Apple App Store: Difference between revisions
CopyeditorHF (talk | contribs) Added comment requesting clarification of Apple's response to legislation attempting to regulate its App Store. |
CopyeditorHF (talk | contribs) Minor grammar/style edits; adding more explicit argumentation to "Facebook online events." |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
On 13 August 2020, Epic Games launched a campaign against both Apple and Google's app store business practices. The company released app updates on both platforms, introducing a method for purchasing V-Bucks, in-game currency, at a 20% discount by directly transacting with Epic Games, against the developer rules of both platforms. The platforms responded by removing the game from their storefronts. Epic Games then filed civil antitrust lawsuits against both companies in the Northern District of California.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Epic Games is suing Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/vfFgU |archive-date=14 Aug 2020 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> The campaign, branded "Free Fortnite" | On 13 August 2020, Epic Games launched a campaign against both Apple and Google's app store business practices. The company released app updates on both platforms, introducing a method for purchasing V-Bucks, in-game currency, at a 20% discount by directly transacting with Epic Games, against the developer rules of both platforms. The platforms responded by removing the game from their storefronts. Epic Games then filed civil antitrust lawsuits against both companies in the Northern District of California.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Epic Games is suing Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/vfFgU |archive-date=14 Aug 2020 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> The campaign, branded "Free Fortnite," was later extended with lawsuits and complaints in Australia,<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Epic Games extends its fight against Apple to Australia |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251219044545/https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |archive-date=19 Dec 2025}}</ref> the European Union,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 Feb 2021 |title=Epic Game Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Apple |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apple |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/0Nqn7 |archive-date=26 May 2025 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> and the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 Mar 2021 |title=Epic Games files complaint to support CMA Apple investigation |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-complaint-to-support-cma-apple-investigation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/FMiCR |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> | ||
On September 11, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided the case. While the lawsuit against Apple failed on nine of the ten counts, Rogers ruled against Apple's use of "anti-steering" - its strategy of preventing users from being "steered" to a third-party storefront for payment processing - and placed a permanent injunction on this behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandon |first=Russell |date=11 Sep 2021 |title=Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/gf9tJ |archive-date=10 Sep 2021 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> Despite the case mostly failing, the discovery process provided significant insight into Apple's decision-making process regarding App Store policies, including decisions made in major app review disputes. In one case, executive Phil Schiller argued for reducing the fee by 30%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurman |first=Mark |date=4 May 2021 |title=Apple’s Schiller Floated Cutting App Store Fees a Decade Ago |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/R7Zus |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Bloomberg]]}}</ref> | On September 11, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided the case. While the lawsuit against Apple failed on nine of the ten counts, Rogers ruled against Apple's use of "anti-steering" - its strategy of preventing users from being "steered" to a third-party storefront for payment processing - and placed a permanent injunction on this behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandon |first=Russell |date=11 Sep 2021 |title=Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/gf9tJ |archive-date=10 Sep 2021 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> Despite the case mostly failing, the discovery process provided significant insight into Apple's decision-making process regarding App Store policies, including decisions made in major app review disputes. In one case, executive Phil Schiller argued for reducing the fee by 30%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurman |first=Mark |date=4 May 2021 |title=Apple’s Schiller Floated Cutting App Store Fees a Decade Ago |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/R7Zus |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Bloomberg]]}}</ref> | ||
Epic Games and Apple both appealed the decision. | Epic Games and Apple both appealed the decision. Thirty-five state attorneys-general, the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF), [[Microsoft]], among others, filed amicus briefs in support of Epic Games.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peters |first=Jay |date=29 Jan 2022 |title=Epic largely lost to Apple, but 35 states are now backing its fight in a higher court |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/28/22907106/epic-games-v-apple-amicus-briefs-states-eff-microsoft-appeal |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/P0TZY |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> | ||
On 11 December 2023, the jury in the case against Google decided | On 11 December 2023, the jury in the case against Google decided in favor of Epic Games on all 11 counts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bensinger |first=Greg |last2=Scarcella |first2=Mike |date=13 Dec 2023 |title=Epic Games wins antitrust case against Google over Play app store |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-epic-games-face-off-app-antitrust-trial-nears-end-2023-12-11/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/WaLBK |archive-date=12 Dec 2023 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> | ||
On 1 May 2025, Rogers found that Apple willfully chose not to comply with the 2021 injunction, commenting "that | On 1 May 2025, Rogers found that Apple willfully chose not to comply with the 2021 injunction, commenting that it was a "gross miscalculation" that "this court would tolerate such insubordination."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peters |first=Jay |date=1 May 2025 |title=A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/659246/apple-epic-app-store-judge-ruling-control |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/IThaV |archive-date=1 May 2025 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> | ||
===Facebook online events=== | ===Facebook online events=== | ||
In August 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook introduced the ability for small businesses to accept an entrance fee for events. Previously, Facebook would only serve as a way to RSVP for an event; the organizer had to use a third-party event ticketing system to collect fees. The company pledged not to collect any fee on event sales "until 2023."<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Paid Online Events for Small Business Recovery |url=https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/paid-online-events/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/7X7KH |archive-date=6 Sep 2020 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Meta]]}}</ref> | In August 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook introduced the ability for small businesses to accept an entrance fee for events. Previously, Facebook would only serve as a way to RSVP for an event; the organizer had to use a third-party event ticketing system to collect fees. The company pledged not to collect any fee on event sales "until 2023."<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Paid Online Events for Small Business Recovery |url=https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/paid-online-events/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/7X7KH |archive-date=6 Sep 2020 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Meta]]}}</ref> | ||
Apple, however, | Apple, however, required the feature to use an in-app purchases system. This introduced Apple's 30% fee. Because this increased the cost for end users and was not a fee imposed by the event holders, it was initially displayed as a line item upon check out. Apple argued that this disclosure was "irrelevant."<ref name="facebook" /> In the end, Facebook was allowed display the fee, but ''without'' stating that it was an App Store fee. Apple's reluctance to have these fees transparently shown and identified in the course of the purchase is confusing if such fees considered necessary and fair. | ||
===HEY=== | ===HEY=== | ||