Epic vs. Apple injunction doesn't allow for alternative in-app payment mechanism
It seems the initial media reporting on this decision was way off the mark and the feedback from actual lawyers [1] is that Epic got crushed in court:<p>1. The judge affirmed Apple&#x27;s right to terminate Epic&#x27;s developer accounts for violation of the developer agreement and ban them from the App Store, including all developer accounts related to their Unreal Engine business.<p>2. The judge fully rejected Epic&#x27;s entire monopolization claim based on the theory that Apple held a single-brand &quot;monopoly&quot; over the distribution of apps on its own devices, killing any hope they had of running their own app store.<p>3. The judge repeatedly made it clear that Apple was still entitled to a commission for the use of its intellectual property, even if developers did not use IAP to process payments:<p>&gt; <i>&quot;Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.&quot;</i> (page 67)<p>&gt; <i>&quot;Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.&quot;</i> (page 150)<p>&gt; <i>&quot;The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store.&quot;</i> (page 155)<p>4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on <i>other platforms</i>, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself.<p>[1] The Hoeg Law video linked elsewhere in this thread is good place to start.