[zepto]

The judge found almost all of apple’s practices to be ok and not to be anti-competitive.

They were ordered to stop only the narrowest of behaviors.

If you think that means you can just claim any practice of theirs is anti-competitive then you don’t understand.

[stale2002]

Did you read the part where I said "So yes, in at least one trial, some of Apple's actions were declared anti-competitive."?

I didn't say "any" practices. I said some.

So yes, some of Apple's practices were anti-competitive.

Apple has to win on every single count, otherwise it is a loss compared to the status quo, because that is 1 less thing they are allowed to do.

So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive. And more lawsuits and laws are happening or being drafted.

In fact, the Open Apps Market app just went through the senate committee yesterday, in a rare bipartisan 20 to 2 decision, which would force sideloading of alternate App stores, I believe.

If that law passes, it is game over for Apple on this subject.

If that passes, there is basically nothing Apple can do to prevent everyone from completely bypassing the 30% fee.

[zepto]

> So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean their practices have been declared as such in some general way. If you want to discuss the specifics of that case, by all means do so, otherwise it’s just dishonest to pretend they are relevant.

As for what passed the committee - it’s possible that may indeed allow people to bypass the 15% fee (please don’t lie about it being 30% - that is only for a small number of developers).

It will also have all kinds of damaging impacts that make life harder for smaller developers, so it’s not a win for anyone except some larger scammy operators.

In any case, a committee vote is a long way from legislation. It’s unlikely to pass judicial review even if it passes both houses of Congress, which is also unlikely.