‘Cook chose poorly’: how Apple blew up its control over the App Store
‘Cook chose poorly’: how Apple blew up its control over the App Store
A federal judge has ruled that Apple deliberately failed to comply with a court order to loosen its grip on the App Store, which was established in 2021.
The ruling states that Apple chose an anticompetitive option at every step of complying with the original order, despite having won most of its legal battle with Epic Games in 2021.
The court’s original order required developers to be allowed to include links and buttons within their apps directing users to purchase methods outside the App Store, known as the “anti-steering injunction”.
The injunction was vague enough to leave open a loophole, allowing Apple to continue exerting control over the App Store without strict definition.
The judge is now demanding specific changes to the App Store and has effectively ripped away Apple’s grip on the platform after years of unsubstantial alterations in response to the court order.
In 2021, a federal judge ruled that Apple had to loosen its grip, ever so slightly, on the App Store. On Wednesday, nearly four years later, that same judge found that Apple deliberately failed to do so and tried to hide its noncompliance in the process. In a furious opinion, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that she wouldn’t give Apple a second chance to get it right: instead, she’s demanding specific changes to the App Store, ripping away Apple’s grip after years of unsubstantial alterations in response.
The ruling describes a deliberate process by which Apple sized up how to comply with the court’s original order, only to choose an anticompetitive option “at every step.”
In its 2021 legal battle with Epic Games, Apple won most of the case. But the company walked away from the trial with a court order mandating that developers be allowed to include links and buttons within their apps that would direct users to purchase methods outside the App Store – also known as the “anti-steering injunction.” Perhaps as a reflection of how well Apple had fared in court, the injunction did not strictly define what Apple could or could not do: it was vague enough that it left open a loophole …
Q. What was the outcome of Apple’s legal battle with Epic Games in 2021?
A. Apple won most of the case, but also received a court order mandating that developers be allowed to include links and buttons within their apps to direct users to purchase methods outside the App Store.
Q. What was the result of the court order issued in 2021 regarding the App Store?
A. The order required Apple to allow developers to include links and buttons within their apps to direct users to purchase methods outside the App Store, also known as the “anti-steering injunction”.
Q. Did Apple comply with the original court order issued in 2021?
A. No, according to a recent ruling by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who found that Apple deliberately failed to comply with the order.
Q. What was the nature of Apple’s noncompliance with the court order?
A. The judge described Apple’s actions as “anticompetitive” and stated that they chose an anticompetitive option at every step in response to the original order.
Q. How did Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers respond to Apple’s failure to comply with the court order?
A. She refused to give Apple a second chance to get it right, instead demanding specific changes to the App Store and ripping away Apple’s grip on the market.
Q. What was the purpose of the “anti-steering injunction” issued by the court in 2021?
A. The injunction allowed developers to include links and buttons within their apps that would direct users to purchase methods outside the App Store, giving them more flexibility in how they sell their products.
Q. How did Apple’s actions impact the App Store and its control over it?
A. By failing to comply with the court order, Apple effectively blew up its control over the App Store, allowing developers to offer alternative purchasing options to users.
Q. What was the significance of the recent ruling by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers?
A. The ruling marked a significant shift in Apple’s control over the App Store, as it forced the company to make specific changes to comply with the court order and allow for greater competition.
Q. How did the judge describe Apple’s actions in her opinion?
A. She described Apple’s actions as “deliberate” and stated that they chose an anticompetitive option at every step, highlighting the company’s efforts to maintain its control over the App Store despite the court order.
