However, many observers think that Apple’s concessions to iOS apps are still too small. Apple says it has reached an agreement with application developers (NPTs) in a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant;
The lawsuit is related to how Apple manages the App Store for iPhone and iPad. Among the terms of the agreement, Apple said it would share more data with NPTs, clarify some of the rules around communicating with customers and set up a $100 million fund to help. NPTs in the US have an annual income of less than 1 million USD.
In addition to funds for NPTs (nearly a third of the funds are used to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs related to this agreement), Apple’s commitments will apply to all NPTs on Apple’s platform…
“We want to thank the app developers who worked with us to come to an agreement that serves the goals of the App Store and the interests of all users,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow overseeing the App Store. To share.
The settlement reached in Cameron et al v. Apple is not involved in Apple’s ongoing lawsuit against Epic Games, the developer of the Fortnite game, but the proposed settlement would require a judge’s approval in that case.
Some Apple critics say they’re disappointed by the deal, arguing that the win is still in Apple’s favor because some concessions are still based on maintaining existing plans or clarifying some of the company’s rules. App Store that Apple has not consistently adopted.
“This proposal is not meant to address the core issues that are hindering innovation and competition in the app ecosystem that NPTs large or small face,” said Meghan DiMuzio, executive director of the Alliance. Coalition for App Fairness said in a statement.
“Allowing NPTs to communicate with customers at a lower cost is not a concession to Apple and only highlights Apple’s total control over the app marketplace,” she said.
Epic Games, a company that helped form the alliance, declined to comment further on DiMuzio’s comments.
Spotify, a company that is urging regulators in the US and Europe to clamp down on Apple and the App Store, also criticized the deal. The music supplier said, “Apple has abused its dominant position for years, and we will continue to pursue substantive reform to ensure companies can innovate and compete in the public eye. level on a level playing field”.
Apple’s settlement in its lawsuit against NPTs marks the latest twist in the ongoing legal battles involving the App Store. In recent years, Apple has repeatedly found itself in a confrontation with NPTs, who think that Apple controls the App Store too tightly when it is the only way users can install apps on the iPhone and iPad.
While Apple’s settlement is an interesting twist in the ongoing drama, it comes as Apple and Epic Games await a ruling from judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers following a previous legal battle in California. months.
In this lawsuit, Epic Games accuses Apple of monopolizing and using control of the App Store to force NPTs to accept high commissions, which can be up to 30% for payment products/services. in-app purchases (in-app purchases).
While this may seem like a trivial argument about who gets more when we buy things on our phones, the outcome of the lawsuit could upset how Apple makes money and change the way customers pay for apps. on devices.
Apple isn’t the only company Epic is confronting similar issues. Last year, the game developer Fortnite also sued Google over a disagreement regarding payment processing from customers.
Lawmakers and regulators also joined the story and urged Apple to defend its commission rates and tight controls over the app platform, while also probing into an investigation into Google’s conduct.
In the settlement, Apple also relaxes restrictions on payment methods for in-app purchases on the App Store.
“To give developers more flexibility to reach customers, Apple allows them to use communication methods, such as email, to share information about payment options outside of the iOS app,” Apple said. in its announcement.
Apple insists that for outside transactions, NPTs do not have to pay any costs. The two parties agree with each other and the customer has the right to refuse.