Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
67,897
38,606


In a scorching ruling against Apple, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Wednesday accused an Apple finance executive of providing false testimony under oath during the company's ongoing legal battle with Epic Games.

iOS-App-Store-General-Feature-Sqaure-Complement.jpg

The judge stated that Alex Roman, Apple's vice president of finance, gave testimony that was "replete with misdirection and outright lies" regarding when Apple decided on its controversial 27 percent commission fee for purchases made outside the App Store.

"Contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple's plan, including the 27 percent commission, were determined in July 2023," wrote Gonzalez Rogers in her ruling. "Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies."

The ruling is significant enough that Gonzalez Rogers is referring the case to a U.S. attorney for possible criminal contempt proceedings against both Apple and Roman.

The reduced 27 percent fee (down from Apple's standard 30%) was established after the 2021 Epic Games lawsuit ruling. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected claims that Apple operated a monopoly. However, she ruled that Apple's anti-steering conduct was anti-competitive, and ordered the company to allow developers to link to alternative payment methods outside the App Store.

Apple complied by creating a system where developers can apply for a "StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement" to direct users to external payment options. However, Apple still demands a 27% commission on these transactions made within seven days of clicking the link.

That's set to change though after Wednesday's ruling. The court now says Apple cannot collect any fee or commission for purchases that consumers make outside of an app, nor can it track, audit, or monitor consumer activity.

The judge didn't mince words in her assessment of Apple's behavior, writing that "Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction" and did so "with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers" to maintain its revenue stream.

"That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation," she added. "As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple."

The false testimony appears to have particularly aggravated the judge, who said in her ruling that the alleged deception compounded Apple's original violation of the anti-steering injunction.

In a brief statement, Apple said: "We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court's order and we will appeal."

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple VP Referred for Criminal Contempt After 'Outright Lies' in Epic Games Ruling
 
Last edited:
Apple has FOFO. It pushed it too far and their arrogance with their size and wealth has come back and bit them.

You cannot just ignore court rulings against you and rely on endless appeals to block a decision.
If they aren't careful they will be forced to break up, it's happened to Microsoft, Alphabet may have to sell Google, your size does not protect you if you abuse your position as ruled in a court.
 
It’s time for Tim Cook to resign.

He’s led Apple to this absolutely appalling state of affairs, completely messed up the transition to genai - which is the next big tech paradigm - and left Apple very overexposed in china, at a time of increasing tensions in that region.

Jobs always bought up the Wayne Gretzky quote about not skating to where the puck is but to where it’s going to be, as being his main driver in business.

And cook has spent so much of apple’s energy sticking to where the puck is - defending the teens era App Store, when its typical in business that you can only hold the first mover advantage for so long and then need to relinquish it, otherwise innovation is stifled.

And Apple should get innovating again imho - not trying to defend the status quo.
 
Ooof that's a bit naughty from Apple.

Now that ruling is fine, however consider this scenario.

The app is free in the app store - the only way to unlock the features is via a third party payment link which now Apple has to provide for free.

So who is going to charge for an app in the app store when they can take all the profit via their third party payment link.

There needs to be some kind of rule where by it's fine to use third party payment links without Apple taking a fee however you can't host a free app in the store and the ONLY way to active its features is via a third party payment link.

That would be like being able to setup in Target with your own stall for free and take a mobile payment handset with you to charge for anything you sell giving Target nothing.
 
Ooof that's a bit naughty from Apple.

Now that ruling is fine, however consider this scenario.

The app is free in the app store - the only way to unlock the features is via a third party payment link which now Apple has to provide for free.

So who is going to charge for an app in the app store when they can take all the profit via their third party payment link.

There needs to be some kind of rule where by it's fine to use third party payment links without Apple taking a fee however you can't host a free app in the store and the ONLY way to active its features is via a third party payment link.

That would be like being able to setup in Target with your own stall for free and take a mobile payment handset with you to charge for anything you sell giving Target nothing.
It’s more like Apple is a town and the developers are the businesses. If Apple didn’t have independent developers creating apps for their platform, no one would live there. And we all know Apple makes a killing on its hardware anyway.
 
So who is going to charge for an app in the app store when they can take all the profit via their third party payment link.
Anyone that wants to provide his customers the convenience, integration, trust and seamlessness of having their in-app purchases processed by Apple.

👉 It's up to Apple to provide their services at competitive prices and terms and make developers choose to use them over (or in addition to) other alternatives.

There needs to be some kind of rule where by it's fine to use third party payment links without Apple taking a fee however you can't host a free app in the store and the ONLY way to active its features is via a third party payment link.
You can't have Apple host an app for free in the App Store.
And no third-party developer has.

Developers of paid apps pay a yearly subscription for Apple's services.

And Apple is of course free to allow distribution of apps through other, non-App Store channels (like they do on macOS).
 
Last edited:
Anyone that wants to provide his customers the convenience, integration, trust and seamlessness of having their in-app purchases processed by Apple.

👉 It's up to Apple to provide their services at competitive prices and terms and make developers choose to use them over (or in addition to) other alternatives.


You can't have Apple host an app for free in the App Store.
And no third-party developer has.

Developers of paid apps pay a yearly subscription for Apple's services.

And Apple is of course free to allow distribution of apps through other, non-App Store channels (like they do on macOS).

Correct, they have the developer fee.

What I’m saying though with this ruling is that to get around Apple's 30% cut, a developer could release a free app and provide a 3rd-party payment link as the only way to unlock the features, which, according to this ruling, Apple is not allowed to take any commission for anymore. Suddenly, they have a sale with no fee to Apple whatsoever.

Thus circumventing Apple's 30% (or 15%) fee.
 
It’s more like Apple is a town and the developers are the businesses. If Apple didn’t have independent developers creating apps for their platform, no one would live there. And we all know Apple makes a killing on its hardware anyway.

There are lots of ways to look at it - in another thread someone said it should be treated like macOS or Windows and I replied:

____

I understand the macOS comparison. However, we have two precedents here.

The PC open market was long established in the 80s.

Then games consoles came along, and you had to buy the specific cartridge that fit that hardware to release your software. You couldn't make your own cartridges; you had to license them through the console maker. You could make the same argument that they made their money selling the machine in the first place here too. The split in their setup was largely considered to be 70/30. This then applied to disc based systems later with Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo - the same 70/30 split.

This progressed into online consoles and online web stores. So now we have PlayStation’s online store, the Microsoft store for Xbox, Nintendo has a store. Before that, we had Steam, who set up arguably the first online digital store with a 30% digital split. Everyone else followed.

After Apple did it in 2008, Google did it a bit later also with a 30% split. Then followed Amazon's app store, Microsoft store, all the games stores mentioned, Meta Quest's store - all at a 30% split.

It's largely built around the bricks-and-mortar shop idea where they'd hope to make 30% (though it'll be a lot less these days) - so that's why EVERYONE does it, not just Apple.

Of course, the Epic store is the standout difference, and that's why Tim Sweeney pushes everyone as wrong because he's realised they can make a fortune at 12% and try to get everyone to side with the man who makes billions selling children pixels in a computer game every year as "skins" as if he's the arbiter of morality.

So the argument falls on: is the iPhone more of a Mac or PC, or is it more like all the other devices mentioned above? Apple have a very good argument for the latter as every other mobile device, phone, gadget, games console, consumer electronic falls under the latter.
 
a developer could release a free app and provide a 3rd-party payment link as the only way to unlock the features, which, according to this ruling, Apple is not allowed to take any commission for anymore. Suddenly, they have a sale with no fee to Apple whatsoever.
Apple is free to not offer free purchases / free downloads through their App Store.
They can charge $0.99 or something for every app downloaded.

I'd consider it a much fairer allocation of costs to third-party developers than today's model.
 
I was trying to figure out the actual timeline of the lies and misdirections but this article doesn’t really explain it well and doesn’t seem to link to an actual source. Daring Fireball seems to be bit more comprehensive:


I recommend people read that, but my understanding from it is that Roman lied at a May 2024 hearing - telling the court that the 27% fee was decided as late as January 2024 while in fact it was discussed/established internally at Apple in July 2023. I can’t say I understand exactly why the timing matters (I’m sure others can explain it) but it was a wilful lie by Roman in court.

Interestingly in the Daring Fireball (and other articles on this) it says that Phil Schiller seemed to be the sole exec (fellow?) that disagreed with plan to charge the 27% fee.
 
Last edited:
Apple is free to not offer free purchases / free downloads through their App Store.
They can charge $0.99 or something for every app downloaded.

I'd consider it a much fairer allocation of costs to third-party developers than today's model.

That could be a solution however it's a horrible one as nearly every app on my phone is free.

I'm not about to spend 0.99 to install Facebook, Whatsapp, banking apps, web browsers, home automation apps, social network apps etc.

The solution I suggested makes the most sense - you can't host a free app on their store where the only way to unlock the content is via a 3rd party payment link.

You can have a free app but in app purchases go through Apple or you can have a paid app but subscriptions, in app purchase, upgrades etc can all be purchased with a third party link cutting Apple out.

Even if there were multiple app stores worldwide they shouldn't allow you to do that. Remove the hardware from the equation. Steam, a hardware agnostic platform wouldn't let you sell a free app in their store and then have people unlock the game for free with a third party payment link - you pay your commission to be part of a store that users enjoy managing their library in, having payments all in one place, having it sync across devices, being able to discover your content, being hosted on their servers and taking advantage of their technology like shader sharing and updated universal libraries etc.
 
So the argument falls on: is the iPhone more of a Mac or PC, or is it more like all the other devices mentioned above?
I would say the former because for many young people in the US and in countries around the world their phones are the primary computer that they use for almost everything. In poorer countries a phone may be the only computer they have access to.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.