In 2021, a federal judge spent Apple to alleviate her grip, at all, at the App Store. On Wednesday, nearly four years after, this judge found that Apple intentionally failed to do so and tried to hide her lack of compliance with this process. in AngryJudge iPhone Gonzalez Rogers said that it will not give Apple a second chance to obtain it correctly: Instead, it demands specific changes on the application store, and to tear the Apple fist after years of unfounded adjustments.
The ruling describes a deliberate process in which Apple determines how to comply with the original court order, just to choose an anti -competition option “in every step”.
In its 2021 legal battle with epic games, Apple won most of the case. But the company moved away from the experience Court Assigning developers to include links and buttons within their applications that would direct users to buy roads outside the application store-also known as the “anti-defense command”. Perhaps as a reflection of the extent of Apple’s success in court, the irritable order He was not precisely determined What Apple could not do or not do: it was ambiguous enough to let the company open the company can continue the fees for developers with sales fees even when making it via the web.
After the irritable matter fell, Apple began to update the changes it could implement that “would limit the ruling,” says a set of internal meeting notes.
Apple decided to combine two bad options.
The first decision – and the greatest – whether Apple should take a commission at all. Apple looked at many options: No reduction can take, but the location of the links can be restricted, developers can receive developers based on application downloads or another scale, or can determine a new commission for web purchases and audit developers based on their sales.
The progress began and stopped these deliberations as Apple resumed the original Gonzalez Rogers rule through the legal system. When it was finally clear that Apple should comply with, the company flowed it on its favorite choice: reduce the rate of commissions and scrutiny.
Apple knew this is the worst option for developers, and the judge wrote in her opinion this week. Apple believed that dropping all the drawings “is very attractive to developers”, even if it was associated with heavy restrictions on how the web fastening process works. “Apple expected that most of the big developers and many medium and young developers will make purchases for its users,” Gonzalez Rogers writes. The company expected that it would lose hundreds of millions of billions in revenue as a result.
On the contrary, Apple believed that her commission and audit approach would be “only attractive to the largest developers” at best, according to the court. Tens of millions of revenues are expected to lose if he achieves half of the 50 largest developers.
In the end, Apple decided to combine two different approaches – as the court saw, “the most competitive option.” Apple mixed the commission and the approach to checking the restrictions imposed on the place where the links can be placed.
Once it settles on an approach, the company began at the meeting to determine what the committee should be. I found that the original command of Gonzalez Rogers is that Apple welcome to charge the fees, but the company needed to provide an explanation that could be defense for the rate – the usual Apple fee of 30 percent was mainly dependent on anything.
Apple’s executive officials wanted a “frightening” language to warn users
The company set out from different numbers. Some leaders wanted to see him by 20 percent. Luka Maestri, then financial manager, wanted to see him 27 percent. While they discussed, there is still a high -level opposition about imposing a commission at all. “I have already explained many of my problems with the concept of the committee,” wrote the leader of the App Store Ville Schiller in an e -mail. “It is clear that I am not in the team’s committee/fees.”
In the end, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, made the decision, and chose a 27 percent committee. Apple has learned that the committee would be so high that external credit cards processing fees will make the option not applicable to developers, says the court. Decally, the court found that the number still depends on anything but Apple’s desire to profit. The company did not explain why its services were of great value until it deserved the fees.
From there, Apple started overcoming the details: How will the bonds and buttons be done? And what will happen when users take advantage of them?
Apple realized that the most prominent links would be more used, so she wanted to reduce their position. The company mocked different designs for links. In one version, links will be included in the buttons with circular edges and colored backgrounds; In another, links will be presented in an ordinary text. In the end, he decided to restrict links to a normal text only.
After that, the designers went to heat what happens when the link is used. You have looked at multiple options: in one, you will be small users alerted that they are about to open their web browser; In another, a warning will appear on a full screen with a large text reading, “Are you sure you want to follow?”
“Apple has sought to secure its illegal flow from every corner.”
Apple chose to repeat the screen option on a full screen, with the aim of eating users from follow -up to the web. The popup included a text, and the employees discussed the use of “frightening” language to warn people.
Rafael Onak, Apple user experience manager, issued instructions to the employee to add the phrase “external site” on the screen because it “looks frightening, so the executives will love it.” Another employee made a proposal on how to make the screen “worse” using the developer name, instead of the application name. “Oh – continue,” another Apple employee responded at Slack.
Even Cook entered work. When he finally saw the screen for approval, requesting adding another warning that special promises are Apple’s privacy and security will not be applied to the web.
There were more upcoming restrictions: Apple has taken options to reduce the text that developers can use on links. She decided to prevent some developers with low commission rates from using new web rules and connectivity. It prevented developers from using dynamic links that would keep users registered, because the company wanted to create more friction.
Gonzalez Rogers looked at Apple’s continuous decision to choose the worst option for developers and decided that the company simply did not care about compliance with its order. “In other words, Apple sought to secure the flow of its illegal revenues from every corner,” she wrote. The verdict says that the CEO of Apple has been given the option between compliance with the court order and the selection of unjustified application store fees. “Cook is bad.”
The new Apple judgment requires that developers unrestricted for bonds and buttons for sales purposes. The company is no longer allowed to impose fees on the purchasing committee, which was held on the web.
Apple spokeswoman Olivia Dalton said that the company does not agree to the court’s decision and will appeal.
