Apple Decided Not to Charge Developers or Use Web Sites to Protect Privacy and Security: An In-Depth Apple Comment on a Decree

Apple’s first decision was whether it should take a commission at all. Apple could restrict where links were placed, charge developers based on app downloads, or determine a new commission for web purchases based on their sales, which are all options the company considered.

The ruling describes a deliberate process by which Apple sized up how to comply with the court’s original order, only to choose an anticompetitive option “at every step.”

Apple wanted to limit the placement of the more prominent links because they were more likely to be used. The company made fun of different designs for links. In one version there would be buttons with rounded edges and colored Backgrounds, and in the other there would be no buttons at all. It was decided to limit the links to plain text.

Designers were about to joke about what happens when a link is tapped. It considered a variety of options, including a small pop-up that said, “Are you sure you want to go?” and a full-screen warning with big text that said, “Are you sure you want to continue?”

The purpose of the full- screen option was to scare users away from continuing to use the web. The pop up included a paragraph of text and employees talked about using scary language to warn people.

Rafael Onak, a user experience writing manager at Apple, instructed an employee to add the phrase “external website” to the screen because it “sounds scary, so execs will love it.” Another employee gave a suggestion on how to make the screen “even worse” by using the developer’s name, rather than the app name. “ooh – keep going,” another Apple employee responded in Slack.

Cook played a part in the action. When he finally saw the screen for approval, he asked that another warning be added to state that Apple’s privacy and security promises would no longer apply out on the web.

In court, Apple tried to argue that the term “scary” didn’t actually mean it wanted the screen to scare people. “Scary,” it claimed, was actually a “term of art” — an industry term with a specialized meaning. In fact, the company claimed, “scary” They meant raising awareness and caution. The court did not buy it, saying the argument strained “common sense.”

In 2021, a federal judge ruled that Apple had to loosen its grip, ever so slightly, on the App Store. On Wednesday, nearly four years later, that same judge found that Apple deliberately failed to do so and tried to hide its noncompliance in the process. In a furious opinion, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that she wouldn’t give Apple a second chance to get it right: instead, she’s demanding specific changes to the App Store, ripping away Apple’s grip after years of unsubstantial alterations in response.

Apple won most of the case. But the company walked away from the trial with a court order mandating that developers be allowed to include links and buttons within their apps that would direct users to purchase methods outside the App Store — also known as the “anti-steering injunction.” Perhaps as a reflection of how well Apple had fared in court, the injunction did not strictly define what Apple could or could not do: it was vague enough that it left open a loophole by which the company could continue to charge developers a fee on sales even when made over the web.

It’s time for a lot of monopoly talk after that. They are still fighting in court for their companies’ survival. We’re learning a lot about how important TikTok has become, how Meta sees the world in general, and why it feared what might happen if Google bought WhatsApp. On the same day that the trial began in the DC District courthouse, the CEO of Google made an emotional appeal that this could be the end of the search engine.

We talk about what just happened and how important it is. After some very important party speaker updates, Nilay, David, and The Verge’s Jake Kastrenakes walk through Apple’s years of closed-door meetings about app commissions, and the ways in which Gonzalez Rogers found she’d been misled throughout the process. (Nilay also takes a victory lap on the whole “buttons and links” thing.) We talk about how developers are responding to the news, as well as what new things you might be able to buy in the App Store, which new apps might suddenly be possible, and whether Apple has any moves left in this case.