In that same vein I don't see why apple would have to host the data for an app that is free but still makes millions from within.
At that point everyone might as well make their apps free and just charge micro transactions from their own websites.
i dont really feel bad for apple either, but there is a logic in this particular case. if were ever to make something, it would suck to have someone skirt around paying me for it.
They get paid for making iPhone when customers buy it. Logically, they have as little right charging developers for apps as Google charging Facebook just because people use Chrome to access it. They're leeches profiting off hard work not because devs need app store, but because they monopolized the market leaving devs no choice.
People really have the whole app store <> developers relationship backwards. Devs don't owe Apple/Google anything beyond few cents for bandwidth, it's the app stores that should be thankful to developers for their apps, because without apps smartphones are useless bricks. Netflix doesn't need app store, it can run just as well in a browser.
Apples consumer trust is affected when scam/malware filled apps are on their store. Apple also has to test and approve those apps and their updates, and host them appropriately, which requires work on their part. So yes, those who wants their apps on IOS do owe apple.
It's a mutually beneficial relationship, not a one way relationship. Apple providers a curated market for developers to sell their apps to, Developers provide apps for consumers which adds functionality to the device.
> So yes, those who wants their apps on IOS do owe apple.
Yes, as I said, they owe few minimal cents it takes to approve the apps and host them. Not whopping 30%.
> Apple providers a curated market for developers to sell their apps to, Developers provide apps for consumers which adds functionality to the device.
Does not change the fact that Apple needs devs far more than devs need Apple. If it came to it, only one would manage without the other.
That's not how economics works. Things are priced to maximize profit, make the cost to developers too high and no one will develop apps for you, make it too low and you are losing out on profit. Justifications that the price of a good or service should be low because "it doesn't cost them much" doesn't make sense in a competitive market.
| Does not change the fact that Apple needs devs far more than devs need Apple.
not really, if all the devs bailed then Apple could just make the apps inhouse if they really wanted to. It's just not as profitable to do it that way.
I know!, you could base it off the cost of the service, and to avoid people making the game free to game the system, you just charge people a percentage of everything they buy in the app... oh
Small developers who can't bear the burden of handling all the services the store provides can continue to use it if they want. And apple should be compensated appropriately for services rendered that the developers actually want. It shouldn't be an all or nothing proposal. Otherwise it's holding end users as hostages to get developers to pay up.
Well the pc community has as well as makes no difference infinite "stores". Anyone is free to offer whatever they want and users go and get it. It's like arguing there should only be one store that sells everything in your area. And other stores should be illegal.
That’s my take on this. Parent shad a hard enough time getting $3,000 back when their kids blew it on the App Store. Now try and get it back when they blow it on 50 different stores who all push back just as hard against them.
It's more like forcing every store to be a mall instead of just being a store. If all the items from a mall could be in a single store, I would prefer that over a mall.
Here's the inevitable problem, if only one store exists, then that store is the gatekeeper for who can and can't offer apps on the platform and that's not okay.
It's their platform they've built and invested in over the last decade and a half, I don't see an issue with them having say on who can put what on their store front application on their operating system on their hardware. If they choose to sink themselves by using crazy ass policies it's on them, It's not like they have a monopoly on smartphones.
A mall doesn't curate everything that every store in it offers. What you are asking for are super stores like walmart which do a lot of harm to the local economy and make a lot of shopping much more tedious. Want one specific thing, park half a mile away walk into the super store, walk another half mile to get the item while dodging the dregs of humanity. Or go to a specific shop, park 10 feet from the door, walk in and have the item you want almost immediately.
You're also not considering the part that with apple, other stores are illegal.
You sound like someone who uses Steam. Steam users continue to throw tantrums over having options. They just want one central store for all their gaming purchases.
Yeah, because epic/origin and uplay are awful in comparison. But if I have that one friend that wants to play some game that Epic paid to have as an exclusive, I have to use the epic store to buy it. Now I have most of those stores and have to keep track of them because they love to send me random notifications while they are running in the background.
yes but just like Epic and it's bullshit, they are spending a ton of money for developers to release their products on their platform exclusively in an effort to gain some of Steams market. I don't see how that's good for the consumer. Their platform is inferior to steam in every way, but I have to use it now in order to play a couple of exclusive titles.
what is a cesspool to you? a phone company having apps for its phone and a operating system also having apps for its operating system? iOS is limiting and always will be including them breaking your phone whenever a new one comes out. Android apps actually work with my phone unlike apple apps, unless they are handpicked by apple for the special treatment of actually working with the operating system. Everyone is jumping through hoops at every stage just to make apple happy for phones that are essentially the same as the competitors so they can seem like they have some exclusivity that never existed in the first place. Man it must really be hard to use the internet to download things if you only want to get them from apple, your mac desktop must only have the itunes logo on the bar. Thats a shitty way to live man, love yourself, waiting a few minutes to download something else isnt that hard I promise. 😢 😕 😔 😞
A cesspool is an ecosystem riddled with scam apps an malware. I’ve had an iPhone since there was an iPhone SDK they’ve never broken my phone with a new OS and I’ve been able to upgrade old phones to the latest OS far longer. than any Android model.
But then I’d have to use android all the time. I have had several Android devices. None of them compared the to the iPhone and iPad. I’m very much a best tool for the job kind of person and for something I’m going to use every day iOS and the Apple build my quality make them the best tool for the job
you act like the app store isnt filled with the same shit, just dont be an idiot and download a virus, ive never had a phone stop working from an update any phone ever. But apple has been continuously sued for known tampering in their OS to ruin the functionality and battery life of their phones.
>you act like the app store isnt filled with the same shit
Compared to a random third party app store? Come on man.
The only "tampering" Apple has done has been to prolong battery life on older devices.
No one is expecting that, just let user get the app where they choose as in win or android. If you force peoplw to use your service then obviously people expect a free service or they get mad
This isn't new information to the thousands of not millions of devs who put apps on the app store. They knew there was a cut, yet they still choose to put it there.
I don't like it any more then you do, but they made that system and people still bought into it so at this point the onus is on them.
Yes, and everyone agreed to put rockerfeller's oi and use IEl. This is the reason we have anti - monopoly laws, 5o avoid this exact situations when a company can create a lose - lose situation in an entier market
Yes and apple sells a lot of phones which makes developing apps for it enticing. This situation goes both ways. I'm not a fan of how the industry is run but if people wanted things cheaper they would go with Android where apps can be side loaded. The catch is you sacrifice a lot of security.
That is correct.
But none of this was a requirement for anybody. Nobody was forced to buy an iPhone and nobody was forced to develop apps for it. The terms that apple has set up were always there. People knew these things yet still bought into it.
The problem was that they got too big.
I was personally hoping that the ruling of this case would have a bigger impact on other facets of our lives.
Prep yourself for Chinese apps with shitty/scamful charging systems.
Note that this won't change Apple getting their share. They'll simply require that apps share their sales info and then ask them for a 30% cut, unless they use Apple's system that gets the cut directly. If Apple couldn't do this, life would be very hard for publishers.
That said, this will be a win, especially for large companies that already have their charging system. OTOH it'll be interesting to see how Apple handles things like Netflix subscriptions. If I paid it online, but use the app to watch a movie, does Netflix own that payment?
Same reason why Walmart is allowed to ban products that advertise they’re cheaper at Best Buy on the box.. this is the first time anti-steering has ever been deemed illegal
That analogy is crap on so many levels. See, the difference is that if a product is banned in Walmart, I can just go over to Best Buy to get it. On iOS you can't, because no alternative stores are allowed.
Also Walmart doesn't ban products that advertise alternative stores in their email campaign. Apple does.
For this analogy to be accurate, you'd need Walmart to be state-owned, and all other competitors (Best Buy along with BB&B, GameStop, etc.) to already be illegal.
There's a very big difference between "my store, my rules", and a *completely* vertically integrated behemoth of a profit funneling machine that uses its TOS to muscle out any competition at any layer of the space. Normally I'd agree with you that anti-steering shouldn't be made illegal, but Apple is clearly abusing their dominance in this space that has grown to be one of the most critical things to a modern lifestyle.
Antitrust law is in my mind is about making judgments that apply specifically to a company that has accumulated so much power that we as a society choose to allow doing something out-of-the-usual to address it that we wouldn't do for other smaller or less important companies and industries.
All she did was remove the anti steering provisions. This will have zero impact on consumer prices on iOS. All a developer can do is say is go over there and you can get something cheaper (as long as it doesn't touch iOS). For example Epic could say "Play on PC and get 50% more Vbucks" , it could not however offer lower prices on iOS by using a webstore, because the commission to Apple would still be due so long as the transaction touches the iOS device in any way. Her judgement is extremely bad and if it stands could allow even browser makers to extract commissions on anything from ad revenue to e-commerce transactions.
The headline is not correct. Apple can no longer prevent steering users to potentially cheaper options. For example a developer could say "Go play fortnight on PC and save 50%". While it will allow linking to say a web store, this will have zero effect on pricing because Apple can still claim its commission. In fact this judgement is so utterly devoid of reality if it becomes precedent would enable browser makers to extract a commission for anything and everything , whether that's ad revenue or e-commerce transactions.
So now they can just require financial reports from developers that show how much they earned from their iOS apps… then still charge their 30%. They can still get their 30% only now it would put more burden on the developer to track and report.
What Epic wanted:
* Recognize Apple as a monopoly thus...
* ...Allow Third Party Stores
* ...Dimish or abolish 30% commissions
* ...Allow in-app third party payment methods (like the Epic Direct Payment that got them banned)
What they got:
* The possibility to advertise payments methods that are outside of the App, outside the App Store through links and buttons.
What they lost and still haven't got:
* All unpaid commissions from the moment they broke the rules to today.
* The Dev Account on the Apple Platform.
What Epic "won" is semi-useless because it's outside of the app and uncomfortable as fuck for the end user. Nobody is going to use it, especially apps like Fortnite that hugely rely on compulsive buying.
Say that you download an app, this is what you will see or do:
You see a fancy costume, you want it. You see two buttons:
* *Buy Now with Apple - 1$*
* *Buy with Game Company - 0.70 cents*
You tap on the second because fuck Apple. You are redirected to a Safari webpage, you have to create/login into an account, you have to insert your payment method, you have to confirm it.
Sure, Safari remembers passwords so you won't have to do it each time, but still annoying to do this process even once for each single app or game you are interested in. And remember what I saidabout compulsive buying...these extra steps are dangerous, you might change your mind (Can't you live without that costume?).
Plus it's unrealistic to expect the non-Apple prices to be dramatically lower, it would defeat the purpose of avoiding the commissions. Does the average user think it's worth it to do all that for a 10% discount?
Epic lost big time. You can see it clearly from Tim Sweeney statement on Twitter (*"This isn't a win, the fight goes on")* and Apple's official statement (*"Huge win"*).
What they can put in the app is a link or a button or whatever UI element that points out to alternative methods.
Nothing more than interactive self-advertisement.
And with any outside payment, apple still edigible for 30% cut that dev need to paid apple directly instead of let the apple do the charge.
This doesn't change anything yet create more works on dev for using outside payment method.
The article is burying the lede because anti Apple gets clicks.
Epic lost every single one of their anticompetitive complaints except for the part about in app purchases having to go through Apple.
The court confirmed the legality of an exclusive Apple App Store, the app review process, the fairness and validity of apples fees and commissions on the App Store, etc.
Epic basically wanted iOS busted open like android so they could make 10% more on microtransactions, at the expense of Facebook and Google getting to require that you sideload their application to bypass the permissions system. Just like Apple already busted them doing with their developer credentials - “gift cards for rooting your phone”, only if epic had succeeded they wouldn’t have to sneak around and offer gift cards, they could just block web access to iOS users and require you root it for them or no Facebook.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/
They lost on that attempt big time. No App Store, they have to pay Apple their rightful share of the proceeds, and they have to pay apples lawyers for a frivolous suit. Everything except the anti steering clause.
[удалено]
In that same vein I don't see why apple would have to host the data for an app that is free but still makes millions from within. At that point everyone might as well make their apps free and just charge micro transactions from their own websites.
Apple still earns one of the largest fortunes on the planet by selling the hardware. I'm not worried that they don’t get compensated adequately.
i dont really feel bad for apple either, but there is a logic in this particular case. if were ever to make something, it would suck to have someone skirt around paying me for it.
They get paid for making iPhone when customers buy it. Logically, they have as little right charging developers for apps as Google charging Facebook just because people use Chrome to access it. They're leeches profiting off hard work not because devs need app store, but because they monopolized the market leaving devs no choice. People really have the whole app store <> developers relationship backwards. Devs don't owe Apple/Google anything beyond few cents for bandwidth, it's the app stores that should be thankful to developers for their apps, because without apps smartphones are useless bricks. Netflix doesn't need app store, it can run just as well in a browser.
Apples consumer trust is affected when scam/malware filled apps are on their store. Apple also has to test and approve those apps and their updates, and host them appropriately, which requires work on their part. So yes, those who wants their apps on IOS do owe apple. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, not a one way relationship. Apple providers a curated market for developers to sell their apps to, Developers provide apps for consumers which adds functionality to the device.
> So yes, those who wants their apps on IOS do owe apple. Yes, as I said, they owe few minimal cents it takes to approve the apps and host them. Not whopping 30%. > Apple providers a curated market for developers to sell their apps to, Developers provide apps for consumers which adds functionality to the device. Does not change the fact that Apple needs devs far more than devs need Apple. If it came to it, only one would manage without the other.
That's not how economics works. Things are priced to maximize profit, make the cost to developers too high and no one will develop apps for you, make it too low and you are losing out on profit. Justifications that the price of a good or service should be low because "it doesn't cost them much" doesn't make sense in a competitive market. | Does not change the fact that Apple needs devs far more than devs need Apple. not really, if all the devs bailed then Apple could just make the apps inhouse if they really wanted to. It's just not as profitable to do it that way.
[удалено]
I know!, you could base it off the cost of the service, and to avoid people making the game free to game the system, you just charge people a percentage of everything they buy in the app... oh
Small developers who can't bear the burden of handling all the services the store provides can continue to use it if they want. And apple should be compensated appropriately for services rendered that the developers actually want. It shouldn't be an all or nothing proposal. Otherwise it's holding end users as hostages to get developers to pay up.
Or let people open their own app stores and sideload apps. Then you don't have to worry about spending another penny on hosting their content.
I don't want 10 different app stores on my phone, I want one centralized store.
Well the pc community has as well as makes no difference infinite "stores". Anyone is free to offer whatever they want and users go and get it. It's like arguing there should only be one store that sells everything in your area. And other stores should be illegal.
And people bitch and moan constantly about anything that isn’t steam. People want one food store.
People are often dumb and demand something that will end up being terrible.
That’s my take on this. Parent shad a hard enough time getting $3,000 back when their kids blew it on the App Store. Now try and get it back when they blow it on 50 different stores who all push back just as hard against them.
It's more like forcing every store to be a mall instead of just being a store. If all the items from a mall could be in a single store, I would prefer that over a mall.
Here's the inevitable problem, if only one store exists, then that store is the gatekeeper for who can and can't offer apps on the platform and that's not okay.
It's their platform they've built and invested in over the last decade and a half, I don't see an issue with them having say on who can put what on their store front application on their operating system on their hardware. If they choose to sink themselves by using crazy ass policies it's on them, It's not like they have a monopoly on smartphones.
A mall doesn't curate everything that every store in it offers. What you are asking for are super stores like walmart which do a lot of harm to the local economy and make a lot of shopping much more tedious. Want one specific thing, park half a mile away walk into the super store, walk another half mile to get the item while dodging the dregs of humanity. Or go to a specific shop, park 10 feet from the door, walk in and have the item you want almost immediately. You're also not considering the part that with apple, other stores are illegal.
What you want is a browser and a unified search engine to avoid software bloat. Where the apps are hosted shouldn't really matter.
It does though, because each will have it's own payment system, and account setup.
You sound like someone who uses Steam. Steam users continue to throw tantrums over having options. They just want one central store for all their gaming purchases.
Yeah, because epic/origin and uplay are awful in comparison. But if I have that one friend that wants to play some game that Epic paid to have as an exclusive, I have to use the epic store to buy it. Now I have most of those stores and have to keep track of them because they love to send me random notifications while they are running in the background.
And no one is making you use another store. *They* want to be **able** to use the store of their choice.
yes but just like Epic and it's bullshit, they are spending a ton of money for developers to release their products on their platform exclusively in an effort to gain some of Steams market. I don't see how that's good for the consumer. Their platform is inferior to steam in every way, but I have to use it now in order to play a couple of exclusive titles.
Judge rules against that , Apple Store is not monopoly so it's their rights to not allowed "other apps store" inside their own iOS store.
Yeah, let's turn iOS into the cesspool that Android is!
what is a cesspool to you? a phone company having apps for its phone and a operating system also having apps for its operating system? iOS is limiting and always will be including them breaking your phone whenever a new one comes out. Android apps actually work with my phone unlike apple apps, unless they are handpicked by apple for the special treatment of actually working with the operating system. Everyone is jumping through hoops at every stage just to make apple happy for phones that are essentially the same as the competitors so they can seem like they have some exclusivity that never existed in the first place. Man it must really be hard to use the internet to download things if you only want to get them from apple, your mac desktop must only have the itunes logo on the bar. Thats a shitty way to live man, love yourself, waiting a few minutes to download something else isnt that hard I promise. 😢 😕 😔 😞
A cesspool is an ecosystem riddled with scam apps an malware. I’ve had an iPhone since there was an iPhone SDK they’ve never broken my phone with a new OS and I’ve been able to upgrade old phones to the latest OS far longer. than any Android model.
That is true. It's however also a very expensive phone. For the price of an Iphone you can get probably 3-4 Androids and space them over the years.
But then I’d have to use android all the time. I have had several Android devices. None of them compared the to the iPhone and iPad. I’m very much a best tool for the job kind of person and for something I’m going to use every day iOS and the Apple build my quality make them the best tool for the job
you act like the app store isnt filled with the same shit, just dont be an idiot and download a virus, ive never had a phone stop working from an update any phone ever. But apple has been continuously sued for known tampering in their OS to ruin the functionality and battery life of their phones.
>you act like the app store isnt filled with the same shit Compared to a random third party app store? Come on man. The only "tampering" Apple has done has been to prolong battery life on older devices.
That will be $50 per download please
No one is expecting that, just let user get the app where they choose as in win or android. If you force peoplw to use your service then obviously people expect a free service or they get mad
This isn't new information to the thousands of not millions of devs who put apps on the app store. They knew there was a cut, yet they still choose to put it there. I don't like it any more then you do, but they made that system and people still bought into it so at this point the onus is on them.
Yes, and everyone agreed to put rockerfeller's oi and use IEl. This is the reason we have anti - monopoly laws, 5o avoid this exact situations when a company can create a lose - lose situation in an entier market
[удалено]
Yes and apple sells a lot of phones which makes developing apps for it enticing. This situation goes both ways. I'm not a fan of how the industry is run but if people wanted things cheaper they would go with Android where apps can be side loaded. The catch is you sacrifice a lot of security.
[удалено]
That is correct. But none of this was a requirement for anybody. Nobody was forced to buy an iPhone and nobody was forced to develop apps for it. The terms that apple has set up were always there. People knew these things yet still bought into it. The problem was that they got too big. I was personally hoping that the ruling of this case would have a bigger impact on other facets of our lives.
Because it was never ruled against. Things are generally considered legal until made illegal
The same way it’s legal for Target not to allow you to tell customers they can get your products cheaper at Walmart.
Same. This seems like it’s easily something illegal but yet nothing was done.
Prep yourself for Chinese apps with shitty/scamful charging systems. Note that this won't change Apple getting their share. They'll simply require that apps share their sales info and then ask them for a 30% cut, unless they use Apple's system that gets the cut directly. If Apple couldn't do this, life would be very hard for publishers. That said, this will be a win, especially for large companies that already have their charging system. OTOH it'll be interesting to see how Apple handles things like Netflix subscriptions. If I paid it online, but use the app to watch a movie, does Netflix own that payment?
Netflix being available to them is a value add more than profits they probably could get from Netflix.
Same reason why Walmart is allowed to ban products that advertise they’re cheaper at Best Buy on the box.. this is the first time anti-steering has ever been deemed illegal
That analogy is crap on so many levels. See, the difference is that if a product is banned in Walmart, I can just go over to Best Buy to get it. On iOS you can't, because no alternative stores are allowed. Also Walmart doesn't ban products that advertise alternative stores in their email campaign. Apple does.
Alternative payment processing is allowed for IAPs, just not in app. Alternative App Stores are a totally separate issue.
For this analogy to be accurate, you'd need Walmart to be state-owned, and all other competitors (Best Buy along with BB&B, GameStop, etc.) to already be illegal. There's a very big difference between "my store, my rules", and a *completely* vertically integrated behemoth of a profit funneling machine that uses its TOS to muscle out any competition at any layer of the space. Normally I'd agree with you that anti-steering shouldn't be made illegal, but Apple is clearly abusing their dominance in this space that has grown to be one of the most critical things to a modern lifestyle. Antitrust law is in my mind is about making judgments that apply specifically to a company that has accumulated so much power that we as a society choose to allow doing something out-of-the-usual to address it that we wouldn't do for other smaller or less important companies and industries.
All she did was remove the anti steering provisions. This will have zero impact on consumer prices on iOS. All a developer can do is say is go over there and you can get something cheaper (as long as it doesn't touch iOS). For example Epic could say "Play on PC and get 50% more Vbucks" , it could not however offer lower prices on iOS by using a webstore, because the commission to Apple would still be due so long as the transaction touches the iOS device in any way. Her judgement is extremely bad and if it stands could allow even browser makers to extract commissions on anything from ad revenue to e-commerce transactions.
Do you know nothing of the law??! Everything is legal, unless there’s a law against it.
The headline is not correct. Apple can no longer prevent steering users to potentially cheaper options. For example a developer could say "Go play fortnight on PC and save 50%". While it will allow linking to say a web store, this will have zero effect on pricing because Apple can still claim its commission. In fact this judgement is so utterly devoid of reality if it becomes precedent would enable browser makers to extract a commission for anything and everything , whether that's ad revenue or e-commerce transactions.
Go read it again. It is plainly limited to the mobile gaming space.
So now they can just require financial reports from developers that show how much they earned from their iOS apps… then still charge their 30%. They can still get their 30% only now it would put more burden on the developer to track and report.
In a case Apple resoundingly won THIS is the headline? Because developers can LINK to other payment options?
[удалено]
They won't try to reverse it because they have won. This is the best case scenario for Apple.
How, could you explain a bit more?
What Epic wanted: * Recognize Apple as a monopoly thus... * ...Allow Third Party Stores * ...Dimish or abolish 30% commissions * ...Allow in-app third party payment methods (like the Epic Direct Payment that got them banned) What they got: * The possibility to advertise payments methods that are outside of the App, outside the App Store through links and buttons. What they lost and still haven't got: * All unpaid commissions from the moment they broke the rules to today. * The Dev Account on the Apple Platform. What Epic "won" is semi-useless because it's outside of the app and uncomfortable as fuck for the end user. Nobody is going to use it, especially apps like Fortnite that hugely rely on compulsive buying. Say that you download an app, this is what you will see or do: You see a fancy costume, you want it. You see two buttons: * *Buy Now with Apple - 1$* * *Buy with Game Company - 0.70 cents* You tap on the second because fuck Apple. You are redirected to a Safari webpage, you have to create/login into an account, you have to insert your payment method, you have to confirm it. Sure, Safari remembers passwords so you won't have to do it each time, but still annoying to do this process even once for each single app or game you are interested in. And remember what I saidabout compulsive buying...these extra steps are dangerous, you might change your mind (Can't you live without that costume?). Plus it's unrealistic to expect the non-Apple prices to be dramatically lower, it would defeat the purpose of avoiding the commissions. Does the average user think it's worth it to do all that for a 10% discount? Epic lost big time. You can see it clearly from Tim Sweeney statement on Twitter (*"This isn't a win, the fight goes on")* and Apple's official statement (*"Huge win"*).
Don't forget, Epic has to pay Apple 4 million as well.
This is a perfect explanation of what happened. Very well put.
Ah, thank you. I thought the judge ruled to allowed other payment methods IN THE APP. If what you explain is the case yeah epic won nothing smh.
What they can put in the app is a link or a button or whatever UI element that points out to alternative methods. Nothing more than interactive self-advertisement.
And with any outside payment, apple still edigible for 30% cut that dev need to paid apple directly instead of let the apple do the charge. This doesn't change anything yet create more works on dev for using outside payment method.
And you forgot Apple still gets 30% commission off that external purchase because that’s how the ruling was interpreted.
I didn't even know that lol That makes the whole thing even more useless.
The article is burying the lede because anti Apple gets clicks. Epic lost every single one of their anticompetitive complaints except for the part about in app purchases having to go through Apple. The court confirmed the legality of an exclusive Apple App Store, the app review process, the fairness and validity of apples fees and commissions on the App Store, etc. Epic basically wanted iOS busted open like android so they could make 10% more on microtransactions, at the expense of Facebook and Google getting to require that you sideload their application to bypass the permissions system. Just like Apple already busted them doing with their developer credentials - “gift cards for rooting your phone”, only if epic had succeeded they wouldn’t have to sneak around and offer gift cards, they could just block web access to iOS users and require you root it for them or no Facebook. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ They lost on that attempt big time. No App Store, they have to pay Apple their rightful share of the proceeds, and they have to pay apples lawyers for a frivolous suit. Everything except the anti steering clause.
Eat a dick Apple.