autotldr@lemmings.world
on 29 Sep 2023 02:05
nextcollapse
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sept 28 (Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O) on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down an order requiring changes to its App Store rules stemming from an antitrust case brought by “Fortnite” owner Epic Games.
The iPhone maker has been in a legal battle with Epic since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s requirement that developers distribute software through its App Store, where Apple charges up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on iPhones and other devices, violated U.S. antitrust rules.
Epic lost on those claims at trial in 2021, but a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Apple’s practice of banning software developers from telling customers about alternative payment methods violated a California unfair competition law.
Apple on Thursday argued the lower court orders violate the U.S. Constitution because they overstep the powers of a federal judge.
Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer - rather than a broader class of developers - to justify a nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was needed to remedy the harm caused to Epic.
Epic on Wednesday also appealed lower court rulings in the Apple case.
The original article contains 335 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
SVcross@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 02:59
nextcollapse
Damn, I can’t believe I’m supporting Epic now. Apple, let people do with their devices what they want.
ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 11:17
collapse
Not allowing side loading make iPhones more secure. Which can be argued as a benefit for the consumer. Family members have been convinced to install suspect APKs on Android which has caused issues.
Any reasonable consumer that would want to sideload apps, would know that isn’t available for iPhones. As there are alternatives with Android I don’t see forcing Apple to allow side loading to be in the interest of the consumer. They can purchase a range of equivalent phones that do allow side loading.
If apple was the only major smartphone maker, or made smartphones that outclassed all other devices significantly. Then they should be forced to allow side loading. But that’s not the case right now. Consumers can sideload on other devices. Consumers that want sideloading won’t purchase iPhones.
Forcing apple to sideload only benefits businesses and scammers/hostile actors. People can easily be guided to change settings to sideload, without understanding the consequences of it - warnings don’t do much.
GrayBoltWolf@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 12:23
collapse
Imagine paying $1000 for a computer you don’t fully own.
Vorticity@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 05:19
collapse
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like, legally, Apple has a good argument. We’ll see but I anticipate that the Supreme Court will rule against Epic and this will go back to the district court for more fighting.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 29 Sep 2023 12:22
collapse
Apple’s business decisions have a major impact on the stock market. SCROTUS will definitely rule in favor of apple just to prevent stocks losing value across the board
US courts are in Apple’s pockets, of course apple can ask them for a favor.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 21:19
collapse
There are lot of things you can say about the US Supreme Court, but “in Apple’s pocket,” is not one anyone really says. Apple lost their most recent case, Apple v Pepper with the SCOTUS.
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sept 28 (Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O) on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down an order requiring changes to its App Store rules stemming from an antitrust case brought by “Fortnite” owner Epic Games.
The iPhone maker has been in a legal battle with Epic since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s requirement that developers distribute software through its App Store, where Apple charges up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on iPhones and other devices, violated U.S. antitrust rules.
Epic lost on those claims at trial in 2021, but a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Apple’s practice of banning software developers from telling customers about alternative payment methods violated a California unfair competition law.
Apple on Thursday argued the lower court orders violate the U.S. Constitution because they overstep the powers of a federal judge.
Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer - rather than a broader class of developers - to justify a nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was needed to remedy the harm caused to Epic.
Epic on Wednesday also appealed lower court rulings in the Apple case.
The original article contains 335 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Damn, I can’t believe I’m supporting Epic now. Apple, let people do with their devices what they want.
.
OP is probably referring to allowing side loading.
.
Not allowing side loading make iPhones more secure. Which can be argued as a benefit for the consumer. Family members have been convinced to install suspect APKs on Android which has caused issues.
Any reasonable consumer that would want to sideload apps, would know that isn’t available for iPhones. As there are alternatives with Android I don’t see forcing Apple to allow side loading to be in the interest of the consumer. They can purchase a range of equivalent phones that do allow side loading.
If apple was the only major smartphone maker, or made smartphones that outclassed all other devices significantly. Then they should be forced to allow side loading. But that’s not the case right now. Consumers can sideload on other devices. Consumers that want sideloading won’t purchase iPhones.
Forcing apple to sideload only benefits businesses and scammers/hostile actors. People can easily be guided to change settings to sideload, without understanding the consequences of it - warnings don’t do much.
Imagine paying $1000 for a computer you don’t fully own.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like, legally, Apple has a good argument. We’ll see but I anticipate that the Supreme Court will rule against Epic and this will go back to the district court for more fighting.
Apple’s business decisions have a major impact on the stock market. SCROTUS will definitely rule in favor of apple just to prevent stocks losing value across the board
US courts are in Apple’s pockets, of course apple can ask them for a favor.
There are lot of things you can say about the US Supreme Court, but “in Apple’s pocket,” is not one anyone really says. Apple lost their most recent case, Apple v Pepper with the SCOTUS.