A noted Apple critic used the terms “malicious compliance” and “hot garbage” to describe the elaborate rules the company laid down Thursday for allowing European iPhone users to sideload applications.
Those blasts came from Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, a company that’s locked in a legal battle with Apple over App Store rules. But other devs also cast aspersions on Apple’s framework for setting up App Store rivals. They pointed out that the new system comes with a huge financial obligation, and that it will make free apps almost impossible.
To be clear, though, not all developers are unhappy. Apple’s new rules also drew some compliments.
Apple is bringing sideloading and alternate app stores to the iPhone — but with significant restrictions.
Apple gave EU developers guidelines and access to the tools needed for sideloading — installing applications that don’t go through the App Store. But the new rules require these apps to be approved by Apple before they can be installed by iPhone users. And they need to be in alternative marketplaces, not directly available for download.
In other words, sideloading won’t be the free-for-all some people had hoped.
This is part of sweeping changes to iOS, Safari and the App Store required by the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. And Apple’s announcement of these changes in Thursday is loaded with warning about how sideloading brings risks for users.
Although the European Union requires Apple to allow sideloading of iPhone applications, Cupertino reportedly hopes to review apps before they become available for installation from outside the App Store.
Apple also expects developers to voluntarily send a percentage of all revenue generated through sideloaded iOS applications.
Some Apple Watch owners might be hesitant about installing the just-released watchOS 10.3 update over concerns that it’ll remove the controversial Blood Oxygen application. But there’s no reason for concern — it does not.
With the Apple Watch sales ban back, Apple has decided to sell its latest smartwatches without blood oxygen monitoring in the U.S. The tweaked Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models went go on sale starting January 18 across the company’s online and retail stores.
The Cupertino giant is not making any hardware tweaks to the wearables. Instead, it will turn off the blood oxygen sensor feature through software.
Apple lost a court appeal Wednesday, which means Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 might once again get pulled from U.S. store shelves. The court agrees with previous rulings that the wearables are in violation of a patent held by a medical-device company.
But Apple has a workaround: it’s almost certainly going to remove the application at the center of the patent dispute.
Developers can now link to an external in-app payment method. However, they still will need to pay Apple a commission of 12% to 27% on these transactions. And the mechanism for allowing such external payments might prove so onerous that developers take a pass.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called it a “bad-faith ‘compliance’ plan” Tuesday — and vowed that his company will contest Apple’s plan in District Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively upheld a lower court’s ruling that Apple must allow third-party iPhone app developers to point customers to their websites when making purchases. This means the company is forced to drop its “anti-steering” rule for such applications — a major change.
It’s the primary result of Apple’s long-running legal battle with Epic Games.
Apple will temporarily halt sales of Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 starting December 21. This is the result of a decision made by the International Trade Commission that the wearables infringe on patents held by two medical device-makers.
Apple argues that the companies are “patent trolls,” but it’s not that simple. And the question now is whether Apple will pay to license the patents, or if it will continue to fight in court.
November 13, 2013: Apple and Samsung head back to court to determine how much the Korean company must pay for copying the iPhone.
Cupertino asks Samsung for $379 million in damages for ripping off key iPhone technical and design features. Apple arrives at that number based on estimated lost profits, royalty rates and the $3.5 billion worth of copyright-infringing devices Samsung sold during the period in question.
Bans on Apple Watch imports and sales could take effect the day after Christmas unless President Joe Biden steps in, after the International Trade Commission ruled Thursday that Apple infringed on medical technology patents held by Masimo Corp. and its sibling company, Cercacor Laboratories.
So unless the president vetoes the bans or Apple somehow strikes a deal in a fight that has dragged on for years — neither seems likely — most Apple Watches could go off the market because some of their components violate patents.
The California Institute of Technology got what it wanted out of a years-long patent-infringement lawsuit against Broadcom and (peripherally) Apple. Caltech filed paperwork in a California court dismissing its case.
It’s not clear at this point whether or how much Broadcom and Apple paid the university as part of a settlement. It could be hundreds of millions, though.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Epic Games that would have required Apple to immediately get rid of its “anti-steering” rule for third-party applications — a major change. Instead, the Mac-maker can wait until there’s a final decision by the high court.
This means Apple doesn’t have to change its policy that prevents developers from sending customers from their applications to their websites to pay for subscriptions or services … yet.
July 25, 1989: Apple suffers a major setback in its copyright-infringement lawsuit against Microsoft for allegedly stealing the Mac’s “look and feel” to create Windows.
Apple sued Microsoft on 189 counts of copyright infringement relating to Windows 2.0.3. The judge overseeing the case throws out 179 of them. This paves the way for Microsoft’s dominance over Apple in the coming decade.
Apple is hoping to take its lawsuit with Epic Games all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on Monday received permission to hold off on making a significant change to the App Store ordered by lower courts until there’s a final decision by the high court.
This means the Mac-maker won’t have to change its App Store policy that prevents developers from sending customers to their websites to pay for apps or services… yet.
June 13, 2013: Apple exec Eddy Cue takes the stand to defend the company’s iBooks business strategy in an antitrust case regarding e-book pricing.
Cue, Apple’s senior vice president of internet software and services, runs the iBooks Store initiative. His testimony proves vital to a case brought by the Department of Justice, in which potential damages climb well into the nine figures.
A United States appeals court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that Apple’s App Store does not break U.S. antitrust law. This is a victory for Apple’s efforts to keep the government from changing the way the App Store runs.
A different ruling from the courts could have resulted in Apple be forced to modify iOS so the iPhone supports sideloading and/or rival software stores.
March 26, 2010: Apple ends a trademark dispute with Japanese multinational Fujitsu over the name “iPad” in the United States.
It comes two months after Steve Jobs first showed off the iPad, and around a week before the tablet will land in stores. As it happens, it’s not the first time Apple battled over the name for one of its new products.
A judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that Apple infringes on one of medical device maker Masimo’s patents for light-based pulse oximetry sensor functionality and components used in Apple Watch 6 onward. The sensor measures blood oxygen levels.
Next the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will decide whether to ban imports of Apple Watches that include the sensor, Masimo said.
The Department of Justice, 35 U.S. states, and Microsoft have all backed Fortnite developer Epic Games in its fight against the App Store.
Briefs filed by Epic’s supporters with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit say last year’s ruling — which said the App Store was not a monopoly — is wrong. They also claim Apple is stifling competition.
Healthcare technology company Masimo Corp. has upped the ante in its legal fight with Apple. In a patent-infringement complaint filed today at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., it said U.S. imports of the Apple Watch Series 6 should be halted.