Supreme Court rules against Epic, so Apple can keep its App Store payment rules
theverge.com
theverge.com
It's simply a temporary one. Apple is appealing the lower court's decision to force it to allow alternative payment methods. Epic wanted alternative payment methods allowed now, while Apple appeals.
This is simply the Supreme Court saying alternative payment methods are still on pause until the Supreme Court presumably hears the case and makes what will be the final decision.
The TechCrunch article is a bit clearer on the legal history here:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/09/app-store-payment-rules-wo...
It is not a final decision. The title is flat-out incorrect, the SC didn't "rule" anything. They didn't even hear the case.
2) I really want to be able to side load on my iPhone easily.
3) I am really tired of hearing about these companies fighting over their mass wealth streams.
Of course the existing massive players want their cut increased, but Apple (and Google) would be wiser to try and fix the funnel entry problem before the big guys eventually get their way and deny them their piece of the pie. Epic and Roblox in particular are aiming to be the next platforms taking their own cuts.
Is this necessarily bad? How many versions of the same functionality/game play do we really need just so the dev can quickly start selling the data they collected?
Yes, WebGPU isn't available on Safari yet, but when it is it will be a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software, one where you don't have to go through the platform owner's store as the only option available to you.
This is why they're coming for the web with Google's "Web environment integrity" stuff.
> a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software
Maybe I'm just old and grumpy but this isn't NEW at all. Until about ten years ago when you bought a computer you owned it and could install whatever you wanted on it.
... I wonder why that is ...
Apple knows everything about bypassing restrictions. Their initial play on iOS was meant to be webapps - just so that carriers (which had, until then, dictated what could and could not be delivered and installed on every device) would be totally bypassed. It just so happened that the carriers capitulated to Jobs' marketing magic so completely, that Apple didn't have to go that way - they could become the gatekeeper themselves.
WebGPU on Safari, if it ever lands, will always be borked "just enough" that it won't be viable as a commercial platform. Apple will fight for their cut as viciously as a mob boss fights for his corners.
As time passes, Apple is owning more and more of the total compute surfaces humans use. Just like Google.
We need our devices to be functionally independent of vertical-stack owning, horizontally expanding monopolies.
We only have two choices, both increasingly essential to modern life, where each player gets to charge every software and banking decision. It's entirely uncompetitive.
I'm imagining a future where they take a cut of every point of sale purchase, where they insert ads in front of travel destinations, and where they control the software and information you can run and access.
Both of these companies need to be scaled back to protect not only the consumer, but the entire computing and commerce future of the world.
We haven't even gotten to the appeal part, yet.
As a consumer who buys phones for the whole family, I much prefer payment through Apple due to (1) one-stop shop for cancelling all subscriptions, and (2) Apple is much better on privacy.
I'm not sure that's sound economics.
Or perhaps, that you think the government would place limits ineptly?
That said, I think it is absolutely tin foil hat-y to _assume_ that the other justices are just as bad.
how do you then keep the Clarence Thomases on the court to not rule them unconstitutional and strike them down?
Previously on hn https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25190668