Apple Must Halt Non-App Store Sales Commissions, Judge Says (yahoo.com) 27
Apple violated a court order requiring it to open up the App Store to third-party payment options and must stop charging commissions on purchases outside its software marketplace, a federal judge said in a blistering ruling that referred the company to prosecutors for a possible criminal probe. From a report: U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sided Wednesday with "Fortnite" maker Epic Games over its allegation that the iPhone maker failed to comply with an order she issued in 2021 after finding the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of California law.
Gonzalez Rogers also referred the case to federal prosecutors to investigate whether Apple committed criminal contempt of court for flouting her 2021 ruling. The U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco declined to comment. The changes the company must now make could put a sizable dent in the double-digit billions of dollars in revenue the App Store generates each year. The judge's order [PDF]: Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
It Is So Ordered.
Gonzalez Rogers also referred the case to federal prosecutors to investigate whether Apple committed criminal contempt of court for flouting her 2021 ruling. The U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco declined to comment. The changes the company must now make could put a sizable dent in the double-digit billions of dollars in revenue the App Store generates each year. The judge's order [PDF]: Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
It Is So Ordered.
A crypto bribe will fix all this I'm sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are no different than XBOX apart from the form factor.
The fundamental problem with Apple is that if you want to make a mobile app, you have no choice but deal with Apple. If you want to make a game you have many different options, but for making a mobile App you realistically would be cutting yourself out of the market if you chose to for instance only work on Android.
This puts higher responsibility on Apple to ensure that they do fair market practices.
Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive?
Feel free to file a lawsuit if you feel damaged by Microsoft's practices. Apple being found guilty of somethi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. Android has about 70% of the worldwide market share for cell phones.
>>Microsoft has a monopoly over Xbox
>That's like saying your grocery store has a monopoly over a grocery store.
No, it's like saying Apple has a monopoly over iPhones. Or that GM has one over Chevrolets. But GM doesn't have a monopoly over vehicles, and Apple doesn't have a mono
Re: (Score:2)
What does the world market share matter in California?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Android has about 70% of the worldwide market share for cell phones.
That doesn't matter. See United States v. Microsoft.
What matters is the relevant market, and your ability to transition between them.
If the court finds that the barriers for switching between iPhones and Android phones is high enough, they count as separate markets.
This is what fucked Microsoft, in spite of them having nowhere near a monopoly.
I find it humorous that the hens have come home to roost, and I'm typing this on an $8,000 Apple laptop.
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Walk into a given office. What do you see? MS Office and Windows. On top of that, Microsoft makes it hard for companies using it's products to transition to alternatives through being in subtly incompatible in painful ways.
This is HIGHLY anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And i'm not sure "cell phones" is even the right category here since we're talking Epic and Fortnite specifically: Portable gaming consoles like Nintendo Switch, Steam Deck, Nvidia Shield, Asus ROG Ally ... have been on the scene for several years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so emotional about this?
There are no large app makers in the US that can avoid selling on Apple. For larger app developers, the percentage that works with apple is 100%. 100% market share. But it doesn't even matter because the exact percentage doesn't matter and you could easily have market power in a legal sense when owning 30% of some entire market.
I don’t think 'Epic can just sell their stuff in India so that
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that if in the beginning, Microsoft required any software that would run on a Windows machine must have been purchased through them. That for every single purchase on a Windows machine, a cut went to Bill Gates on top of what you paid to actually buy Windows. That would have never been allowed. But, over time, governments have capitulated to big corporate interests, whose sole mission is to extract as much profit out of the consumer (or other businesses) as much as possible.
Your argument that it "se
Re: (Score:2)
That's false. There's nothing anti-competitive or illegal about requiring software on your platform to be purchased through you. The fundamental issue here is that you cannot dictate that you collect a fee for things that happen *outside* your platform. That's what Apple is in trouble for here. Their insistence not that someone purchases your software through their store, but rather their insistence that they are owed a fee if someone pays you money *outside* their store, e.g. by filling in credit card deta
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing anti-competitive or illegal about requiring software on your platform to be purchased through you.
It's definitely anti-competitive. It reduces competition.
Re: (Score:1)
Meh, Steam also charges 30% and Google Play also charges 15% - 30% (above $1M a year) (that's e.g. why you can't buy e-books in kindle app or Nook app on Android)
I don't like any of these numbers... but i also think this is not something a single judge should just randomly rule on. Maybe some sort of law from congress or perhaps rulemaking by (the unfortunately recently gutted) CFPB or the FTC or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing AWS to any of the major App stores is asinine. AWS is a platform for you to use. App stores are a platform for you to reach customers. Microsoft also charge 30% commission on the Xbox titles - again they provide customers, not just a software platform.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the single most important point: Apple takes commission over *NON-APP STORE* sales. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and even Google do not.
Microsoft do not force anyone to use their sales method and do not collect rent on other people's infrastructure. They only charge a commission on what they do through their store - and they don't mandate the store use.
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
The Xbox isn't a general purpose computer.
See the damning screenshots in the ruling. (Score:4, Informative)
See pages 32-36 of the ruling for the smoking guns -- screenshots of the alternatives that Apple considered.
https://storage.courtlistener.... [courtlistener.com]
BTW, the judge was appointed to several judgeships by both Rep and Dem politicians.
And confirmed by the US Senate 89–6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
nah, this must be someone the EU parachuted to screw over US tech.
Standard Apple behaviour (Score:3)
Somehow they keep hiring lawyers and execs who think they are masters of the universe and can ignore judgements.
They are not trying to skirt it either, it's dumb petulance which gets them slapped harder and harder until they have to comply any way.
Re: (Score:2)
At that level the lawyers will argue whatever they are paid to argue, no matter how ridiculous. For Apple the cost of litigation is tiny compared to the cost of allowing alternative ways to buy stuff on their platform, so they will explore every possible avenue to stop it, no matter how outlandish the legal theory behind it.
They do need to be slapped hard for this, because money is the only thing they seem to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Its 2025. You can ignore judges with impunity and suffer no repercussions.