Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Access to the article & paywalls

  • Commenters share archive, MSN, and Apple News+ links; some debate whether posting Apple News links is useful or just “Apple fan” noise.
  • Side thread on archive sites vs Internet Archive, CAPTCHAs, and tracking pixels.

What the ruling actually says

  • Judge found Apple in willful noncompliance with the earlier Epic injunction: instead of allowing real “steering” to alternative payments, Apple built a 27% “external payments” regime with heavy friction and scary warnings.
  • Court now orders Apple to allow developers to link and communicate alternative payment options without fees or design/placement restrictions.
  • The order also refers Apple and a finance VP to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt.

Perjury, contempt, and individual liability

  • The opinion explicitly says a senior finance exec lied under oath about when and how the 27% fee was chosen and about reliance on a consultant study.
  • Thread discusses how perjury is rarely prosecuted, but contempt here could carry real prison risk; some are skeptical anything serious will happen.
  • Many argue executives, not just “Apple the company,” should face consequences; some extend blame to shareholders, others resist that.

Apple’s App Store model under fire

  • Strong sentiment that Apple’s 30% cut + mandatory store + IAP rules are pure rent-seeking, not cost recovery.
  • People note developers already pay for hardware, OS, and dev accounts; forcing IAP on subscriptions and digital goods is seen as “quadruple dipping.”
  • Consultant study Apple used to justify 27% (assigning high % of dev revenue to Apple’s “value”) is widely mocked as bought-and-paid-for.

Security vs openness and “sideloading”

  • Long debate over whether App Store control is truly necessary for security.
  • Many argue the OS-level sandbox and permissions, plus optional sideloading with warnings, would be enough (Mac, web, Android, F-Droid cited).
  • Others insist the “average user” will install anything and blame Apple, so some paternalism is justified—but not tying payments and distribution to a monopoly.

Comparisons: Walmart, Steam, consoles, etc.

  • Walmart analogy mostly rejected: physical retailers allow manuals and inserts linking to direct online sales, while Apple bans even neutral links.
  • Steam’s 30% cut is contrasted: PC is open, devs can sell keys elsewhere; App Store is mandatory on iOS.
  • Consoles (Xbox/PlayStation/Switch) come up; some say they should also be opened, others note they’re sold at/under cost vs iPhones at a premium.

Enforcement, fines, and structural remedies

  • Widespread belief that small or one-time fines are useless given Apple’s scale; suggestions include:
    • Daily escalating fines.
    • Clawback of past monopoly rents.
    • Personal sanctions (fines, clawbacks, disqualification) for execs who ordered noncompliance.
  • Some want outright structural changes: mandatory sideloading, ban on mandatory single app stores, or even splitting hardware and platform businesses.

EU vs US approaches

  • Several contrast this case with EU’s DMA actions; some see US catching up, others say US still moves far too slowly.
  • Discussion that EU laws sometimes burden small firms, but DMA is explicitly targeted at “gatekeepers.”

Developer and user implications

  • Devs in the thread are enthusiastic: they can finally tell users about cheaper web subscriptions without getting rejected.
  • Expectation that major services (Netflix, Spotify, games) will move as much revenue as possible off IAP once steering is allowed.
  • Some note Apple’s current subscription management UX is legitimately good; others stress users should be free to trade that convenience for lower prices.

Apple’s internal culture & privacy image

  • Slack excerpts about making “external website” sound scary are seen as smoking-gun evidence of malicious compliance.
  • Many say this undermines trust in Apple’s broader ethical and privacy claims: if they’ll cheat on antitrust, why trust their data practices?
  • Others argue corporations act to maximize profit; “privacy” is just another positioning, not a moral stance.