Apple is calling for dominance over the Epic Games, which is actually called a “spectacular victory.”
With billions of dollars and possibly some control over the App Store at stake, Apple has filed a lawsuit against Epic in a major lawsuit. While Apple won the case by a landslide (the company called the decision a “tremendous victory”), Judge Gonzalez Rogers, along with nine of the ten lawsuits in Apple’s favor, were filed against Apple. This is one important way to lose: The judge found that Apple violated California’s anti-steering laws, and demanded that Apple link developers to the external payment system. This policy would have been taken over in December, but it could have been extended beyond that – and that seems to be the case.
As part of the appeal, Apple is asking the establishment to stop the company from enforcing new anti-steering laws, arguing that it “requires Apple to protect consumers and protect its platform.” Will allow while the company operates complex and fast.Developing legal, technical and economic issues.And the company’s arguments there are revealing enough if we are reading the document correctly.
For example, Apple claims that the new anti-steering rule is unnecessary because the company has already agreed to remove the section that violates its App Store guidelines. Cameron vs. Apple The settlement, however, is news to us: at the time, Apple only agreed to “make it clear” that app developers were allowed to communicate with willing users, not outside payment systems. This explanation was widely seen by developers as red herring. At this time, Apple did not say anything about deleting any part of its App Store guidelines altogether.
It also seems that Apple is really afraid of the court order. Will do Despite claims by some Apple pundits, force them to open the App Store for an alternative payment method. A button can actually be a button:
Alternative payment method links and buttons are fraught with risk. Users who click on a payment link embedded in an app – especially one that is distributed through the Curated App Store – will expect to visit a web page where they can securely make their payment. Provide information, email address or other personal information.
Apple has argued that if it were forced to allow app developers to connect to external payment systems, it would not be able to protect consumers from fraud.
Although Apple may test the links in the version of the app offered for review, nothing can prevent the developer from changing the landing point of that link or changing the content of the destination webpage. Furthermore, Apple does not currently have the capability to determine whether a user who clicks on an external link actually receives the product or feature for which it pays. Apple already receives millions of reports a day from users, and allowing links to external payment options will increase this burden. In summary, the introduction of external payment links, especially without sufficient time to test and evaluate the security implications, will lead to similar security concerns that compete more commonly with the use of Apple IAP. The court agreed that the legitimate, competitive reasons for the design of the App Store.
There are many open questions about how well Apple protects the App Store users – it was only last week that the company added a feature to easily report App Store scams.
The company even cites a blog post (and EdgeThe story about Paddle will be a rival to payments in Apple’s app, which came out later. APEC vs. Apple. Rulers use it as an example of a potential threat to consumers. Certainly not because of its low fee, but because “contrary to Apple’s strict privacy rules, the developer wants to provide access to the user’s email address.”
Other arguments are also raised, which you can read in full in the document embedded below this post. Overall, the company says “immediate implementation of this aspect of the restraining order will affect the careful balance between developers and users provided by the App Store and will cause irreparable harm to both Apple and consumers.”
Apple also refers to the previous case, Ohio vs. Amex.As evidence, transaction platforms such as the App Store can promote competition despite steering restrictions. (Although Amex software does not double as a marketplace.)
It is important to note that Apple has only filed an appeal. We don’t know if the court will appeal – and yet. When the decision was actually made in September, Apple said at the time that it had not decided to appeal.
On its behalf, APEC announced its intention to appeal the same day Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued its ruling and permanent restraining order against Apple. It was clear from the start that Epic was not happy.
Apex CEO Tim Sweeney responded to the appeal, and it is as you would expect: