Apple Must Halt Non-App Store Sales Commissions, Judge Says (yahoo.com) 69
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:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is really in a league of its own when it comes to anticompetitive behavior, EU or not.
Why do I say that? Well, remember, Microsoft got into trouble for bundling internet explorer with Windows. Apple has been actively banning competing browsers on iDevices. Microsoft got into trouble for trying to break code abstractions (namely, java) that enabled broader application compatibility with other OSes. Until last year, Apple had all but banned that on iDevices, even banning emulators.
Only it gets worse. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me Apple's calculations worked out pretty well. The order was issued in 2021. They managed to keep the revenue coming for an extra four years. That's a huge win by defying the court.
Maybe the government will now press charges against them. Or maybe not. Given the people running the DOJ right now, I suspect they'll manage to get out of it with a few politically appropriate moves that don't really hurt them much. If the government does press charges, they can probably drag it on for years mo
Re: Damn EU (Score:2)
Sooo... Let's get this straight... The court gave Apple explicit permission to charge a commission for external sales. So in your opinion, their strategy is to delay the whole thing for four years to keep the status quo temporarily, and then be forced to potentially give up ALL COMMISSIONS forever after so later on they get NOTHING. They don't even get to do anything to dissuade users from going this route now.
And on top of it all, at least one (if not more) apple employee is getting a criminal referral wit
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you just doing an impression of a Church of Appletogy cultist? Because if so, very well done! Had me fooled for sure!
No name calling please. That's beneath you.
And no, I'm not apologizing for them. What they did was scummy, illegal, and a good business move. Because that's how things work in business. Companies judge their actions on what they can get away with, not what's right.
They also make decisions based on this quarter's numbers, maybe next quarter if they're considering a really long time frame. Four years is forever. So yes, billions of dollars a year for four years is well worth the potential loss of an unk
Re: (Score:1)
No name calling please. That's beneath you.
You must be new here
and a good business move
It really wasn't. They may well have cost themselves nearly all future earnings from their app store, with a distinct possibility of it turning into a money sink, if not outright losing their iron grip of app distribution entirely as it may even be in their own interest to argue to yet another judge that they erred in their previous testimony to the district court that being the sole app distributor was absolutely necessary, thus giving developers another option to compete fairly.
don't count your chickens
There i
Re: (Score:2)
You're barking up the wrong tree.
a) Apple is not Microsoft
b) Microsoft's bundling could have significantly harmed competition in the browser space, instead that is now google. Because in order to use MSIE you had to use windows, and in order to use many websites you had to use MSIE. Notice this is no longer the case with MSIE, but is now the case with Chrome.
And why is that? Google twisting the arms by not supporting functionality, and giving fake "scare" messages when you visit any non-SSL site. Trying to
Re: (Score:1)
You're barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not barking up any tree. You really have no idea just how badly apple already fucked themselves sideways here, and it seems that it was mainly to do with Tim Cook's arrogance. He was apparently the one to make the call for a 27% fee (the next highest executive was calling for 20%,) he made the call to penalize developers by doubling their regular tech fee rate if they even did this at all, he made the call to severely limit where and how the link to the third party payments could be made, and he made th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:4, 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 monopoly over cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the world market share matter in California?
Re: (Score:2)
What does the world market share matter in California?
What does California market share matter to the world? Imagine if companies had to bend to conflicting rulings of hundreds of different courts from different jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... they do, if they want to do business in those jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are called "countries."
Re:Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:4, Informative)
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: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
I haven't seen a Windows machine at an office in over half a decade. I'm sure they were floating around in the customer service department. Executives, management, and tech were pretty much all on Macs, with the exception of myself (Linux) and previously one Windows guy who switched after he found it a pain in the ass to use Windows in a Unix shop.
The job before that, everyone was on Ubuntu except the CEO who had a Mac.
It's interesting how little choices about who you work for can have a big impact on your
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how little choices about who you work for can have a big impact on your impression of market dominance in business.
Right? It's almost like anecdotes aren't data
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Actually, they are when you have enough of them.
https://herdingcode.com/episod... [herdingcode.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are when you have enough of them.
Only if you can classify the parameters of your sample ;)
As an example, I see Windows machines regularly in accounting offices. They're common as hell, there.
However, if you never sampled accounting folks, you'd think those machines didn't exist.
So no- no amount of anecdotes become data. You can turn them into data, if you can get enough supplementary information, but alone, they can never, and will never be.
Re: (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.
Not remotely accurate, lol.
But really- not sure what the point was, anyway.
Was it an attempt at arguing whether or not Microsoft had a monopoly during US v. Microsoft?
The decision on that matter is public record- you're free to read it.
They argued (successfully, in my opinion) that they could not be a monopoly, due to the presence and far from insignificant amount of Apple users.
The court rejected the argument (correctly, in my opinion) because the barrier between moving from a Microsoft ecosystem to a
Re: (Score:2)
This is HIGHLY anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft
Actually none of what you wrote is anti-competitive and at no point has Microsoft been investigated for such actions because it's not illegal to be incompatible with other products.
You have a lot to learn about competition law. But first you have a lot to un-learn.
Re: (Score:2)
If, for example, Microsoft had reduced every barrier they could find for software portability between Macs and Windows machines, it's highly probable that Apple would have been considered part of their market (as opposed to being precluded from being part of it), and they would not have been found to be a monopoly within that relevant market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Microsoft has never been a walled garden. Unless maybe you include the Windows Phone that no one had.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said the hens have come home to roost.
They relied on evolving political climate within the US to do what they, themselves, argued was monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior decades prior.
They deserve a good slapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows was never a walled garden. XBox is virtually the only walled garden Microsoft made that can be remotely described as similar to the iEcoSystem, and Microsoft didn't start the locked down console craze.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of that from. In reality, Apple's walled garden was built upon limitations of the original iPhone where everything ran as root and so Apple knew it'd be a security problem if it just let people download arbitrary apps (it had intended to sandbox them previously
Re: (Score:2)
Apple learned how to build a walled garden from Microsoft. Apple used to piss and moan about MS's "embrace, extend, exterminate" methodology for lock in
Sorry but no. Two very difference (though equally shitty) concepts at work. Microsoft never had a walled garden. Comparing EEE to a walled garden is like comparing a Ford F-150 to a John Deere tractor.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Android is not a company. And US law applies mainly to the US, where apple has 55% of the phone market, and 75% of all mobile aps sold are sold in apple's store. Apple has a monopoly on mobile app distribution, which is the subject of this court case. And since you can't transfer apps from ios to android, a court could easily find that apple has a 100% monopoly on iphone app distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
But GM doesn't have a monopoly over vehicles
Good example. You can also buy parts or service your Chevrolet without giving any money to GM.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Android has about 70% of the worldwide market share for cell phones.
Technically correct, but misses the point being made. You would absolutely cut yourself out of the market in many places. The 70% figure is world wide, in specific regions (especially English speaking regions) the iPhone market share is significantly higher. That means if you want to support only Android you will be putting in either a disproportionate amount of effort to reach the market, or have to accept a smaller user base. Add to that the consumer behaviour (Apple users are FAR more likely to accept a
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need an absolute monopoly to run afoul of antitrust statute, but you do need an effective monopoly (i.e., what do we call ineffective monopolization? We call that competition)
Where parent went astray is the antitrust concept of a relevant market.
You can say that iPhones and Android phones are part of the "cell phone market". You can even say they're both part of the "electronic devices" market. How do we decide which market is correct for t
Re: (Score:2)
There are more apps than you can count that must reach nearly the entire smartphone audience to be useful - or even viable - at all. And this means Apple *and* Android.
Re: (Score:2)
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 monopoly over cell phones.
The judge's ruling is in effect stating that you don't have to buy GM gasoline to run your Chevy truck... using your examples.
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:1)
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:Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:4)
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:2)
False. There's no implied requirement to open your vertically integrated product to any competition. There is no competition to be had when you own your own closed platform. By extension of your argument are you complaining that we're not free to install any software we want on a Tesla, or an LG fridge? Of course not.
Anti-competitive would be restricting what *OTHER* people can do on your platform. That's the situation that Google finds itself in. They would be 100% within their right to restrict whatever t
Re: (Score:2)
No. Thats a bad analogy.
Steam charges its 30% for things you buy on the steam store.
This would be like Microsoft ALSO charging 30% for things you buy on the steam store just because you want to run it on windows. This penalty is for Apple charging a commission on things NOT purchased on the app store.
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:Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The Xbox isn't a general purpose computer.
Also, and more importantly, the Xbox isn't a monopoly or even in a dominant market position. Hell, it's currently 3rd behind Nintendo and Sony... that's if we're not including PC gaming (which we all know is superior). The fact that none of them can really claim to be dominant in the market shows that competition in this instance is working.
Also MS has previously been in trouble for abusing it's market position and has learned to stay (just) on the right side of the law. If MS needs an anti-trust investi
Re: (Score:2)
Also, and more importantly, the Xbox isn't a monopoly or even in a dominant market position.
Not only is that not more important, it's actually outright irrelevant. At no point do you need to have a monopoly to fall afoul of antitrust law. The law doesn't concern itself with nouns. It concerns itself with adjectives, "monopolize". And you don't need a dominant market position to engage in monopolizing behaviour either.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, and more importantly, the Xbox isn't a monopoly or even in a dominant market position.
Not only is that not more important, it's actually outright irrelevant. At no point do you need to have a monopoly to fall afoul of antitrust law. The law doesn't concern itself with nouns. It concerns itself with adjectives, "monopolize". And you don't need a dominant market position to engage in monopolizing behaviour either.
Nice to see in your rush to viscously agree with me, that you didn't even read the bit you quoted.
I said "isn't a monopoly or even a dominant market position. That makes it far more important.
You pretty much need an unfair advantage to restrict your competitors, as Microsoft isn't able to do this to anyone in the gaming sector, it's not in violation of anti-trust (which in US law used when a company abuses it's position or advantage to stymie competition, thus MS has fallen foul of it before). The fac
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Neither is an iPhone.
Re: Why is Microsoft not anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How is that any different? Microsoft takes commission off of every sale, why can't Apple take?"
So go sue Microsoft. This is a result of a specific court order. It applies to the parties, not unrelated companies that you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. Right out the gate, you are wrong.
I can buy Xbox games from Walmart, BestBuy, Amazon, GameStop, etc... And Microsoft doesn't get a percentage of that sale. This allows choice and price differences in the Xbox market, as the store selling the game box can set their own price. If a store sells an Xbox game for $40 or $400, they don't have to give Microsoft a percentage of the sale. These aren't the same thing, not matter how h
Re: (Score:2)
Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo Switch are consoles that are very much locked into their own games ecosystem. As such, they are not an open platform the way Windows, MacOS, Android, and iOS are. Now, there's a basic concept here that you may have missed, and that is that if you can install from outside of the official store, that store should not be entitled to money just because a program/app was designed to work on that platform.
So, Windows...you can install programs you download from anywhere, and Mi
See the damning screenshots in the ruling. (Score:5, 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:2, Flamebait)
nah, this must be someone the EU parachuted to screw over US tech.
Standard Apple behaviour (Score:4, Interesting)
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:3)
Its 2025. You can ignore judges with impunity and suffer no repercussions.
Re: (Score:3)
Its 2025. You can ignore judges with impunity and suffer no repercussions.
Only if you are "ruling class".
Re: (Score:2)
You think Apple isn't part of the "ruling class"?
Watch how fast Tim Apple has a Mar-a-Lago lunch with a nice fat "donation".
Re: (Score:2)
A million dollar purchase of Trump crypto coins would make this all go away and is a pittance for a corporation like Apple. Are they too proud to do it? Too stupid? Too ethical(lol)?
Is Audible included (Score:3)
Hopefully this means I won't have to leave the Audible app and switch over to the web page to use my Audible credits for book purchases. I didn't have to do that on the Android app, I could just use the "buy with credit" button and start listening.
Apple phohibits developers from informing (Score:2)