When the last time we reviewed the legal war between the epic and Apple, it seems that things have come out mostly in favor of Apple. Almost all orders in this case were with Apple, the judges only agreed with the epic on a relatively narrow-looking question about the anti-stable provisions-app-store rules that prohibit developers from identifying app users in alternative ways to buy digital items or subscriptions.
Regulatory apple was simultaneously looking for itself in Europe than hot water, where the company was forced to allow even third -party app stores to work on iOS, the legal process in the United States has created a bit more than the wrist veil. The app distribution is far from the earthquake change in landscape epic when it selected the fight.
Later, after several years by the original judge and an explosive court decision, it seems as if Apple has taken away the defeat of victory. Judge Yon Gonzalez Rogers released this week Exactly harsh opinion On non -compliance with Apple’s original decision, a company’s executive has been accused of lying under the oath (for which potential criminal charges are cited), and the company must order a new, too much binding, a new, a step -out, a new, actions of a new, very binding.
“According to Tim Swini’s credit, it is a genuine ridiculous thing to ‘offer’ to the Fortentite as part of his peace deal as part of the deal.”
Epic’s Tim Swini in a quick victory lap with the press, claiming that Fortynite would be Return to the App Store next week –
This is a huge work of PR, and you can’t accuse Swinie of benefiting the situation – but it is worth remembering that the decision is extinguished by Apple’s behavior as it may, yet only applies to the issue where the judge actually supported the epic.
This does not change any of the other orders, and certainly does not order Apple’s developer account or any of its software (Swanie’s credit, “offering an app offering” as part of its peace deal, because of its absence by Apple).
This rule and treatment orders are still specially associated with anti-steering methods-there is nothing to suggest that Apple will be ordered to open a third-party app store like Europe, for example.
Even if the question of anti -steering is a narrow topic compared to the overall scope of the original case, the new order is still very important in a couple of ways. O.L, that means how Apple runs the App Store in these regards is now subject to strict supervision.
You do not need to remove the courts so much and still get the Broad widespread to translate your own treatment and decisions. In this regard, Apple’s behavior has been termed as anti -competitive and deliberately non -compliance, which means that the room to make money on the subject and make its own decisions will be extremely limited in the future.
Of course. There will be appeals (though the appeals of the original decision have not been made, and the new decision may not change the legal reasoning), but it seems that the court will now order Apple to remove all the fees related to the off -platform transactions, and forbid any simple screen to comply with a third.
This is a clear significance of this decision – and if it remains on the appeal, it will be very fast for the App Store business as a whole – but there is also a less clear aspect of it that is capable of thinking.
When Apple’s original decision on most matters, applied to the epic victory over anti-steering policies, it was widely seen as a very narrow victory-many minor privileges that Apple would have to do, while maintaining its most platform business.
However, this rule and events show that, it is not exactly how many senior figures inside Apple have seen things. Some observers have characterized Apple’s actions and decisions that make the judge so angry as they are mere mistakes or memories, but I find it difficult to believe in their interpretation.
Apple has great legal advice, and Tim Cook has nothing if not a cautious leader – but despite senior personalities like Phil Shiller, despite the debate against this route, and is being openly discussed on the risks of this loss, the company’s most senior administration has still chosen an influence about an impact.
Even an officer of the company put his neck on the line (according to the decision), which is probably commonly facing ordinary corporations instead of the financial penalties on the wrist.
Unless Apple really has eliminated itself above the law and beyond the law (which is certainly not impossible impossible, but it seems that it will remain like a culture that will put a CEO so comfortable and generally at risk as a kick). Very dangerous measures were also legitimate in trying.
“The theory, what it should do, a very new form of competition has been opened than the payment processing for these transactions”
The judge has now been ordered to order a maximum interpretation of the original decision that stops Apple’s ability to work with discrimination in its implementation, now we will see if the company’s threat was justified or not.
Clearly, this does not directly affect the App Store’s commission structure. This simply means that developers can push users from other platforms to the app and Apple cannot interfere with these transactions nor charge any fees related to them (it actually planned a 27 % of its usual 30 % IAP fee on a 27 % discount on the app.
What it should do, ideologically, a very new form of competitiveness is being opened compared to the processing processing for these transactions, so Apple’s fees can eventually be forced to leave the company’s transaction solution to keep the transaction solution to the third party.
In practice, it is unlikely that this order – if implemented and maintained for a long period of time – this way will directly affect the market. One of the main differences between the new court order and the original decision is that the original left-wing route for Apple to receive some fees for off-platform transactions until they can justify the developers in terms of the App Store offering services-a justification that it has noticed about the current 30 fee, about the current 30 fee. It was
The new ruler removes this path. Since Apple has just chosen the most anti -compotable option and has not followed the order to justify its fee structure, it is no longer needed to set off off -platform fee.
For now, this will create new opportunities and options for developers, and yes, it can force Apple to be more competitive with its fees. But the company still clearly feels that this app justifying the developers to use the App Store platform in some way (which is probably fair), and instead of being trapped below the competition with fees with third -party processors, it is very likely that they will try to replace their fees.
In the European Union, he tested with an install fee, which developers hate quite reasonably. It is unclear which other routes are open to this decision, but it is unlikely that this app will abandon the idea of a complete cut from store transactions.
The decisions that make in this regard in this regard can potentially change the business model for apps and sports in a very basic way. Initially, the narrow nature of this anti -rule has only turned into an infection point that can change the landscape for every developer in this place in the coming years.
