Apple does not hide its tasks under a bottom; When it “lost” the Fortnite case last year, it quickly rolled out a series of changes to satisfy the prohibition.
If no one else realizes that Apple had lost somehow, EPIC definitely knew it, along with Epic CEO Tim Sweeny said on X (East Twitter)“Court fight to open iOS for competitive stores and payments in the United States. A tragic result for all developers.”
In response to the decision, Apple began to commission 27% on the app store apps, which chose to manage their own billing and forced them to apply for a special tool, which allows the app developers to include a button for the outbuilding system. Additionally, Apple requires that developers still support Apple’s in-app billing system, which is the third-party option.
All this was in black and white, but those decisions triggered that what I ever read could be one of the most scary rules. I mean, US District Court Judge Yavon Gonzalase Rogers who has been presiding over the case, has been urinating for years.
Was the Apple trying to follow the law of law while clashing around the bits, which could have any effect on its commission revenue business? As Judge Gonzalez sees it, yes.
I don’t believe? Read this united bit By court decision,
“Contrary to Apple’s early in-court testimony, contemporary business documents show that Apple knew what it really was doing and chose the most anti-antititive option at every turn.
To hide the truth, the Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, lied under a lump sum oath. Internal, Philip Shilar advocated that Apple complies with prohibition, but Tim Cook ignored Shilar and instead allowed the Chief Financial Officer Luka Mustry and his finance team to explain them elsewhere.
Cook chose poorly. वास्तविक साक्ष्य, यहां विस्तृत, (केस 4: 20-CV-05640-YGR दस्तावेज़ 1508 दायर 04/30/25 पेज 2 का 80 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 22 22 22 22 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के उत्तरी जिले के लिए। अदालत कैलिफोर्निया के उत्तरी जिले के लिए संयुक्त राज्य के अटॉर्नी को इस मामले को संदर्भित करती है कि क्या आपराधिक The contempt action is appropriate.
As the judge sees this, Apple may have used the decision to further enrich its commission business:
“Prior to prohibitory orders, Apple did not allow ‘linked-out shopping’ and thus, outside its platform, or closed, no commission for shopping out. Now, it does.”
The filing suggests how Apple worked to fulfill the prohibitory verification in this way, while perhaps opening the new third-party billing and revenue avenue for the developers, it also strengthened Apple’s grip on the process and commission collection.
Judge Gonzalez has painted it as a very nefarious operation, hiding with apples and lying about its intentions.
The thing is that Apple never lied about his intentions about the app store.
Apple method
Apple prefers complete-stack control for control well, but can also fulfill its safety and privacy promises. An app store where you can rely on most apps, it is nothing that happens naturally. You have to set the parameters and ensure that each app passing through those narrow gates does what he promised and is free from malware and spyware.
It is not an accident that your best iPhone is not filled with malware or you rarely download a fake app (do anyone remember the early days of Android apps before Google Play?). The more open apple is with your platforms, this more risk is for itself and your customers.
However, it is also clear that Apple does not think much about methods or perception. If it was being forced to use the third-party supply system for the app store customers, then why is the third party developers not charged for happiness? Eventually, links to these platforms will come through Apple. Was it a preventive for the development of such systems? Perhaps. Was that apple intended? I do not know
If you believe in prohibition, you know that some people within Apple knew that the methods of compliance with Apple were very close to the law blast. However, she did not win voices. Former Apple Cfo Luka Maestri, once a sound on Apple Income Call, has been named a major champion of potentially bad ideas.
As what Apple does next, okay, I am sure it will fight, but it is also no way that this judge can ignore the concluding statement of Gonzalas:
“This is an prohibition, not a conversation. There is no party once once a party disregards the order of the court. The time is of the essence. The court will not tolerate further delay. As was ordered earlier, Apple will not implement the competition. The court will not interact to avoid implementing its new anti-antagonistic acts.
what happens next
If it holds the ruling, which is not a certainty as a plan to appeal to Apple, it can trigger comprehensive changes that can change the way the app store using the app forever.
Loss of a completely closed system may not be the best thing for consumers. Nevertheless, it gives flexibility to developers, many people are craving and effectively take the Apple Commission (A..ka “Apple Tax”) to take away from the table for transactions outside the platform, even if users get that link from inside the Apple’s app store.
The epic is already planning for a best-case scenario and has quickly announced that Fortnite. App will return to the app store next week With, I am sure, in-app shopping (those skins!), All you are taking out of Apple’s platform.
We will return Fortnight at the US iOS App Store next week. Epic proposed a peace: If Apple expands the friction-free, Apple-tax-free structure of the court worldwide, we will return to Fortnight in app stores around the world and give up the current and future litigation on the subject. https://t.co/birtepm0tv30 April, 2025
This may be Apple’s first effective crack “”Reality deformation area“One who re -defines reality to suit his needs. We have seen at work this year that full Apple intelligence experience has not been given with Apple, but is telling consumers that the iPhone 16 comes with it. It has since been silenced from the product pages.
Apple has rarely accepted mistakes or shortcomings, and while this decision is not an indication that Apple will start now, this app is no option but to decontract the deformation area built around the developer choice.
For prohibition, it reads like the last word on the subject:
“Apple did not choose to not follow the prohibition of this court. It did this with the intention of express to create new anticomotive obstacles, which would, in design and influence, maintain a valuable revenue stream; A revenue stream was already found to be an antagonist. This court would not tolerate such insults.
Auch.
