[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.