US court: Apple must change its app store immediately

If it were up to Apple, the company would certainly have taken its time with the redesign of its own App Store. After all, app developers had fought for the right that not only Apple’s own payment options have to be displayed. Third-party methods should also be made accessible via link or other connection from now on. Apple’s request for a delay in the implementation of this requirement has now failed before a US court. The judge condemned the Tech company namely to point already on 9 December to alternatives outside of the Apple cosmos.

First attempt failed

It could have all been so beautiful for the iPhone inventor. Had the iconic California-based company succeeded with its desired postponement, the losses that now follow would likely have been mitigated somewhat. Indeed, the company, led by CEO Tim Cook, must now make arrangements to comply with the plaintiffs’ wishes by December 9 of this year. In particular, the inclusion of references to payment methods other than those of Apple is possible from this deadline. From this point on, developers will be allowed to refer to payment options outside of the Apple cosmos within their apps.

However, Apple does not seem to want to come to terms with this. From a business point of view, this is of course understandable. After all, the company will almost certainly lose a lot of revenue if users are free to choose other payment methods as well. Who wouldn’t choose to support an underdog at a time like this? Accordingly, Apple announced today that they will appeal. Even though Epic Games may not really be called an underdog, the decision could still be groundbreaking for small developers as well.

Fortnite – A red rag for Apple

The back and forth between Epic Games and Apple has meanwhile taken on almost bizarre features. In the meantime, Apple even took the successful shooter of the renowned developer studio out of the Apple App Store. The court ruling in September finally brought clarity to both sides. Apple was ordered to allow other payment methods within the app until December 9. But what bothers Apple about the plans of the Fortnite developers? The company states that by integrating other payment methods, they would be hurting the Apple App Store itself, as it were. It is precisely the integrity of the store that Apple cares about.

This argument obviously bounced off the responsible judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. She made it clear in her ruling that she did not agree with Apple at all. The lawyer also sees no hope for the following appeal proceedings. In her announcement of the verdict, she primarily denounced Apple’s actions. The company was probably only interested in obtaining an indefinite postponement for the modification of the App Store. If Apple had simply asked for a slightly longer period for implementation, the judge might even have decided differently.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose

In the September court ruling, both sides scored a partial victory. While Apple was able to enjoy a hefty compensation payment from Epic, the iPhone inventors, for their part, had to commit to changing the payment terms. According to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, this would simply be unlawful. One must have the right to point out more favorable purchase options to its users. Epic could thus open the door for other developers, who have simply lacked the means to take legal action against this peculiarity of Apple.

Basically, Apple proceeds as follows in the context of its Apple App Store. Like in the Google Play Store or other marketplaces for digital goods, you can buy apps and games here. Within the individual apps, in-app purchases are then possible with many providers. With Apple, these are not made via the provider itself. Instead, Apple acts as an intermediary. By using its own payment platform, Apple itself retains a large share of the revenue. Thus, it is not uncommon for a levy of a whopping 15 percent up to 30 percent to occur.

Apple defends payment system

If Apple is to be believed, there are not only pure profit motives behind the idea of an exclusive payment system. Instead, this also fulfills extensive security aspects. In particular, fraudulent actions are to be prevented and extensive customer data protection is to be ensured. It remains to be seen whether this really justifies the immense levy. Many app developers at least describe the levy as disproportionately high. Apple itself now naturally fears that a certain mobilization against the in-house payment system will take place, which will ultimately even affect the users. After all, fraudulent developers could get hold of valuable data like credit card information. How realistic such scenarios really are remains to be seen. After all, it is up to Apple to check its own store for “black sheep” even without using the payment system. It is certain that the verdict, which initiated the lawsuit of Epic Games, could be groundbreaking.