"To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied
under oath"
Yikes. I really thought Apple was going to get away with all their crazy restrictions they came up with after the previous ruling (and maybe they still will, who knows) but this looks pretty bad for them.
"In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate."
I hope this guy gets hit with the full extent of the law. Not because I think he is a bad person, but because allowing individuals to be sheltered by corporations is at the core of why corps do illegal or legally grey things.
At the very least, not allowing apps to MENTION the fact that you can purchase items outside an app is ridiculously anti-competitive.
The truth is that we would never accept this behavior on a traditional desktop OS, but we've tolerated it in the context of iOS. I think that's arbitrary and I hope this ruling sticks.
About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing for 15% less from my website. "Why didn't you tell me?"
> Rogers’ 2021 ruling forced Apple to allow developers to point to alternative payment options. But Apple instituted a policy that demanded developers pay Apple a 27 percent commission on those purchases
> The judge also referred the case to the US attorney to review it for possible criminal contempt proceedings.
Of course in the current climate who knows if anything will end up happening but all the same: good. It’s about time we started to see consequences for blatantly deliberate misinterpretation of court rulings.
Banning apps that linked sales out of app is what they already did, but that was ruled to be anti-competitive. Then they allowed it, but with an added 27% fee for whatever was purchased through the link (banning if you didn't pay the fee), which was also found to be anti-competitive and a attempt to avoid having to comply with the first ruling.
Charging for bandwidth of app downloads and updates would equate to pennies (relatively). It's not worth it. And would probably be deemed anti-competitive in the future anyway if they didn't also allow 3rd party app stores / installs (like in the EU).
"To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath"
Yikes. I really thought Apple was going to get away with all their crazy restrictions they came up with after the previous ruling (and maybe they still will, who knows) but this looks pretty bad for them.
Full context:
"In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate."
I hope this guy gets hit with the full extent of the law. Not because I think he is a bad person, but because allowing individuals to be sheltered by corporations is at the core of why corps do illegal or legally grey things.
I am in favor of these changes.
At the very least, not allowing apps to MENTION the fact that you can purchase items outside an app is ridiculously anti-competitive.
The truth is that we would never accept this behavior on a traditional desktop OS, but we've tolerated it in the context of iOS. I think that's arbitrary and I hope this ruling sticks.
i thought UK already ruled that android apps must run on iOS.
Source? Or do you need more time to think about it.
About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing for 15% less from my website. "Why didn't you tell me?"
Better links to the ruling:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
> Rogers’ 2021 ruling forced Apple to allow developers to point to alternative payment options. But Apple instituted a policy that demanded developers pay Apple a 27 percent commission on those purchases
> The judge also referred the case to the US attorney to review it for possible criminal contempt proceedings.
Of course in the current climate who knows if anything will end up happening but all the same: good. It’s about time we started to see consequences for blatantly deliberate misinterpretation of court rulings.
This is a pretty massive ruling if it holds up
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145
I guess let’s see how many millions Tim Cook will give Trump so Supreme Court can make a different ruling.
This is worth Billions to Apple. Perhaps more when the stock tanks due to the ruling.
Why doesnt apple just ban apps that do this. Or start charging for bandwidth
Banning apps that linked sales out of app is what they already did, but that was ruled to be anti-competitive. Then they allowed it, but with an added 27% fee for whatever was purchased through the link (banning if you didn't pay the fee), which was also found to be anti-competitive and a attempt to avoid having to comply with the first ruling.
Charging for bandwidth of app downloads and updates would equate to pennies (relatively). It's not worth it. And would probably be deemed anti-competitive in the future anyway if they didn't also allow 3rd party app stores / installs (like in the EU).
> 27% fee for whatever was purchased through the link
No, no, no, no. They added 27% fee for _all_ purchases made, enforced via the audit of the company's books.
It literally was a new tax.