Apple's Attempt To Pause App Store Antitrust Order Fails (9to5mac.com) 21
Apple's emergency request to pause a court order forcing it to ease App Store restrictions was denied by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing new compliance rules to take effect while Apple continues to appeal. 9to5Mac reports: Apple had asked the appeals court to halt enforcement of a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who found Apple in contempt this April for effectively dodging her original injunction. Convoluted, right? Exactly. The judge observed several violations, including Apple's imposition of a 27% fee on out-of-app transactions and overall attempts to continue making it unappealing for developers to direct users to external payment options.
As Reuters noted: "In its emergency appeal, Apple said the ruling blocked the company from "exercising control over core aspects of its business operations' and forced it to give away free access to its services." In rejecting Apple's motion, the court is letting those new compliance requirements stand while the company appeals the decision. Apple had hoped to halt the enforcement until the decision was final, which would grant the company the right to roll back the changes it was recently compelled to implement. In a statement provided to 9to5Mac, Apple said: "We are disappointed with the decision not to stay the district court's order, and we'll continue to argue our case during the appeals process. As we've said before, we strongly disagree with the district court's opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users."
As Reuters noted: "In its emergency appeal, Apple said the ruling blocked the company from "exercising control over core aspects of its business operations' and forced it to give away free access to its services." In rejecting Apple's motion, the court is letting those new compliance requirements stand while the company appeals the decision. Apple had hoped to halt the enforcement until the decision was final, which would grant the company the right to roll back the changes it was recently compelled to implement. In a statement provided to 9to5Mac, Apple said: "We are disappointed with the decision not to stay the district court's order, and we'll continue to argue our case during the appeals process. As we've said before, we strongly disagree with the district court's opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users."
Re: (Score:1)
As we've said before, we strongly disagree with the district court's opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for us to rake in profits while denying lower fees for our users."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahaha!
Yeah, I think they misspelled "lottery ticket". It was an incredible opportunity when the platform was new and nobody was there yet. Now, it's a sea of flappy little bird games, all alike.
"COURAGE" and all that (Score:4, Informative)
I guess it does take some courage to outright defy a court order, but the really stupid kind. Apple knows it's riding a gravy train and there's many billions on the line - there's literally no amount of lawyering and even campaigning for legislation that wouldn't be worth it for them to overturn this. They may find that the maximum fines available to the courts are simply payable in perpetuity.
What's really at stake though is Apple's continued growth. Tech has stagnated. There last 3 or 4 iPhones have been largely identical. The M1/2/3/4/etc. progression is just incremental. There's no killer app for the masses that needs an "AI-Enabled" computer which can't be done faster in the cloud anyhow.
If Apple has to take this hit, and they SHOULD, there's really nowhere for them to make up the lost revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
The M2-4 might be incremental taken on their individual merits. But the M1 was truly revolutionary over the extant Intel Macs in terms of performance per watt, and if you look at the increase in performance from the 1 to the 4, it's really quite impressive. One big leap forward, followed by smaller steps - that's a very typical Apple product pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
The M1 was a major change and a big win for Apple sales, true. Impressive? Certainly and it WAS a 'courage' moment for Apple. Revolutionary? I'll agree to disagree since ARM isn't exactly new and...4 generations in the rest of the industry is happily marching down it's own path still.
I agree that Apple tends to make big leaps on occasion ... but now their platforms are all mature and they're hurting for the next one. Look at the failed AVP.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's real fear here is that they're probably going to see that most developers and/or users aren't going to switch away from their in-house payment system. So far, that seems to be exactly what's happening, even as Epic has found that only 40% of users don't pay through Apple even when given an incentive not to. This also is the exact prediction that Wall Street seems to be counting on. By the time the 9th circuit even hears their case, their only possible bases for appeal won't hold up to even the weake
Re: (Score:2)
This is a nightmare scenario of Tim Cook's own making.
You misspelled Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller. The mistakes happened back when Tim Cook was still VP of operations. My exact words when those iOS App Store rules were first announced were "This is an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen." It was an obviously bad idea seventeen years ago, and the antitrust landscape has only gotten worse for Apple since then.
These big tech companies need to hire legal counsel with a more paranoid opinion of the law. They'd get in a lot less trouble if they paid some of thei
Re: "COURAGE" and all that (Score:2)
They got to collect 30% of developers money for 20 years and will likely only be required to refund a tiny fraction. This isn't a mistake its weaponized disregard for what's right. Apple is only starting to follow the rules now after they were threatened with criminal contempt, that's how little their cost is of flaunting the law.
Re: (Score:2)
They got to collect 30% of developers money for 20 years and will likely only be required to refund a tiny fraction. This isn't a mistake its weaponized disregard for what's right. Apple is only starting to follow the rules now after they were threatened with criminal contempt, that's how little their cost is of flaunting the law.
They're now a multiply convicted monopolist, which means everything they do from now on is going to be under much more careful scrutiny, by the courts, by other companies' lawyers, and by the DOJ. As a result, they're likely to get a lot more cases and *lose* a lot more cases. And at the rate things are going, fines are the least of their worries. They should be worrying that the DOJ might demand them to spin off the entire App Store ecosystem into a separate company and completely lose control. A littl
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller.
Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the judge specifically called out Tim Cook for making all the decisions that got them into this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
She can jail executives indefinetely for contempt of court, it's not that far removed from a criminal perjury accusation from a judge either. They are on very thin ice, even at Apple the lawyers will start telling the execs to stop being idiots.
New laws won't come fast enough to save them from further obstruction, Trump might but they would have to blatantly become Trump puppets. He's not subtle either.
Re: (Score:2)
tech hasn't stagnated, it's become corrupted by upper class influence and is being used to exploit us and rip us all off, this is how classism works
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it does take some courage to outright defy a court order, but the really stupid kind. Apple knows it's riding a gravy train and there's many billions on the line - there's literally no amount of lawyering and even campaigning for legislation that wouldn't be worth it for them to overturn this. They may find that the maximum fines available to the courts are simply payable in perpetuity.
What's really at stake though is Apple's continued growth. Tech has stagnated. There last 3 or 4 iPhones have been largely identical. The M1/2/3/4/etc. progression is just incremental. There's no killer app for the masses that needs an "AI-Enabled" computer which can't be done faster in the cloud anyhow.
If Apple has to take this hit, and they SHOULD, there's really nowhere for them to make up the lost revenue.
I used to say, if you want to know what will be in the next Iphone, look at what Android did 2-3 years ago and forget half of it but it seems they're not even doing that. At best they're adding camera lenses like Gillette is adding razor blades.
However I'll be the first to admit the mobile phone market has well and truly reached maturity, which is only a problem when you market yourself as "such new, much innovative".
However the big point we should all glean from all of this is that your product must
LOL (Score:1)
New important features (Score:2)
I have an IPhone 12 Max Pro. It's been through hell, but it's now 4-1/2 years old and not a scratch on it (case and screen protector took the brunt many times).
The only feature I'd like to have is the satellite comms, since I go hiking/canyoneering in very remote places where even my ham radio stuff doesn't work.
Apple had to ask (Score:2)
imagine (Score:2)
I can imagine the comments here if the same decision was coming from an EU court.