit links to just a simple text.
The designers then make fun of what happens when the link is tapped. He considered numerous options: in one, a small popup users must be informed that they are about to open their web browser. In another, a full -screen warning will appear with large text readings, “Do you believe you want to continue?”
“Apple tried to secure its illegal tax from every angle.”
Apple chose to repeat the full screen option, which aims to prevent users from continuing to the web. The popup also included a paragraph of the text, and employees discussed using the “scary” language to warn people.
Rafael Aunak, a user -writing manager in Apple, instructed an employee to add the “external website” phrase to the screen as it “looks terrible, so the executive will love it.” Another employee made a suggestion to make the screen “even bad” instead of the app name. Another Apple employee replied in the slack, “Oh – keep going.”
Even the kicks joined the proceedings. When he finally saw the screen for approval, he asked that another warning is that Apple’s privacy and security promises will no longer apply to the web.
And there were more restrictions: Apple chose to limit the text that developers can use on links. It has decided to prevent some developers that reduce the commission rate from using the new web and link rules. It prevented developers from using dynamic links that would keep users log in, as the company wants to produce more friction.
Gonzalez Rogers looked at the constant decision to choose the worst option for Apple’s developers and decided that the company did not care only to comply with its order. “In other words, Apple tried to secure its illegal tax from every angle,” he wrote.
Under the new decision, Apple requires developers to use links and buttons unlimited for sale purposes. And the company is no longer allowed to receive a commission on the purchase made on the web.
Apple spokesman Olivia Dalton said the company disagrees with the court’s decision and will appeal.
