Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the Northern District Court of California against Apple in the Epic Games case marks a significant victory for developers, allowing them to direct users to external payment methods without incurring the "Apple tax" of 15-30% [2][13]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Implications - The court found that Apple "willfully violated" a 2021 injunction against anti-competitive pricing, requiring Apple to cease collecting a 27% commission on sales from outside the App Store [2][3]. - This ruling grants unprecedented freedom to developers, enabling them to guide users to external websites for transactions without the burden of the "Apple tax" [2][13]. - Apple's response included an update to its app review guidelines and a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court [2][3]. Group 2: Apple's Compliance and Internal Practices - The court criticized Apple's compliance program, labeling it as anti-competitive and a form of disguised monopoly [3][4]. - The 27% commission rate was deemed baseless, as it was derived from a 30% rate with a mere 3% discount, aimed at making alternative payment options economically unviable [4]. - Apple imposed various restrictions on developers, such as preventing external links from being displayed alongside in-app purchase options, which increased transaction friction [5][7]. Group 3: Legal Consequences for Apple - The court found clear evidence of Apple's contempt for the court's injunction, leading to potential civil and criminal repercussions for the company and its executives [8][12]. - Internal documents revealed that Apple executives discussed compliance strategies that would ensure external payment options remained uncompetitive, indicating malicious intent [9][10]. - The court's findings could lead to stricter penalties for Apple if it continues to interfere with competition and violate court orders [12]. Group 4: Global Impact on Developers - The ruling, while applicable to the U.S. App Store, could have far-reaching effects on the global digital market, particularly for developers in China who face the highest "Apple tax" rates [13][16]. - The case provides a strong precedent for Chinese developers to challenge the legitimacy of the "Apple tax" and advocate for reduced fees [16]. - The potential for a domino effect exists, where other regulatory bodies may reference this case to enhance antitrust scrutiny on Apple and similar platforms [16]. Group 5: Future of Digital Economy - The ruling is seen as a catalyst for innovation, allowing developers to regain control over payment processes and reinvest savings into their products and workforce [17][18]. - The shift from a monopolistic ecosystem to a more open platform could lead to new business models and marketing strategies within the digital economy [17][18]. - Ultimately, even Apple may benefit from this transition by improving product quality and fostering hardware innovation in response to increased competition [19].

Core Viewpoint - A landmark ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers requires Apple Inc. to immediately cease charging commissions on in-app purchases made outside the App Store and prohibits any intimidation of users opting for external payment methods, marking a significant shift in the relationship between software developers and platform providers [1][9]. Group 1: Legal Background - The case originated from Epic Games' lawsuit against Apple in 2020, accusing Apple of enforcing a 30% commission on in-app purchases for Fortnite, which is referred to as the "Apple tax," and restricting developers from directing users to alternative payment methods [3]. - In a 2021 ruling, although the court did not find Apple guilty of monopolistic practices, it mandated that Apple allow developers to use third-party payment methods [3]. Group 2: Recent Developments - Epic Games accused Apple in 2023 of not complying with the previous ruling, claiming that Apple still extracts a 27% commission on external payments and employs intimidation tactics to deter users from using alternative payment methods [5][6]. - The ruling highlights that Apple must not charge any commission on external payments, use intimidating warnings, or prohibit developers from providing external payment links [9]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The ruling could significantly impact Apple's revenue model, as the App Store's commission structure has been a major cost for developers, potentially leading to increased profits for developers if they can avoid platform fees [9][14]. - For example, a developer previously earning $100,000 monthly through in-app purchases faced a $30,000 fee due to the "Apple tax," which could be reduced significantly under the new ruling [6]. Group 4: Industry Impact - The ruling is seen as a major challenge to the existing "closed ecosystem" model of the tech industry, which could prompt similar legal actions against other platforms like Google Play [9][10]. - The decision may lead to a shift in how software developers approach payment systems, potentially increasing competition and reducing costs for consumers [14]. Group 5: Apple's Response - Apple expressed strong disagreement with the ruling but committed to complying with the court's order while indicating intentions to appeal [10]. - Internal discussions at Apple revealed that there were considerations to eliminate external payment commissions, but these were ultimately rejected by the company's leadership [12].

一个糟糕的先例。 文丨孙海宁 高洪浩 编辑丨黄俊杰 腾讯和宁德时代在美国当地时间 1 月 6 日晚间被美国国防部列入 "中国军工企业清单"（1260H 清单）。 腾讯和军事关系最密切的时候或许是投资（后又撤资）《壮志凌云：独行侠》、在手机游戏里让玩家控制 3D 士兵拿枪对射。而宁德时代则多次推动在美国合建电池工厂，提供技术授权。两家公司都在民用市场 赚取收益。 几小时后，腾讯声明自己并不是军工企业或者军民融合企业，被列入清单 "是一个错误"，称将启动复议程 序以纠正错误。宁德时代发表了类似的声明，否认参与任何涉及军事的业务或活动，美国国防部的决定 "实属错误"。两家公司均考虑对此采取法律行动。中国外交部则表示 "坚决反对美方泛化国家安全概念， 划设各类名目的歧视性清单，无理打压中国企业，遏制中国高质量发展。" 此前也有多个中国企业在被列入该清单后发起申诉或者法律诉讼，成功将自己的名字移除。 如腾讯和宁德时代所说，这可能只是一个错误。但当中国市值最高的互联网公司和市值最高的新能源车产 业公司一齐被列入军工企业清单，很难说这是巧合。 1260H 清单很难直接影响中国企业，但它依然能造成问题 列清单是为了方便制裁。 ...