![]() ![]() If you have a concession in a department store, you have to pay some form of rental decided by the store/owner. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free. The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now). Please follow me on Mastodon, or join me in the AppleHolic’s bar & grill and Apple Discussions groups on MeWe.The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. While Apple has largely prevailed in the courts, it knows it must also continue working to placate at least some developer grievances, particularly as it seeks their help in building its next big new platform. In the short term, the next big moment during which the company would likely announce tweaks to its App Store rules to make developers happier is at its WWDC event in early June. All eyes on WWDCĪpple continues to face regulatory investigation worldwide. Apple recently prevailed in an investigation by the CMA, so it's plausible it will continue to face oversight by that body. Could Apple instead choose to settle all these problems by opening things up more widely? It would make sense to do so to provide platform consistency.Īnother example, in the UK a new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers bill will give additional powers to fight fake reviews and subscription renewal traps to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). That ability is thought to be included within iOS 17, but the ability to shop at those stores might be restricted to EU users only. In Europe, the European Digital Markets Act will, for instance, require the company to open up to third-party stores on its platforms. But in enabling the system, the company demanded a hefty slice of sales (27%) made via external payment systems, which generated numerous complaints.īut the regulatory environment is increasingly less harmonious, which means Apple will need to make some changes in some markets. In the Netherlands, local regulations require it to permit developers of dating apps to support external payment systems. It's unclear at the moment how it will apply that process. But the only mandatory change it will need to apply in the US is to allow developers to tell users about third-party payment options for in-app purchases. That said, it's possible Apple will announce a smattering of changes at WWDC 2023 in June.Īpple may decide to make voluntary adjustments to some of its business practises, if only to resolve the complexity of managing different regulatory environments. In the short term, these results mean Apple continues to control app distribution on iOS, subject to local regulations. ![]() “We’re working on next steps.” What happens next? "Fortunately, the court's positive decision rejecting Apple's anti-steering provisions frees iOS developers to send consumers to the web to do business with them directly there,” he also wrote. For the second time in two years, a federal court has ruled that Apple abides by antitrust laws at the state and federal levels." (Apple also said it “respectfully disagrees” with the ruling on anti-steering provisions."Įpic CEO Tim Sweeney succintly tweeted: "Apple prevailed at the 9th Circuit Court." The court also supported Apple’s arguments that its existing systems promote consumer privacy and security, allowing it to tap "into consumer demand and differentiating its products from those of its competitors, goals that are plainly procompetitive rationales.” What Apple saidĪpple called the decision a “resounding victory. The court ruled that Apple was not violating antitrust rules on the first two points, but agreed developers should be able to promote external payment systems when making in-app purchases. ![]() Requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processing systems.Preventing developers from informing customers about alternative payment systems within the App Store.Restricting app distribution on IOS devices to the App Store. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |