![]() ![]() In its latest court filing, the company argued that a stay be put on opening up payments, because: "Apple will be required to change its business model to comply with the injunction before judicial review has been completed. In the Netherlands, where local regulations require it to permit developers of dating apps to support external payment systems, Apple is demanding 27% of sales, no matter which payment system is used. ![]() While this might help developers make more money from the sale, the actual cost of setting up and securing payment services means most will use existing alternative payment systems, all of which also charge fees.Īpple, in its turn, seems to have prevailed in its arguments that the platform it offers developers on which to do business is its own, which means it is entitled to charge something and will charge some form of fee. In basic terms, what's at stake is the opportunity for developers to take payments from consumers directly using services other than Apple’s. Apple has until the end of the year to file it, but in the event the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the original ruling comes into effect. That appeal isn’t cut and dried, of course. That latter objection has now been declined by the Supreme Court, which means the Apple doesn’t need to offer alternative payment services until the appeal is heard. That decision was put on hold, and Epic objected to that hold. She rejected Apple’s argument that opening up payments could expose customers to fraud and other scams and declared that the company should permit developers to link to external payment services. The judge in that lawsuit, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers didn’t agree with nine out of 10 of the antitrust claims but did find Apple to be in breach of California's Unfair Competition Law by insisting developers only use its own payment methods. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |