I’ll never understand the rationale for judicial rulings like this one.
Apple creates a successful hardware, software, and services platform. Participation in it as a developer, consumer, or user is strictly voluntary. There are reasonable alternatives to everything that Apple offers for sale.
I wish someone could explain to me why a judge has to get involved in how Apple runs their business. 
They brought it on themselves (my emphasis, edited for brevity):
Judge Rogers ruled largely in Apple’s favor in the but she did find that Apple’s requirement that apps only use Apple’s payment methods was fundamentally anticompetitive.
Apple acted in contempt by failing to follow her orders and scheming to find ways to avoid them, at least one executive lied under oath, Apple has so brazenly botched her order that several of its longstanding App Store policies are now entirely void.
Because Epic brought an anti-trust suit against Apple and the case was tried before Judge Gonzalez Rogers in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. It’s her job.
I agree, you download and use a service because you want and then complain about it. Is just weird. And not saying you as you is as a person.
I get THAT (sheesh!), but what makes a district judge think she can tell Apple how to run its business? What exactly did Apple do wrong? How is Apple being anti-competitive? Apple has no monopoly, as that is commonly understood. Heck, they don’t even have the largest market share.
Without Apple there are no iPhones, iPads, or Macs to buy, no devices for third-parties to run their games on, no users to play third-party games on Apple devices, no App Store, no money to pay developers, no customers that love Apple, no trusted Apple platform, no Apple hardware, software, or services. No Apple for podcasters and journalists to make a living off. NO NOTHING!
Developers agree to follow Apple’s rules and pay fees to participate in the phenomenal cash machine that is Apple. Consumers wait in lines and cheerfully hand over their money to participate. I say it should be Apple’s call how they run their own business.
John Gruber has two articles on it on DF. The second one links to the Verge but can be found on the website. He also recommends reading the 80 pages judgement.
If there was any common sense in the articles and the long ruling that are cited above, Apple’s wrongdoing and the key points of the judge’s reasoning could be explained in a few sentences. The rest is CYA legalese that the judge hopes will prevent the ruling from being overturned on appeal.
Which third party apps for iPhone do you subscribe to?
It’s well established that companies who become monopolies, or near monopolies, in a significant sector of the market often use that position to act unfairly (e.g. exploiting customers by charging too much, making it difficult or impossible for any competitors to offer similar goods or services) an since they have monopoly power, the only way to reign them in is via court orders to change their practices. It’s naive to think that they would voluntarily forego the potentially vast profits that their monopoly gives them.
Almost all monopolies have gained their position by being inventive, agile, responsive to customer needs, efficient etc… It’s the sheer scale of their control of a large market once won which means that a judge might agree with a complaint (typically from a competitor) that they are imposing unfair business practices.
There’s little doubt that Apple has consistently acted in ways that exploit customers (e.g. RAM and storage prices), restrict access to competitors (e.g. making their app store mandatory and charging all competitors to offer software, not allowing in-app purchases except through the app store) and impose other control (e.g. no user upgradeable SSDs or RAM). As one of the biggest companies in the world, they are very likely to be controlling a large part of an important market.
I’m not entirely happy with the various legal decisions - seems to me that Epic just wants to set up its own monopoly and is annoyed that Apple hasn’t allowed them to, but I seriously think that Apple could and should have realised that governments and courts were not just going to let it exploit its dominant position to become even more dominant.
And putting yourself in contempt of court, and making conscious decisions not to comply with court orders to do so, is just plain wrong and it really shouldn’t matter who or what you are - the law has to win or we all lose.
The ruling is simple in essence:
Apple was ordered to stop various unfair business practices in relation to app store policies.
It made changes, but these were consciously designed to continue the unfair practices in new ways.
There was evidence that Apple had lied to the court about the purpose and nature of its new arrangements in order to appear to comply with the court order while not doing so.
It takes 80 pages to summarise the evidence and clarify the exact ways in which they did that.
That is a matter of opinion and will be subject to review by higher courts. Hopefully by judges with more common sense.
If you don’t like Apple policies, why on earth would you do business with them? You are certainly not required to and you certainly have reasonable alternatives.
Precisely because they have monopoly power in the Smart Phone and Tablet market. It’s next to impossible to find a worthy competitor to the Apple ecosystem. No corporation is perfect and on the whole the benefits of being in the Apple ecosystem outweigh the negatives for me, but does that mean I am happy to pay maybe three times as much for RAM and SSD than I would elsewhere? No.
You keep throwing around that word, monopoly. And yet it is not. You simply want to buy the best smart phone or tablet, which is what Apple makes (in my opinion). And a lot of other consumers agree with us.
Apple has said it will appeal so if/when they do it will be reviewed by a higher court(s). And it is also possible that the Department of Justice may use this as part of the case they filed against Apple in March 2024.
But since this ruling says " Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users . . . " it appears that Apple will have to open up the App Store while any appeal goes forward.
Very true. I stopped doing business with Apple in mid-March when I cancelled my paid iCloud account. I started the process of pulling everything out of iCloud in mid-February. Going on three months now and I’ve been very happy and equally productive with the alternatives. Turns out the last iPad Pro I bought will have been my last Apple purchase.
Enjoyable (and far less exensive) computing does indeed exist outside of the Apple hardware and software ecosystem.
Sent from a used Lenovo t480s ThinkPad running Linux Mint and the Zen Browser. 
Let’s set aside the term “monopoly” for a moment and focus on the consumer experience. Apple is actively restricting how consumers can use their devices, and this appears to be a deliberate strategy. They have an opportunity to foster goodwill and positive press by prioritizing user experience over profit, but their actions suggest otherwise.
Time and again, Apple prioritizes financial gain over the needs of their users, despite their claims to the contrary. This pattern mirrors the behavior of the RIAA in the music industry and the MPAA in film.
Research shows that “fans” are willing to spend significantly more on brands they love compared to those who view products merely as commodities. Apple has historically enjoyed a loyal fanbase, but that loyalty is waning. While they still produce top-tier devices, their software quality seems to decline with each new update. Siri is a mess. People have been turning to alternatives already, and finding them adequate. This will only continue.
You might argue that Apple isn’t a “monopoly” because alternatives exist. Yes a true monopoly would look like internet service providers in the U.S. Ultimately, Apple is making it increasingly difficult for users to enjoy their platform. Are consumers being unreasonable for feeling frustrated? I don’t think so. Apple has ample resources to weather any backlash, but they risk alienating the very fans who once championed them.
But should this have been ruled in a court case? I don’t know. I have mixed feelings on that. On the one hand, as someone who just wants to be able to side load software outside the EU, or use a 3rd party mapping service, etc… I’m happy for the ruling. On the other, maybe this is overstepping. Are they a true monopoly? No. But I think this court case shows just how much people want to use Apple devices and services. I feel like the judge isn’t being unreasonable in the demands though. 
Why not let Apple users decide? If you are right and Apple is screwing their customers, then Apple will pay a price in lost business, right? Apple customers are who made Apple a success and customers can pull that approval at any time.
Because when you’re dealing in trillions of dollars it’s not that easy. Apple would need 100s of millions of its users to do something all at the same time. Something that’s effect still wouldn’t be immediately felt by Apple for months if not years. Expending resources that not all may have to try to “hurt Apple”. It’s impractical and just nearly impossible to pull off. There’s a valid reason most of these things go to court.
But isn’t that exactly what made Apple the phenomenal success that it is today?
Individuals making their own choices is the very definition of market economics, freedom, and democracy.