[bze12]

Their entire setup was egregious.

They charge 27% for purchases made using external payment processors. Including Stripe fees that's net-zero (not even accounting for any chargeback risks). They severely limit how you can display the external purchase link too, and display an obnoxious warning screen when you tap it.

I would be surprised if a single developer adopted it.

https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

[dns_snek]

From the court document, I don't know how many ended up actually adopting it, but it's about what you'd expect:

> As of the May 2024 hearing, only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases in the first place. In May 2024, Apple argued that it would take more time for developers to take advantage of the Link Entitlement and that the adoption rates could not be known. Apple attempted here to mislead.

> Given the revelations of the February 2025 hearing, Apple modeled the lack of adoption. That Apple adduced no testimony or evidence indicating developer adoption of the program is no surprise. As shown above, Apple knew it was choosing a course which would fail to stimulate any meaningful competition to Apple’s IAP and thereby maintain its revenue stream

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

[jimbokun]

This seems like a strange argument to me.

Apple is not just responsible for making it possible to purchase apps outside the App Store, but to convince developers to use it over the App Store as well?

I suppose it's damning when combined with the internal emails demonstrating they were trying to avoid compliance with the ruling?

[dns_snek]

Yes, internal emails and other documents demonstrate that they carefully weighed every single decision (fee rate, restrictions on verbiage, style, placement, and other policies) with the express purpose of ensuring that IAP competition wouldn't be economically viable while trying to appear to be in compliance.

> To summarize, this Court’s orders required that Apple not impose restrictions in its iOS marketplace which would prohibit consumer access to and awareness of competitive alternatives to IAP. The Injunction specifically enjoined Apple’s anti-steering provisions which at the time prohibited developers from raising that consumer awareness and access. In response, Apple intentionally devised a compliance scheme to prevent developers from deploying competitive alternatives to IAP. Apple’s discounted commission rate, on its own, forecloses a developer’s use of link-out purchases. Adding to that, Apple’s various design restrictions and purchase-flow friction arbitrarily decrease the attractiveness of competitive alternatives (if they were utilized) and increase breakage in a purchase flow.

> Apple’s conduct violates the Injunction. The non-compliance was far from “technical or de minimis.” Apple’s lack of adequate justification, knowledge of the economic non-viability of its compliance program, motive to protect its illegal revenue stream and institute a new de facto anticompetitive structure, and then create a reverse-engineered justification to proffer to the Court cannot, in any universe, real or virtual, be viewed as product of good faith or a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s orders.

[tech234a]

Only one I'm aware of is Delta Emulator by Riley Testut [1].

[1]: https://www.macstories.net/news/an-app-store-first-delta-add...

[kubb]

Wasn’t there a recent EU fine for Apple for preventing developers from promoting alternative distribution channels within their apps, or linking to external subscription websites?

Half of the entire HN was like „EU bad, how dare you regulate them”. What gives?

[zamadatix]

This is more about Apple lying under oath about both delaying the court and being aware what they were doing was not actually complying with the previous order. Additional factors are it does not list a fine, relies on longstanding general anti-trust legislation rather than new tech specific laws, and there isn't a wide swath of other regulatory rulings against Apple coinciding with the previous one.

Between all of this, it'll be a lot harder to come to the comments to defend Apple for not getting fined twice in a row for the same issue despite lying under oath and intentionally delaying proceedings, even if you vehemently disagree with the original ruling.

Google tends to be the one with more sympathy in the US lately as they've gotten much more of the regulatory stick in court.

[openplatypus]

HN is mostly US audience.

EU = bad

US = good

[kubb]

But weren't people here supposed to be intellectually curious, and have the cognitive tools to overcome things like instinctive tribalism?

[BLKNSLVR]

Intellectually curious doesn't necessarily overrule base human tendencies.

They may be more likely to have the capacity, but no way it's amy kind of guarantee.

[tremon]

That's a curiously limited form of curiosity, if it doesn't even examine the base tendencies of the operating human.

[BLKNSLVR]

Individual human behaviour is full of little seeming hypocrisies and counter intuitiveness when looked at from the outside. There's usually some explanation that makes sense to the individual themselves or a blind spot they're in denial about or don't realise they have.

A lot of human behaviour is learned and becomes habitualised rather than logically thought through. Habits are sub-conscious and therefore logic doesn't (as) often get applied.

[PaulRobinson]

I think you'll find at least 1/4 of HN comments are indicative of stating things from a place of strong instinctive tribalism, but this crowd are just very slightly better at using words to defend our position in a more noble way.

That's OK, it shows we're human, it's not all AI slop here (yet?).

[kubb]

I guess being smart sometimes doesn’t lead you to have a more accurate opinion, but to develop more sophisticated rhetorical devices to defend your inaccurate opinion?

[lazide]

Oh man, just wait until you see the research on fMRI timing on when decision making vs rationalization parts of the brain engage.

Hint: rationalization tends to be after.

Not to say that it can’t be overridden with training and/or self-reflection/self-skepticism, but first reactions tend to allows follow this pattern.

[eptcyka]

In my subjective opinion, when it comes to Apple specifically, all kinds of unpaid labor will emerge from the ether to defend them on anonymous or pseudonymous message boards.

[GeoAtreides]

"Intellectually curious" on hn is either the soft glove on the fist of moderation or a thought terminating mallet against opposing views.

[mdhb]

I’d refer you back to the statement of a primarily US based audience.

[CalRobert]

Seems to depend on time of day

[voidUpdate]

timezones probably, EU is more likely to be on HN at different times to US

[microtonal]

This is certainly the case. I have noticed this in voting patterns as well. I often comment strongly in favor of EU regulations (I believe capitalism is fairer and benefits consumers more with stronger regulations). During times the US is asleep such comments often get a lot of upvotes. During times where EU and the US are up, there seems to be much more contention in the voting, with votes swinging up and down a lot.

By the way, I don't think this is a good way of voting. IMO comments should be upvoted if they provide good insights (even if you disagree with them) and downvoted when they are low-content/trolling/full of fallacies.

[kergonath]

I regularly have posts that go from say +10 in the evening to -5 in the morning (I post from the EU). I mostly agree with your observations. That said,

> IMO comments should be upvoted if they provide good insights (even if you disagree with them) and downvoted when they are low-content/trolling/full of fallacies.

Votes are not a popularity contest. Only you see your score, and it does not matter one bit whether you have 2 or 20 upvotes on a post. Even moderate negative scores don’t matter. The grey threshold is more important, and you have to post something quite bad to end up there. I think I read a good post that was dead once.

The system is working and the end result is what you want. Sure, it could be better, but we are never going to get a perfect implementation because humans are social animals, and not always very rational.

[johnisgood]

I have noticed this trend, too.

[timschmidt]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Brands_and_c...

[YetAnotherNick]

Quite the opposite. Every single comment that I have done critisizing any aspect of EU regulation has been heavily downvoted. Never even seen a EU bad comment as top comment in any story.