[rideontime]

So now Tim says he won't come back to iOS until they're allowed to link directly to the external payment option from the app. My understanding of the court order was that Apple only had to allow apps to tell users that external payment was an option, not that they had to be able to link directly to it.

[elliekelly]

Here's the exact language from the ruling:

> Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their: Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP.

> Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

Full ruling [PDF]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple...

[rideontime]

My understanding seems to have been incorrect, if the words "external links" are in the ruling itself I don't know how Apple squirms out of that one. I guess by denying their return to the app store on other grounds.

[floatingatoll]

The ruling does not require Apple to permit those external methods of payment to be embedded within the app, rather than opened outside the app in the system web browser. Epic oversteps their rights by declaring to Apple that Apple must accept their 'alternative IAP' methodology. Apple is under no compulsion to define their terms to accept Epic's intentions as compliant with rules that they have 90 days to decide on and publish, and has many options available in their decisions that would both comply with the ruling while also continuing to prohibit Epic's declared intentions.

The ruling also gives Apple 90 days to decide the exact specifics of how it will comply with the ruling, and until then, the Fortnite app's code would remain out of compliance with the current rules until they are updated within the 90 day period. Since Epic does not commit in their letter to Apple to removing that code, to comply with the rules as they are today, of course Apple chose not to accept them back into the store. If Epic had unwound their willful violation of the rules as they are today, they would have met Apple's stated terms for having developer services restored and likely would not have been asked to wait.

Aside from the guidelines change, does the ruling specifically compel Apple to set aside Epic's contractual violation, or is Apple allowed if they so desire to simply let stand their standard normal permaban for "you knowingly lied to Apple and broke the rules" as the rules were defined at the time?

[jschenk]

The court basically struck down rule 3.1.1 which is exactly the rule that prevents such links.