Apple Can Keep App Store Rules for Now as Top Court Spurns Epic (bloomberg.com) 31
The US Supreme Court let Apple keep its App Store payment rules in place for the time being, rejecting an Epic Games request that would have let developers start directing iPhone users to other purchasing options. From a report: Justice Elena Kagan said she wouldn't let a federal appeals court decision take effect immediately, as Epic had sought. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said earlier this year that Apple violated California's Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems, including purchases through the Epic Games Store.
Kagan, who gave no explanation, is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. Kagan's rejection of Epic means Apple will get a reprieve from the 9th Circuit ruling, though perhaps only a temporary one. The appeals court put its decision on hold to give Apple time to file a Supreme Court appeal later this year, but the ruling will kick in if the justices refuse to hear the case.
Kagan, who gave no explanation, is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. Kagan's rejection of Epic means Apple will get a reprieve from the 9th Circuit ruling, though perhaps only a temporary one. The appeals court put its decision on hold to give Apple time to file a Supreme Court appeal later this year, but the ruling will kick in if the justices refuse to hear the case.
This is fair at this stage. (Score:3)
Let the process work it's way through the courts appropriately.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, and I say that despite the fact that this particular issue is one where I strongly believe that Apple is in the wrong and should be forced to open things up. I won't say that about a lot of the other things Apple is accused of, but leveraging your app store to force devs to use your payment platform isn't kosher. It needs to compete on its own merits.
Regardless, however, there's a way that things should be done in the courts. This stay is appropriate for the time being.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think Apple forces developers to use only their payment platform - just that they don't let you advertise in-app if there are other payment methods?
Like... I have had several for-pay services with apps, that I paid for outside Apple. I don't even think those apps have an option to pay within Apple.
My kids on the other hand, have several apps that they pay both in and out of Apple.
If you ask me, what really needs to happen, is a ban on microtransactions... these apps are messing with my kids' brain
Re: (Score:1)
You're the parent. Get them off the games or declare allowance may not be spent on mobile garbage. If you're paying them an hourly wage to do chores then they can spend that at the minimum wage minus taxes, Ssi, Medicare and everything else that would come out from a real job. Then if they still want to waste the remainder on stupid phone games, it's theirs, they earned it.
Free money is not valued as much as properly taxed and earned money at minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Offtopic but - yes they do have to earn their allowance by doing chores. We don't tax them though.
But because it is their money we don't want to dictate what they do with it - it's just tough to instill in them wise spending habits when these companies abuse dopamine psychology to get money. We don't want to be authoritarians, but instead give them the tools to make their own wise decisions. And we have indeed had many "conversations" when they want to buy something but no longer have any money because th
Re: (Score:1)
How much are you paying? Unless you're on a farm or own a family business like a restaurant, how much real work is there to do for multiple kids.
I've got 1 teen. It's hard to come up with enough stuff for her to do that there's a point in paying her for it. For taking out the trash I told her she lives here and generates as much trash as everyone else so she can help remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think Apple forces developers to use only their payment platform - just that they don't let you advertise in-app if there are other payment methods?
That's kind of a fine line, though. I mean, for some services, it's no big deal. Netflix didn't lose anything when they shut down in-app payments, because they're big enough that everybody knows how to go there and pay for it, and their entire service basically consists of paying for a single monthly charge, not paying for multiple items or buying tokens or any other multi-transaction scheme. But for a lot of apps, that really doesn't work very well.
The bigger problem is that many developers offer cheape
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He’s merely pointing out the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Odd! (Score:1)
But then again, Apple will be harmed if their monopoly on payments and getting their big cuts were to end.
Notice that harm to the big tech corporation trumps harm to the little people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is just the Supreme Court keeping the status quo while appeals go on. Generally the default because it minimizes the number of times things have to change back and forth; the status quo isn't fatal to Epic, so they can wait until the appeals finish for the court judgements to take effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Apple doesn't even have monopoly power; they definitely don't have a monopoly on anything (unless you define their "market" in a stupid way).
I wish that Apple allowed alternate app stores, but they don't, and since Google does allow other app stores, consumers have choices. I wish that we had smartphones that ran something other than Android or iOS, but again, Google allows other companies to customize Android until it barely counts as Android (also, all other smart OSs have died from self-inflict
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the idea was to lean to the side that will probably win. So Apple will be allowed to keep their monopoly?
But then again, Apple will be harmed if their monopoly on payments and getting their big cuts were to end.
Notice that harm to the big tech corporation trumps harm to the little people.
The "little people" are already getting a break.
Until a Publisher has Gross Sales > $1 MEELION dollars, that Publisher only pays 15% Commission. Plus, IAP Subscriptions > 1 year drop to 15%.
Not to mention Freeware pays zero commission.
what about the EU cases? (Score:1)
what about the EU cases?
Monopoly abuse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but being anti-competitive is not illegal. Most companies are as anti-competitive as they can be given the market realities. Only certain types of anti-competitive behavior are illegal, and they are only illegal if a company has monopoly power. Which Apple does not.
Is Apple annoying and kinda slimy for how they limit their app store on their hardware? Sure. But since you are not forced to use their hardware (Android has a much larger market share), Apple is probably not being illegal. This is in
Re: (Score:2)
Only certain types of anti-competitive behavior are illegal
Correct.
, and they are only illegal if a company has monopoly power.
Incorrect. Apple didn't have a monopoly on eBook sales, yet they were tried and convicted for violating antitrust laws in United States v. Apple Inc. [wikipedia.org].
In fact, out of the *eight* sections of the original Sherman Act, the word "monopoly" appears only in *one* section (section 2). The vast majority of the U.S. antitrust code is not specific to monopolies or attempts to monopolize anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Only certain types of anti-competitive behavior are illegal
Correct.
, and they are only illegal if a company has monopoly power.
Incorrect. Apple didn't have a monopoly on eBook sales, yet they were tried and convicted for violating antitrust laws in United States v. Apple Inc. [wikipedia.org].
In fact, out of the *eight* sections of the original Sherman Act, the word "monopoly" appears only in *one* section (section 2). The vast majority of the U.S. antitrust code is not specific to monopolies or attempts to monopolize anything.
That was one fucked-up lawsuit. And most importantly, the Government got the real wrongdoer (Amazon) wrong.
Apple wasn't alone in that "Antitust" action. They were one of five Defendants. Apple was just the only one who elected to challenge the Allegations. The other Defendants simply plead guilty. Yet everyone disingenuously calls it an Apple Antitrust Action. No one ever mentions Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Group, Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc. A
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the entire "Collusion" was to combat Amazon's unfair competition in leveraging its #1 Position with its loss-leader pricing practices. That wasn't Apple's position; it was the position of every other major publisher in the entire industry.
Apple put in a "most favored nation" clause that resulted in per se price fixing. That's why they got in trouble. The fact that they did it to force publishers to not allow Amazon to discount books as loss leaders in an effort to reduce Amazon's market dominance doesn't change that the net effect was people paying more for books.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the entire "Collusion" was to combat Amazon's unfair competition in leveraging its #1 Position with its loss-leader pricing practices. That wasn't Apple's position; it was the position of every other major publisher in the entire industry.
Apple put in a "most favored nation" clause that resulted in per se price fixing. That's why they got in trouble. The fact that they did it to force publishers to not allow Amazon to discount books as loss leaders in an effort to reduce Amazon's market dominance doesn't change that the net effect was people paying more for books.
So, again, Amazon was allowed to abuse its market dominance to unfairly drive out all competition; because it cared more about absolute market dominance than making money.
And, BTW, just what do you think would have happened to those wonderful artificially low prices, once Amazon was the only game in town?
Yeah, the Consumer was going to be the ultimate winner in that scenario, sure. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Apple put in a "most favored nation" clause that resulted in per se price fixing. That's why they got in trouble. The fact that they did it to force publishers to not allow Amazon to discount books as loss leaders in an effort to reduce Amazon's market dominance doesn't change that the net effect was people paying more for books.
So, again, Amazon was allowed to abuse its market dominance to unfairly drive out all competition; because it cared more about absolute market dominance than making money.
And, BTW, just what do you think would have happened to those wonderful artificially low prices, once Amazon was the only game in town?
Yeah, the Consumer was going to be the ultimate winner in that scenario, sure. . .
Oh, come on. Don't pretend that Apple couldn't afford to maintain the iBooks Store literally forever even if nobody bought anything. It's basically the same backend as the iOS App Store, the Mac App Store, and the iTunes Store, with just a thin books-specific skin on top. Amazon can't possibly drive out that competition. And the same is true for Google's Play Books Store. The entire notion that Amazon would be able to drive either of them out of business is borderline laughable, much less both.
Apple sa
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not true.
It's only illegal if they are in violation of anti trust laws, not if they have a monopoly.
The question is not if they have a monopoly, but are they large enough to distort the market. That's pretty undeniable IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple literally forces you to use their store then after apps are downloaded forces their payment method within the app, then says you can't let anyone know about any other payment method (that doesn't come with their 30% fee). That seems about as anti-competitive as it gets on every level.
15% until you reach $1,000,000 in Gross Sales, which the vast majority of Publishers will never reach. Quit exaggerating.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple literally forces you to use their store then after apps are downloaded forces their payment method within the app, then says you can't let anyone know about any other payment method (that doesn't come with their 30% fee). That seems about as anti-competitive as it gets on every level.
Quit exaggerating.
They only say that Publishers can't advertise or link to an alternate IAP/Subscription payment system within the App itself; Publishers are absolutely free to offer, validate against, and advertise alternate payment methods anywhere else, and by any other method, that they so choose.
Oh, and if greedy Publishers weren't trying so hard to game the App Store system with the "Free to Download" SCAMS to make Apple pay for 100% of their shitty App's Hosting, Advertising, Review and Update Manage
Justice Elena Kagan (Score:1)