Apple Decides Its Victory Against Epic Wasn't Enough -- It Wants a Total Win (cnbc.com) 62
Apple wants another go in its legal battle against Epic Games. From a report: On Friday night, Apple announced it would ask for a stay on a judge's September order saying Apple would have to allow apps to direct customers to external websites. That ruling would let app businesses circumvent Apple's requirement to facilitate payments only inside of apps, where Apple takes up to a 30% cut. Apple is also appealing the ruling. Because Epic Games is also appealing the nine counts it lost, it could take years before the case is resolved and Apple is forced to make any changes to iOS, the operating system for iPhones, as the two companies wrangle through the appeals process in court. The judge is expected to rule on Apple's request for a stay next month.
Apple's move is a surprising turnaround from its tone following the decision in September. While the company always left open the possibility of an appeal, it portrayed the judge's ruling as a resounding legal win for its App Store business model, which has come under fire from technology rivals, international regulators and members of the U.S. Congress. "We are very pleased with the Court's ruling and we consider this a huge win for Apple," Kate Adams, Apple's lawyer, said in September following the ruling. The Friday night announcement inspired a torrent of commentary from Apple critics. They pointed out the move would preserve Apple's App Store profits by preventing apps from using alternative payment systems. One company announced last week that it was already working on a cheaper, web-based alternative to Apple's app payments -- a move made possible only by the ruling that Apple is now appealing.
Apple's move is a surprising turnaround from its tone following the decision in September. While the company always left open the possibility of an appeal, it portrayed the judge's ruling as a resounding legal win for its App Store business model, which has come under fire from technology rivals, international regulators and members of the U.S. Congress. "We are very pleased with the Court's ruling and we consider this a huge win for Apple," Kate Adams, Apple's lawyer, said in September following the ruling. The Friday night announcement inspired a torrent of commentary from Apple critics. They pointed out the move would preserve Apple's App Store profits by preventing apps from using alternative payment systems. One company announced last week that it was already working on a cheaper, web-based alternative to Apple's app payments -- a move made possible only by the ruling that Apple is now appealing.
outside the USA others have ruled the same way (Score:5, Interesting)
outside the USA others have ruled the same way more or less saying that apple can't block apps from talking about other ways to buy stuff.
So apple may be forced to open up any ways and how will they work things when apps in some zones all able to do X but can't do X in the usa?
Re: (Score:1)
Fortnite require an account if I'm not mistaken so in the USA people could login to their account on epics website and buy stuff via that site. It's not in the app so it should be begrudgingly allowed by apple if I'm not mistaken.
Surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's move is a surprising turnaround
Huh? How is a big company appealing a motion against them a "surprise"?
It's what they always do. Always.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. And part of it is to just tie up the courts too because Epic is also appealing the verdict. If you don't appeal the parts you "lost" you cannot bring it up again in a later appeal (e.g., if Epic wins the appeal, and Apple didn't appeal, the parts Apple lost would no longer be appealable. Apple would only be able to appeal the parts Epic won.).
It's basically
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's move is a surprising turnaround
Huh? How is a big company appealing a motion against them a "surprise"?
It's what they always do. Always.
It is only a surprise if someone actually believed Apple would accept a loss as a loss. And they never, ever, do.
Oh, you mean like Epic did?
https://www.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? How is a big company appealing a motion against them a "surprise"?
It's what they always do. Always.
Indeed. Typically they go out and appeal straight away. What is actually rare is an announcement that they will not appeal, especially considering that ruling is inline with that of regulators around the world (see Japan and Korea on the same topic), only for them to roll back this acceptance a few weeks later and say "no actually fuck it we won't".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
Apple's victory over Epic Games was a mixed bag at best - but the article writer seems to be implying they just about everything they wanted.
Personally, I want to see Apple open things up - so I saw the ruling as somewhat of a victory for the customers. But Apple wants to keep iOS locked down and beholden to their store.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it, though? In the end Apple simply codified the policy that they already had internally, which was we'll treat everyone equally, within a particular class of apps or group of developers. Apple made it sound like they were giving up all kinds of things, but in reality they gave up virtually nothing. It's no win for consumers. Business as usual for Apple. Nothing changed. Nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be shit for some developers, but I'm not sure I've ever been clear how consumers miss out, at least beyond a small minority. Maybe you can spell out what consumers would be able to do in an ideal world that they can't do today on Apple's platforms and why they would value those things?
A couple of things: Higher prices for consumers in some cases, and in some other parts of this big picture: Useful apps are denied because allowing them goes against Apple's commercial interests. E.g. getting access to streaming game services. This could lead to less revenue from their App Store, so they just decided prioritise this over what their users want.
If Apple didn't use this as an additional cash cow (it's not like the margins on the devices/os wouldn't let them continue to develop new hardware
Re:I don't quite get this headline (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's victory over Epic Games was a mixed bag at best - but the article writer seems to be implying they just about everything they wanted.
Sure. If your mixed bag is having one turd in a bag full of gold yeah. Maybe actually read the article. Apple lost a single count, and one that was incredibly minor.
That was in no way a mixed bag ruling. Epic got annihilated and there's a reason they turned around on that same afternoon and said they'll appeal. Not only did Epic lose 9 out of 10 claims, 4 of them crippling to what they were trying to achieve, but a judge also ruled Apple can not only ban Epic, but may proceed to ban Epic's developer account too, something which Epic originally got an emergency injunction against.
So to recap:
Epic got Fortnite booted from the App store.
Epic sued Apple with 10 claims ranging from serious to minor.
Epic also filed for an emergency injunction to get reinstated and a judge ruled only the developer account (epic games int s.a.r.l) needs to be reinstated.
One year later:
Fortnite is still off the app store.
Apple is free to ban Epic Games Int S.a.r.l
Epic lost 9 of its claims.
Apple needs to let apps show links.
How you could think this was in any way a "mixed" bag is "the Dems stole the election" levels of insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
The whole point is with an external link they are NOT using any resources of Apple at all, wake the fuck up and educate yourself.
The only Apple Resources they would not be using would be the Payment Processing. They are still using Apple's Hosting, Promotion, Cataloging, Review-Databasing, etc.
Why does Apple deserve nothing for all that?
The obvious, common-sense, equitable answer is, Apple does deserve something for all that, and the Court's ruling said as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, read it again, does not matter what payment system one uses, Apple is entitled to their cut that's how ip law works the judge even said as much. Why do folks think they can use someone else resources, platform for free? Wake the f*** up and educate yourselves.
Exactly.
If the Court made such a ruling, it would be void ab initio for being in violation of (IIRC) the 13th Amendment.
Simply put, the Government cannot legally Order Apple to supply App Store Services (i.e. "do work") for free. That is tantamount to Slavery.
Re: I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
What most and the press seems to neglect or doing a poor job reporting is the fact the judge said, sure you can bypass Apple payment system but you will still have to pay Apple their fees. Which changes nothing at the end of the day, if a developer will still have to pay Apple's 30% fee what exactly have they won and why exactly would they go through all this work and Apple is still capable of collecting their fees. What some seems to want to is be able to use all of iOS resources without paying Apple anything, in what world would that be acceptable? At the end of the day, they only for Apple not to take their cut is for developers to not be on the platform. If you are going to be on the platform, trying to monetized Apple's userbase, Apple will collect their cut, like it or not.
Mods, Mod Parent UP!
This is the most reasoned and correct Post in this Thread.
Haters: Read Parent carefully. The one Claim that Apple lost was the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory for Epic. Apple is simply App-Peel-Ing (sorry!) the ruling to preserve their standing to Argue that point in subsequent litigation (such as Epic's Appeal) devolving from Epic's original Complaint against Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
What some seems to want to is be able to use all of iOS resources without paying Apple anything, in what world would that be acceptable?
In the general computing world we've lived in for decades, which includes MacOS, Windows, Linux etc.
That a platform has moved from stationary to mobile because of technological advances is no reason why developers should need to pay 30% of everything to Apple. Customers (including me) buy the platform - at great profit to Apple - in order to run those apps, so it's not like the platform would disappear if this level of control on the platform disappeared .
Re: (Score:2)
The item they lost wasn't minor at all, it is massive and perhaps one of the most important items for apple as it allows apps to bypass apple payment system.
No it was minor. Apple can't ban someone from linking to an external payment processor. The thing is Apple can still force the app user to use Apple's payment processor as well (offer 2 alternatives) and Apple can demand equal cost as part of this ultimately leading to a user choice: a) use the Apple payment processor they are comfortable with, b) use something external they've never used before for no gain. The overwhelming majority of users will pick 'a'.
It was a very minor loss to Apple given how consume
Re: I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
The thing is Apple can still force the app user to use Apple's payment processor as well (offer 2 alternatives) and Apple can demand equal cost as part of this ultimately leading to a user choice: a) use the Apple payment processor they are comfortable with, b) use something external they've never used before for no gain. The overwhelming majority of users will pick 'a'.
Exactly.
In fact, in a practical sense, the only thing this ruling has done is reduce the Dev.â(TM)s net profit even further; because now not only will they be paying Apple their now Court-Approved fee of 30%; but they will now have to:
1. Set up a Payment-Processing system.
2. Write and maintain a bunch of Stripe (or whoever) code to implement such system.
3. Set up a system to report their IAP earnings to Apple. Of course, this will mean periodic Audits, Traceability, etc.
4. Set up and maintain a system
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, in addition, I find it more likely that Apple would have taken the judgement as is had Epic not decided to appeal. Given that Epic did appeal, Apple wants the implementation of the minor point that they lost reversed or delayed until final judgement has been rendered.
Sooo no advertising for outside payment options in apps until Epic decides to stop beating the deceased equine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
indeed Epic has to pay Apple back every penny they made when they tried to bypass the store.
It's worth noting that Epic already did so, with interest, to the tune of about $6 million.
Re: I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
indeed Epic has to pay Apple back every penny they made when they tried to bypass the store.
It's worth noting that Epic already did so, with interest, to the tune of about $6 million.
Actually, as is usual in these cases, I would assume that money is actually being held in interest-bearing Escrow until the Appeals (which Epic will lose, as there was no bias nor other reversible error on the Trial Court's part) are exhausted. Apple will lose its Appeal, too; but that hardly matters for the purposes of that monetary reimbursement award to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been my assumption as well, but usually there's a mention of an escrow account in relation to the appeals, and in reading through a half dozen reports on the payment none make mention of the usual escrow account. The impression I got was that Epic conceded on that point while appealing the others, but I didn't actually read through their appeal to see whether that was the case.
As for Apple's appeal, I could see that ruling getting overturned fairly easily. As much as I'd love to see somethin
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been my assumption as well, but usually there's a mention of an escrow account in relation to the appeals, and in reading through a half dozen reports on the payment none make mention of the usual escrow account. The impression I got was that Epic conceded on that point while appealing the others, but I didn't actually read through their appeal to see whether that was the case.
As for Apple's appeal, I could see that ruling getting overturned fairly easily. As much as I'd love to see something of that sort stand and think that regulation of that sort would be more than justified, the judge's ruling on that particular claim was incredibly flimsy. It was decided on the basis of arguments that neither side put forward, provides no relief to the plaintiff, explicitly applies nationally despite being based on state law, and had no justification based on actual harm suffered by anyone. Because the rest of her ruling made it clear that Epic hadn't suffered any illicit harm, she justified the ruling on that claim on the basis of "nascent" harm that would soon be suffered by people who weren't party to the case, which seems like a fairly obvious overreach.
Again, I'd love for that ruling to hold fast, but I don't see how it can.
Hmmm, interesting point about the escrow; or lack thereof
Perhaps the Judge threw a tiny, easily-reversible bone to Epic to preemptively-forestall any specious claims of Judicial Bias that Epic would be sure to raise.
Many times Trial Judges will seemingly be extra-hard on the Party they actually believe has the more meritorious case (overruling many of their Objections, Denying their Motions, etc.), Just to keep the other party from getting any traction with a "Judicial Bias" argument when the Court's Final
Re: (Score:2)
Epic has paid Apple the $6M already; that is why there is no mention of escrow. Epic could have asked to delay the payment had they filed an appeal.
It was decided on the basis of arguments that neither side put forward, provides no relief to the plaintiff, explicitly applies nationally despite being based on state law, and had no justification based on actual harm suffered by anyone.
If it is the same claim that I am thinking, Epic's argument was that the court should go with California law and just ignore federal law which she ruled for Apple. That is not how the court should work as they should apply state law when it does not conflict with federal. As for actual harm, the underlying assumption is harm not inflicted by Epic upon itself; he
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as is usual in these cases, I would assume that money is actually being held in interest-bearing Escrow until the Appeals (which Epic will lose, as there was no bias nor other reversible error on the Trial Court's part) are exhausted. Apple will lose its Appeal, too; but that hardly matters for the purposes of that monetary reimbursement award to Apple.
Epic has already announced they paid Apple the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's victory over Epic Games was a mixed bag at best - but the article writer seems to be implying they just about everything they wanted.
Apple did get just about everything they wanted. The court decisively ruled in their favor on 9 of the 10 issues that were tried. Much of the reporting gave the incorrect impression that the result was more of a mixed bag than it actually was, hence your confusion, though the one issue Apple lost was, admittedly, a bitter pill for them to swallow.
But even with the one issue, the court's basis for its ruling was rather flimsy, given that it relied in large part on arguments that weren't put forward by the pa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine third party markets that let kids buy anything once the parents credit card is acquired."
That makes Apple sound so magnanimous and caring about misappropriation of funds by unknown others in theoretical scenarios. In actuality, they just don't want anybody else to be able to do what they do: skim off the top. They'd much rather be the only party market that lets kids buy anything once the parents credit card is acquired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't quite get this headline (Score:2)
Apple extorts cash directly
The word "extorts" is in no way appropriate here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole basis of the claim is that Epic,Mandy all apple customers, are being extorted out of 30% of the sales. The vendors have no choice, and the customers are the ones who pay through higher prices. While I do not see it as factual, it is the reality many believe.
Many people believe the Earth is flat and that Bill Gates put microchips into the Covid vaccines.
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's victory over Epic Games was a mixed bag at best - but the article writer seems to be implying they just about everything they wanted.
The court's finding concludes with a paragraph that literally begins: "the Court finds in favor of Apple on all counts". What does that tell you?
TFS Already Misleading (Score:1)
First line of TFS:
Apple wants another go in its legal battle against Epic Games.
Um, Epic sued Apple, not the other way around.
Watch out Slashdot: Your Bias is showing!
Re: (Score:1)
First line of TFS:
Apple wants another go in its legal battle against Epic Games.
Um, Epic sued Apple, not the other way around.
Watch out Slashdot: Your Bias is showing!
More like your own bias is showing.
A battle is joined by two or more parties. In this case, Apple and Epic.
Both parties are involved in said battle. Whoever started it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with a desire or lack thereof to continue said battle.
Re: TFS Already Misleading (Score:1)
Both parties are involved in said battle. Whoever started it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with a desire or lack thereof to continue said battle.
STFU, idiot.
There is a reason that one Party (Epic) is called the Complainant, and the other Party (Apple) is called the Respondent. Those Terms of Art actually mean something in a Court of Law, even if you don't happen to understand them!
The very important difference is that Epic had a choice as to whether to initiate the Lawsuit against Apple by filing a Complaint; however, once Epic did that, Apple had a Legal Duty to Respond .
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Read the actual filing (Score:3)
https://s3.documentcloud.org/d... [documentcloud.org]
This is a motion back before the trial judge, NOT to the Appeals court. It asks for the trial court to stay its ruling pending appeal, and also raises some other issues that the trial court should consider, basically arguing the trail court should 'reconsider' its ruling.
Apple raises some very interesting legal points. IANAL, but it seems to me a big part of the Apple argument is based on a legal principle that a court can only resolve an issue brought before it (the injured party must show a harm to be remedied), and Epic did not establish the harm that the judge's ruling specifically addresses. (That's to place no judgement on the rest of the ruling.) So Apple is asking the trial judge to reconsider. But more importantly, I'd expect Apple to raise the same arguments much more strongly in the appeal
I feel old (Score:2)
I remember the days when companies made money out of providing great products. These days all the money is made by monopoles gouging customers.So much for the free market.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those companies are still here?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the days when companies made money out of providing great products. These days all the money is made by monopoles gouging customers.So much for the free market.
Exactly how old are you? Standard Oil was broken up in 1911, so monopolies have been a thing for a long time.
Physically different? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know people will see this different. However, in my opinion, it feels the effort against Apple is akin to having a world where I can purchase an iPhone at Apple.com then take my receipt to pick up that iPhone at Wal-Mart.
Phones are purchased by paying customers not rented out or given away. What do you believe is being given away by allowing competing stores to exist?
The current situation is more like purchasing a car that intentionally won't stop at a store not owned by the manufacturer. Explicitly anti-competitive.
We don't gain freedom having other App Stores on iPhone or In-App purchasing via non-Apple processing.
Of course you do. Freedom from careless moderation allowing flood of low quality and malware supported apps. Freedom from Apple censorship of what is and is not allowed to execute. Freedom from lack of comp
Meme (Score:1)
Apple is the new Disney. Change my mind.