It could just be that Apple has made a big mistake and the longed for, or dreaded, dissolution of the App Store is upon us at last. Of course, Apple is appealing, but things don't look good for its position.

This is such a long running battle that I've almost forgotten how it all started, but the record reveals that Tim Sweeney CEO of Epic Games woke up one morning and noticed that Apple was eating a substantial portion of his cake without really giving much back. We all knew this and it is a matter of wonder that it took Sweeney so long to notice, but to his credit when he did notice he took up arms against the evil empire - well walled-garden at least. He took both Apple and Google to court claiming that they were a monopoly. The strange outcome was that he got further with Google than Apple, but neither verdict was really satisfactory from Epic's point of view.

Then the EU stepped in and, using the Digital Markets Act, it forced Apple to free up the App Store in the EU. Apple complied and allowed non-Apple App stores in the EU, but it imposed a charge on such stores and made sure the user believed that they were in some way dangerous to use by displaying carefully crafted warning screens.

In the US Epic won a small victory in that the court obliged Apple to allow apps to offer in-app payments not via the App Store - so removing Apple's 30% cut of all such purchases.  Of course, Apple being Apple, found ways around the order and imposed charges on in-app purchases for services rendered. Now the judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that Apple cannot make any charges on in app purchases processed by external sites. She also noticed that Apple wasn't playing nice:

"Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream.

Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024
evidentiary hearing)."

As I said, this is Apple we are talking about. The point-by-point outline of Apple's actions are worth reading:

"To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its
intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app.
Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.

Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction."

That about nails it - it is what anyone looking at the situation would have concluded. What is more:

"In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied
under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein,
The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether
criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate"

I think the phrase  "(Tim) Cook chose poorly"  is likely to echo around for sometime.

The court then instructed Apple to stop impeding developers' ability to communicate with users and to remove all levies.

Of course, it isn't over. Apple is appealing, but a strange twist might just quieten things down Tim Sweeney tweets:

"Epic puts forth a peace proposal: If Apple extends the court's friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we'll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic."

 Apple should think about this very carefully and let's hope that Tim Cook chooses well this time...

More Information

Epic v. Apple Contempt order

Related Articles

Apple Wins Either Way

Apple Appeals To Supreme Court In Epic Case

Apple Wins Appeal Against Epic

Epic v Apple - Both Sides Lose But It's A Win For Developers

Epic Games V Apple & Google - Smash The App Stores

Epic Games Takes On Apple - Unintended Consequences

Epic Games CEO Finally Notices That UWP Apps Are A Walled Garden

To be informed about new articles on I Programmer, sign up for our weekly newsletter, subscribe to the RSS feed and follow us on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin.

Comments

Make a Comment or View Existing Comments Using Disqus

or email your comment to: comments@i-programmer.info