"To some degree, Apple could make it so that its in-app payments are still the easiest to use," said Ben Bajarin, head of consumer technologies at Creative Strategies. read more Games are a larger portion of Apple's sales.īut whether the ruling eats in to that revenue depends on how Apple implements the changes. The orders follow Apple's agreement last week with the Japan Fair Trade Commission, under which it eases rules for "reader" apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) to provide a link to customers to sign up for a paid account outside of the app. Department of Justice is probing the iPhone maker. Reuters has previously reported that the U.S. John Newman, a law professor at the University of Miami, said the ruling leaves open avenues for U.S. While Gonzalez Rogers did not find that Apple is a monopolist, she found that the trial showed Apple was violating California state competition and showed some "incipient antitrust violations" that required a nationwide remedy. Congress said the ruling showed that courts alone will not address their concerns. "Apple and Google's monopolistic practices will only end when we bring our laws into the digital age, as South Korea did last week." "What today’s ruling also makes clear is that antiquated antitrust laws cannot solely be fixed by the courts," Match Group (MTCH.O), which has challenged Apple's practices in Europe and owns the popular dating app Tinder, said in a statement. Lawmakers in the United States and Europe are considering bills that would force Apple to allow third-party in-app payment systems, and South Korea's parliament has already passed such a law. The ruling on Friday suggests they are more likely to play out in statehouses and capitals than in courtrooms. The Epic lawsuit began after the game maker inserted its own in-app payments system in "Fortnite."Ĭhallenges to Apple's App Store rules are far from over. "Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers," Epic's CEO, Sweeney, said on Twitter. The judge sided with Apple on key questions such as defining the relevant antitrust market as gaming transactions, rejecting Epic's argument that the iPhone is its own app market over which Apple is a monopolist. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo Apple officials said the company is still debating how it will implement the requirements of the ruling and whether it will appeal.ģD printed Lady Justice figure is seen in front of displayed Apple and Epic Games logos in this illustration photo taken February 17, 2021. In a media briefing, Apple's legal team said it does not believe the ruling forces it to allow developers to implement their own in-app purchase systems. Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world." Gonzalez Rogers stopped short of granting Epic some of its other wishes, such as forcing Apple to open the iPhone up to third-party app stores.Īpple said in a statement: "As the Court recognized ‘success is not illegal. District Court for the Northern District of California. The ruling comes after a three-week trial in May before Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. The ruling also said Apple cannot ban developers from communicating with customers via contact information obtained by the developers when customers signed up within the app. The judge ruled that Apple can no longer bar developers from providing buttons or links in their apps that direct customers to other ways to pay outside of Apple's own in-app purchase system. The decision expands that exemption to all developers, including the game developers who are the biggest cash generators for Apple's App Store, which itself is the foundation of its $53.8 billion services segment. The ruling vastly expands a concession made to streaming video companies last week allowing them to direct users to outside payment methods. "We suspect the eventual impact from this will be manageable," Evercore ISI analyst Amit Daryanani wrote in a note to investors. Analysts said the impact may depend heavily on how the iPhone maker chooses to implement the decision.Īpple shares were down 3.2% late on Friday afternoon, but many Wall Street analysts maintained their long-term favorable outlooks on the iPhone maker. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers described her ruling as requiring a "measured" change to Apple's rules. The outcome left Apple's critics and rivals saying they are more likely to turn to legislators, rather than courts, to pursue the changes they seek.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |