Apple has been granted a 90-day stay on the appeals court ruling that would have forced the company to undo its “anti-steering” rules and allow outside developers to link to third-party payment mechanisms. The stay was granted on Monday, giving Apple time to file a request with the Supreme Court to take up the case. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the appeals court ruling will go into effect and Apple will be required to change its policies.
Apple’s anti-steering rules limit how developers can direct users to subscription or in-app purchase payments outside Apple’s App Store ecosystem, where it takes a cut of revenue. A district court found that Apple had not generally violated antitrust law with its “walled garden” approach to iOS, but it ordered it to drop rules against letting developers include “calls to action” for outside payment methods.
Once that petition is filed, it remains stayed until the Supreme Court decides to hear it and, if it does, until the Supreme Court weighs in… Apple wants the Supreme Court to take a look at the case, and if it does, the court’s decision could have a huge effect on the future of the app ecosystem as we know it.
MacDailyNews Take: Again, this is akin to a judge issuing an injunction that forces Best Buy and Target to place signs next to each product that advertise lower prices for the same items at Walmart. It’s plainly ridiculous.
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules against Apple, if developers like Epic Games want to advertise lower prices using Apple’s App Store, Apple should simply begin charging an In-Store Advertising fee, because that’s exactly what it would be. In fact, Apple should charge more for advertising lower prices elsewhere than In-App Purchase costs developers now.
How much did it cost developers to have their apps burned onto CDs, boxed, shipped, displayed on store shelves prior to Apple remaking the world for the better for umpteenth time? Apple incurs costs to store, review, organize, surface, and distribute apps to 1+ billion users.
Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
isn’t it more like:
“a judge issuing an injunction that allows products sold at Best Buy and Target to have documentation on (for product) or inside (for in-app purchase) their product package that advertise lower prices for the same item or same in-app purchase at Walmart” ?
that seems less strange. You’re not telling Best Buy and Target what to do, you’re allowing the package design of each product to be UP TO THE PRODUCT CREATOR.
So, how many products do you see in Target with “Lower price at Walmart” printed on the package? Target would love that so much that they’d be seeking out manufacturers of products with on-package marketing designed to undercut Target, right?
Not many, if any at all and most likely a prank if you actually encounter one.. However, the ‘ad’ in question is not visible at the point of purchase (e.g. App store page of the App) as MDN, among others appear to argue, but in the App (e.g. in the box with the product) where it is visible and accessible to the user only after acquisition of said App. This is akin to having the coupon or ad for alternative sources to acquire the consumables for the product (e.g. ink cartridges, refills, replacement parts) INSIDE the box with the warranty card, instruction booklet, etc. There are no explicit external indications redirecting consumers/users. As such, there is no ‘In-store’ advertising being performed.
Fully support Apple winning this one. Whether a woke company or other no one should have to endure government overreach representing a minority of companies…