A U.S. judge on Tuesday denied Apple’sefforts to pause orders handed down after an antitrust case brought by “Fortnite” creator Epic Games.
Apple immediately said it would appeal the denial, aiming to stave off potentially significant changes to its lucrative App Store before a December 9th deadline to implement the court’s orders.
In September, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a ruling that was mostly favorable to Apple.
But she expressed concern that Apple was keeping consumers in the dark about alternative payment methods and ordered Apple to lift its ban on in-app links, buttons and messages to users about other ways to pay…
Apple said it will appeal Gonzalez Rogers’ denial to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could grant Apple a temporary stay before the Dec. 9 deadline.
“Apple believes no additional business changes should be required to take effect until all appeals in this case are resolved. We intend to ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay based on these circumstances,” Apple said in a statement.
MacDailyNews Take: Has a ditzy judge ever forced Best Buy and Target to place signs next to each product in their stores that advertise lower prices for the same items at Walmart?
No, because any judge who issued such a ludicrous order would be reversed on appeal amidst much ridicule.
If Apple’s appeal somehow fails, developers like Epic Games who want to advertise lower prices using Apple’s App Store should simply be charged an in-store advertising fee by Apple. We suggest it be 15% of sales resulting from said ads for developers making under $1 million per year and 30% for those making $1 million or more annually. 🙂
Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!
MDN please stop with that analogy. The actual analogy is when the advertising for a better price is IN the box being sold at Best Buy or Target not outside on the shelf.
Wrong… Not if the box is given away for free and all app access payment methods are sealed in the box.
What incentive would any store have to shelf that box?
And MDN. love your idea.. You mentioned it before too . ( very analogues to advertising fees in magazines!) I hope Apple took note.
Beyond the advertising fee, I think Apple should charge the developer a Download-fee/download as well.. for providing the download platform and the mechanism!
Developers want to have their cake and eat it to….. Get exposure through Apples Appstore for free and owe nothing to Apple for providing them the platform and the mechanism of downloading… Thats BS!
This ruling may actually endup hurting what developers net if Apple plays its cards right.
Including reduction in sales due to transaction complications/hassle and concern of sharing personal info and credit card info to each app developer when one want to buy a simple app…as opposed to one simple click now.
I’m not arguing that Apple doesn’t have any right to some compensation, simply that the analogy of placing the ‘competing price’ on the shelf next to the product is not correct. It just makes MDN look obtuse and weakens their argument for those with enough reading comprehension. Even magazine subscription cards are ‘in’ the magazine and not out on the shelf.
On what basis does Apple have rights when the download comes from other servers and the free App is not allowed to be offered anywhere else? Compensation for what?
Get exposure through Apples Appstore for free (all products get exposure from any store they are sold) and owe nothing to Apple for providing (imposing, not providing upon) them the platform and the mechanism of downloading…
Sycophant!
Wrong … Not if the Box is given away for free and all payment and access information is sealed in the box.
What incentive would any store have to shelf the item?
Mdan advertising fee is grea idea. akin to magazine advertising.
On top I think Apple should charge and download-fee/download
Developers want to have their cake and eat it to….. Get exposure through Apples Appstore for free and owe nothing to Apple for providing them the platform and the mechanism of downloading… Thats BS!
This ruling may actually endup hurting what developers net if Apple plays its cards right. ….
Including the harm of less sales from the added complication and concern of sharing card numbers with the developers and going all over the net to complete a transaction… Vs a single click as its now.
I don’t understand the court’s ruling at a more basic level. Apple designed and developed its App Store, so why can’t it determine what the rules are for using it? People do have alternatives. How can a court force Apple to do something for the benefit of the general public with something it created and maintains? A court is determining Apple’s terms and conditions for its own invention.
They can.
But they also. Lock block the existence of all other stores for the items.