EPIC against Apple: What Apple is forced to do with App Store

Application Storage icon on iPhone

Facebook X.com reddit Bluesky

“>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>”> “>” The latest updated decision that Apple deliberately violated the anti-storage aspect of the EPIC against Apple, the company must make specific changes to the App Store, and what it means for Apple, developers and users. It was launched by a game company that deliberately violating its App Store, but Apple lost one counting about how the developers can and cannot send users from the App Store.

Epic games insisted on this issue and now won with judge Ivonn Gonzalez Rogers, agreeing that Apple violated the opposition of the judicial prohibition. Describing the subsequent actions of Apple as a “rough innovation”, Judge Rogers not only repeated the ban on the anti-world, but also indicates, in particular, in detail, so that Apple could do anything but to fulfill.

Apple should also be followed immediately, regardless of whether it attracts. The court “will not accept the request for stay, given the repeated delays and the seriousness of behavior.”

, while Judge Rogers grouped his requirements in six common categories, the specific individual instructions Apple must comply with:

• undoubtedly charges any purchase fee made outside the application
• The prohibition on how the developers report
• , how they are grasped in their applications. The developers use any links, buttons or other calls to action, since they want
• to terminate the refusals to allow applications in their video and partnership programs to propose links to alternative purchases
• Use only the approved by the court when users are crossing the exile site
• developers instead send users directly to the pages that they want

Stop the purchase made outside the application

In response to what does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does not mean that it does ”not mean that it does not mean that you do not mean that you don’t mean that you don’t mean that you don’t have an apple, so as not to support, so as not to support, so as not to support the apple, so as not to support the apple, so as not to support the apple. The commission is 30%, Apple offered a new option, which was supposedly intended for the refusal of the developers. They can offer external purchases, but any purchased through the application will mean that they have to pay Apple by 27%.

Disney is located in the Apple video partner program, which excluded it from the sentence of external links to the purchase

, as in the case of certain partnerships, Apple did not require exclusively reduction in the purchase made by “immediate use of the link”. Apple also instructed to get 27% of all purchases made within seven days after the user entered or clicked on this external link.

Stop the purchase of

as part of ensuring that she received paying for external purchases, Apple required earnings for messages. This demanded from the companies that Apple conducts audits of their income and controls that the developers correctly pay what was debt.

When destroying the opportunity to charge any fee for an external purchase, Judge Rogers decided that “therefore” there is no reason for an audit, tracking, tracking or requiring from developers to report on purchases or any other actions that consumers do outside the application. ”

Apple very specifically adhered to the solution that it should have allowed the developers to contact alternative sentences.

More that one point cannot be on the screen, which listed purchases in the appendix, not anywhere on the way to this screen. The link also cannot remain on the screen in any form after the user passed by.

plus, the link cannot be placed in a pop-up window, and it should have been in the application section, to which the user has positively decides to cross. For example, he could not appear on the Splash screen when the application starts.

Allow Developers to Use Any Links, Other Calls to Action, as theyAllowing the developers to contact alternative sites or offers, Apple dictated & mdash; and so limited and MDash; The exact wording is used. Five main templates were allowed, which, on the one hand, denied developers in the enterprise to use convincing calls for action, not neutral.

, but this also meant that developers could be tied exclusively for one of the goals indicated in the templates. Apple used its own rules to limit the work of the developer.

“If the developer wanted to compete at a price, offering lower prices, but by offering other products or advantages on the Internet, there is no way to inform the user in the appendix,” writes Judge Rogers.

stop refusing to resolve applications in your videos and affiliate programs for news to offer links to alternative purchases

This applies to how Apple decided to exclude any developer in her video partner program, or in the news program. As examples, Judge Rogers listed Disney+ and New York Times.

These developers pay Apple 15% of the purchase fee for the purchase in the application, but if they decide to add links to external options, this commission changes to 30% for each purchase in the application.

“said in different ways, the judge Rogers wrote, and simply, including the external link to the purchase in their application, doubles his commission rate.”

Apple is still allowed to notify users that they leave the App Store and a specific application, so it is clear that they are sent to a third-party site or service. This is probably done with the mind to potential legal difficulties if the user visits the site of a bad actor and claimed that they believed that they were still in the Apple App.

left: an example of how Apple wanted to warn users before leaving the application. Right: a new wording associated with the court & mdash; Image loan: US District Court

Nevertheless, Judge Rogers called the current notice of Apple as the use of a “screens of fear” designed to turn off users.

Judge Rogers not only instructed to use such screens of fear, but also indicated that instead you could show only a “neutral message”.

CEASEAse ForCing Developers to Link ONE SPECIFied PAGEE ON Their site

Apple Limited how links can be shown in applications, but also limited where these links can take users. They had to switch to one static page, such as the home page of the developer.

, therefore, if the developer had two or more different sentences, they were not allowed directly and separately contact each of them. Instead, they will have to create a page on which everything is listed, and demanded that the user take another step to the point that they want to buy.

Allow Developers to Send Users Directly to Pags REGARDING THE PURCHASE THEY I want

The developers could not send any information to their website when the user decided to go to the link. There is an argument about the confidentiality on the transfer of user data to the third participants, but in this case the information usually applies to what the user proposes is wanted.

so that they can, for example, choose the level in the application, and then be delivered to the correct page of the product to buy this level.

what will happen further

Apple, saying that “we strongly disagree” with the judicial prohibition, and that it will appeal.

it is possible that the appeal can change the last solution, although this is unlikely. But regardless of the results of this attractiveness, Apple will have to immediately implement all these changes; And this will not be the end of the matter.

to streamline new and very specified steps that Apple should take, Judge Rogers considered the case of potential criminal proceedings against the company due to the alleged lies during the trial.