Changing its rules too quickly, Apple argued, “would upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store..."
From Kellen Browning's "Apple Appeals App Store Ruling in Fight With Epic Games" posted Saturday by the New York Times:
Apple asked a federal appeals court on Friday to throw out a legal decision that would require the tech giant to tweak its strict App Store rules and force it to allow app developers to inform customers of ways to pay for subscriptions and services outside the App Store.
The September verdict followed a yearlong legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, the maker of the game Fortnite. Apple also asked a judge to delay the ruling mandating App Store changes until after the appeal is heard.
Changing its rules too quickly, Apple argued, “would upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store, and would irreparably harm both Apple and consumers.”
My take: "Careful balance" is rich. Apple is made of sturdier stuff than that.
“In my view, it’s not fair for Apple to be asked to carry apps in the App Store that are offered at no initial cost to the consumer and payment flow moved out of its distribution systems.”
I’ve pondered the same thing too and have commented on such multiple times here on Apple 3.0. Additionally, with all the comments and speculations bantered about surrounding this case, I’ve read very little clarification on how this will be accomplished.
Your comment, “…developers find success in the App Store primarily or solely because Apple created an avenue for access to its customers.” has sadly become a forlorn and forgotten cornerstone truth in this whole inside-out matter.
That this “avenue for access” could potentially be stripped of any respective toll cost could be damaging and, on its face, unfair.
The really interesting legal arguments will be in the briefs filed for the appeal, and I don’t know when those are scheduled to be filed.