Tag Archives: Legal

Business, Mobile, News

Patreon, Epic Games, & Spotify Push Back Against Apple’s App Store Fees

Leave a comment

Apple’s App Store fee structure has long been a contentious issue for developers. In fact, the company’s App Store Fees have come under intense scrutiny in Europe as the EU Commission has ruled against Apple’s policies and reopened an investigation into the company for malicious compliance. These recent developments have emboldened more developers to voice out their grievances in public. Most recently, Patreon, Epic Games, and Spotify have taken to the internet and this intensified the scrutiny.

Blue and White Logo Guessing Game
Photo by Brett Jordan

EU Commission Takes On Apple’s App Store

Let’s take a look back at how we got here. In a landmark decision, the EU Commission found Apple to be in breach of competition law due to its App Store practices. The Commission ruled that Apple’s requirement for developers to use its in-app purchase system and pay a commission on all digital goods and services sold within their apps was unfair and stifled competition.

This ruling has significant implications for Apple. It has forced the company to change its App Store policies and allow developers to offer alternative payment methods within their apps. Apple has been charging a 30% fee to developers for the use of its App Store platform. Since the landmark ruling, the company has “opened up” more options to developers. However, more recently, it has introduced a yearly 5% “Initial Acquisition Fee” and a 10% “Store Services Fee”.

Growing Push Back from Developers

The European Union’s ruling against Apple’s anti-competitive practices has emboldened developers to challenge the company’s new policies. Spotify, for instance, has been a vocal critic of the App Store’s in-app purchase system. The music streaming giant has devised strategies to direct users towards its website for subscription sign-ups, bypassing Apple’s fee structure.

EU Flag Swaying with the Wind
Photo by Dušan Cvetanović

Epic Games, known for its popular game Fortnite, has also been at odds with Apple over App Store policies. The company famously challenged Apple’s rules by offering in-app purchases outside the App Store, leading to Fortnite’s removal from the platform. While the case garnered significant attention, the outcome ultimately favoured Apple, underscoring the challenges developers face when challenging the company’s policies.

Both developers have been more vocal since Apple introduced these changes. Epic Games has been bolder than others and unphased by Apple’s initial removal of Fortnite from the App Store. However, we don’t see Apple budging from its stance with the new fee structure.

Current Developments: Patreon Faces A Tough Decision

Patreon, a platform for creators to connect with their supporters, is currently facing a similar predicament. Apple has mandated that Patreon use its in-app purchase system, which would result in a substantial portion of its revenue going to Apple. Patreon is facing a difficult decision: comply with Apple’s terms and potentially reduce creator earnings, or risk being removed from the App Store, losing access to a significant portion of its user base.

These developments underscore the power struggle between platform owners like Apple and app developers. While the EU’s ruling marks a significant step towards challenging Apple’s dominance, the company still holds considerable sway over the App Store ecosystem. The coming months will be crucial in determining how this battle unfolds and what impact it will have on the future of app distribution. It’s also worth noting that while Apple’s App Store is in the crosshairs, these practices are used in many app distribution platforms even the Google Play Store.

As the situation evolves, more developers will likely join the chorus of dissent against Apple’s App Store policies. The ultimate outcome of these challenges could have far-reaching implications for the entire app economy.

Business, News

European Union Probe Pushes Apple to Open NFC Access to Third Parties

Leave a comment

For years, Apple has faced criticism for its walled garden approach, particularly regarding its Near Field Communication (NFC) technology. Used for contactless payments through Apple Pay, NFC access on iPhones has been exclusive to Apple devices. However, a recent development suggests a significant shift. Facing a potential antitrust fine from the European Union (EU), Apple has agreed to open up its NFC technology to third-party developers.

The EU Flexes Its Muscle

The European Commission launched an antitrust investigation into Apple Pay in 2021, accusing the tech giant of abusing its dominant market position by restricting access to NFC. This essentially limited how other mobile wallets could interact with contactless payment systems. The EU argued that Apple’s practices stifled competition and ultimately harmed consumers by limiting their options.

Person Holding Black Iphone 4
Photo by cottonbro studio

The potential consequences for Apple were significant. The EU can impose hefty fines on companies found guilty of antitrust violations, with fines reaching up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue. Facing this financial pressure, Apple opted for a strategic move – opening up its NFC technology to appease regulators and avoid a potential billion-dollar fine.

How will this affect end users?

So, what does this mean for consumers? The short answer is more choice and potentially more innovative mobile payment solutions. With access to Apple’s NFC tech, third-party developers can now create mobile wallets that seamlessly integrate with contactless payment systems. This could lead to a wider variety of mobile wallet options, catering to different needs and preferences. It can also open up possibilities to use your iPhone as an access card and more.

For example, imagine a mobile wallet app that integrates loyalty programs or offers additional financial services alongside contactless payments. The possibilities are exciting, and increased competition could ultimately benefit consumers by driving innovation and potentially lowering transaction fees.

It’s important to acknowledge that Apple’s decision isn’t purely altruistic. While the EU probe undoubtedly played a role, Apple likely recognized the potential benefits of opening up access to the iPhone’s NFC. By allowing third-party integration, Apple can potentially expand its reach beyond its own device ecosystem. Imagine a scenario where Android phone users can leverage the iPhone’s secure NFC technology for contactless payments within their existing mobile wallets. This could introduce a whole new segment of users to Apple Pay, potentially strengthening its market position in the long run.

Exciting Possibilities Ahead as Third Parties Gain Access to the iPhone’s NFC

The opening up of the iPhone’s technology marks a turning point in the mobile payment landscape. While the full impact remains to be seen, it has the potential to foster a more competitive and innovative environment. Consumers can expect more choices, while developers can explore new functionalities within mobile wallets. This ultimately benefits everyone, driving progress and pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in the realm of contactless payments.

It’s important to stay tuned for further developments. While Apple has agreed to open up the iPhone’s NFC technology, the specifics of implementation and the timeline remain unclear. Additionally, it will be interesting to see how third-party developers leverage this new access and how Apple itself adapts its mobile payment strategy in response to a more open ecosystem.

Business, News

Qualcomm Sues Transsion Holdings, Parent Company of Tecno and Infinix, Faces Over Patent Infringement

Leave a comment

Tech enthusiasts and budget-conscious smartphone users might be familiar with brands like Tecno, Infinix, and iTel. These popular names belong to Transsion Holdings, a major smartphone manufacturer based in China. However, Transsion is currently facing a legal challenge from a tech giant – Qualcomm – over alleged patent infringement.

Transsion Holdings

According to reports, Qualcomm has filed lawsuits against Transsion Holdings in India, China, and Europe. The lawsuit claims that Transsion’s smartphones utilize patented technologies developed by Qualcomm without acquiring the necessary licenses. While the specific patents in question haven’t been publicly disclosed, the lawsuit likely centres on essential mobile phone technologies protected by Qualcomm’s vast patent portfolio.

Qualcomm is a leading designer of semiconductors, particularly the Snapdragon processors that power countless smartphones. The company also holds a significant number of patents related to cellular communication and other mobile technologies. Traditionally, Qualcomm has generated revenue not only by selling its chips but also by licensing these patents to other phone makers.

The twist in this legal battle is that Transsion smartphones primarily use processors from MediaTek and Unisoc, Qualcomm’s competitors in the chip market. This raises the question: how exactly could Transsion be infringing upon Qualcomm’s patents if they aren’t using Qualcomm chips?

Source: Qualcomm

Experts suggest the lawsuit might target patents that extend beyond the physical chips themselves. These could be patents related to software functionalities, cellular communication protocols, or other aspects of smartphone operation that might be implemented in various chipsets, including those from MediaTek and Unisoc.

The outcome of this lawsuit remains to be seen. If Qualcomm prevails, Transsion might be forced to either obtain licenses for the infringed patents, potentially leading to increased production costs or modify their smartphone designs to avoid the infringing technologies. This, in turn, could impact the pricing or features of future Tecno, Infinix, and iTel devices.

While Qualcomm is a dominant player in the mobile chip market, Transsion is no small fry. The company is the world’s fourth-largest smartphone manufacturer, known for offering affordable and feature-packed devices in emerging markets. This lawsuit pits a tech giant against a budget smartphone leader, raising questions about the accessibility and affordability of future mobile technology.

As this legal battle unfolds, it’s important to stay informed about the details of the case and its potential impact on the smartphone landscape. We’ll continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as they become available.

Business, News

Samsung Sues Oura Ahead of Galaxy Ring Launch to Invalidate Patents

Leave a comment

Samsung’s upcoming Galaxy Ring has sparked controversy surrounding potential patent infringement of health-tracking technology used by competitor Oura. While the official launch date for the Galaxy Ring remains undisclosed, recent legal actions by Samsung raise questions about the technological foundation of the new device.

In May 2024, Samsung reportedly filed a request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to invalidate several patents held by Oura. These patents pertain to specific functions and design elements used in Oura’s health-tracking rings. The exact details of the patents in question have not been made public.

002 event galaxy ring
Source: Samsung

Samsung‘s legal action suggests that the Galaxy Ring may incorporate functionalities or design features similar to those protected by Oura’s patents. However, the specific nature of the potential infringement remains unclear without official confirmation from either company.

Oura has publicly acknowledged Samsung’s patent invalidation request. The company maintains confidence in the strength of its intellectual property and asserts its commitment to protecting its innovations. Oura has stated that it will “vigorously defend” its patents if necessary.

The outcome of this legal battle could have significant ramifications for the wearable health tracker market. If Samsung’s invalidation request is successful, it would pave the way for the Galaxy Ring’s release without concerns over patent infringement. Conversely, an Oura victory could potentially delay the Galaxy Ring’s launch or force design modifications to avoid patent violations.

005 event galaxy ring
Source: Samsung

The exact timeline for the USPTO’s decision on Samsung’s request is unknown. Additionally, the possibility of a settlement between the two companies cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the ultimate impact of this patent dispute on the Galaxy Ring’s release and market positioning remains to be seen.

While the legal battle unfolds, both Samsung and Oura are likely to focus on user experience in their respective health tracker rings. Consumers will be interested in features, accuracy of health data, battery life, comfort, and overall user experience when making purchasing decisions in this growing market segment.

The potential patent dispute between Samsung and Oura casts a shadow of uncertainty over the upcoming launch of the Galaxy Ring. The outcome of this legal battle will have a significant impact on the wearable health tracker market. However, regardless of the legal wrangling, both companies will likely prioritize user experience in their respective health tracker rings to win over consumers.

Business, Gaming, News

Delta Emulator Forced to Change Logo As Adobe Goes on Offensive

Leave a comment

The popular emulator, Delta, has undergone a sudden logo change, leaving some users scratching their heads. This unexpected update comes after the emulator received a legal threat from software giant Adobe.

Adobe Logo
Delta Emulator Logo

Developed by Riley Testut, Delta has become a go-to option for iOS users seeking to relive classic video games from consoles like the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and Game Boy Advance (GBA). The emulator has made its way to Apple devices following a change in Apple’s App Store policies that allowed for emulators. Delta, in particular, allows users to play these games on their iPhones and iPads, offering a taste of retro gaming nostalgia on the go.

Screenshot 2024 05 20 at 19 42 43 AltStore @altstore@fosstodon.org
Screen cap from Mastodon.

The recent logo change stems from a dispute with Adobe. According to reports, Adobe’s legal team contacted Testut, claiming the Delta logo bore a resemblance to its own logo, potentially causing confusion among consumers. While Delta’s logo represented a stylized Greek letter delta (Δ), Adobe argued the similarity could mislead users into believing the apps were connected.

Faced with the potential for legal action, Delta opted to avoid a lengthy battle and promptly changed its logo. The new logo, described as a “broken triangle,” is a clear departure from the previous design. While some users expressed amusement at the somewhat unconventional new icon, the change ensures Delta remains available on the App Store.

Screenshot 2024 05 20 at 19 41 53 Delta Game Emulator
App Store Screen Capture

The Delta logo dispute is one of the more trivial issues that have been haunting the video game emulation space. There are bigger concerns when it comes to the legality of emulation as a whole when it comes to copyright, particularly because the game files (ROMs) are used to play the games on the emulator. Typically, users are responsible for acquiring these ROMs legally, often by dumping them from their own physical game cartridges.

News

Microsoft Merger With Activision-Blizzard Hits A Snag

Leave a comment

The mega merger between Microsoft and video game publisher Activision-Blizzard may be under threat by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

image
Microsoft plans to acquire Activision-Blizzard in a $69 billion merger. Image source: True Achievements

As first reported by Politico, their sources have stated that the FTC is ““likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block Microsoft’s $69 billion takeover of video game giant Activision Blizzard.” The FTC has concerns on the deal, primarily due to the large sum involved in the merger between these tech giants. FTC Chairperson Lina Khan has called for scrutiny on the impact of the deal on workers.

At the moment, there is no official word on a lawsuit against the merger, Politico themselves report that it is not guaranteed. Currently, investigations are ongoing, with major steps already completed such as depositions by CEO’s Satya Nadella (Microsoft) and Bobby Kotick (Activision). If the FTC decides to move forward with a case, it could come as early as December.

Why could the merger be controversial?

image 1
FTC Chairman Lina Khan is opposed to the merger, scrutinizing its impact on the market and workers. Image source: Getty Images via New York Post

There is precedence in this matter as the FTC has previously stopped the merger of book publishers Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster for a more modest fee of $2.2 billion. In that case, the ruling stated that the merger had the potential to be anticompetitive, which can affect both authors and indirectly, consumers. A similar scenario could occur in the tech giants merger, where there is less competition among game publishers which could promote less lucrative publishing deals for game developers.

As discussed by Kotaku, Microsoft has come under fire from its many competitors due to the merger. Sony has publicly stated their belief that the deal will harm their ability to compete, reduce the choice of games and less choice for developers to publish games. Sony may also be concerned for the Activision published Call of Duty series being withheld from the PlayStation with this deal, considering it is not made available to other subscription services yet. Google has raised their own concerns, arguing that Microsoft has already intentionally degraded the quality of the Game Pass subscription when used with the Chrome operating system, and has further incentive to steer sales away from Google with the Activision merger.

Rift in the FTC paves way for the merger

Recently, the New York Post reported that the four-member FTC panel of commissioners are split over the decision to oppose the merger. Reports stated that at least one commissioner has taken a “sympathetic view” to Microsoft, and potentially open to a settlement. If the rift persists, there is a possibility that no lawsuit will be filed and the merger will go ahead.

Given Activision-Blizzard’s recent fall from grace with their fans, most gamers would certainly rejoice for the merger with Microsoft, at least from a gaming perspective. However, would this merger really change the landscape of gaming for the worse in the long term? That remains to be seen.

Sources: Politico, Kotaku, New York Post, True Achievements

Business, News

Huawei Facing New Limitation from U.S. Government

Leave a comment

Huawei may be facing a tough 2021 if the new licensing measures taken by the Biden administration is any indication. It looks like the U.S. is clamping down even further on the restrictions that were initially put on Huawei. According to Reuters, the Biden administration is reinforce existing measures by streamlining and making existing licenses more consistent. The new measures seem to reinforce pre-existing measures that are preventing Huawei from accessing much needed resources and components for its infrastructure and mobile businesses particularly when it comes to 5G technologies.

The new measures come as the latest blow to Huawei in what seems to be a crippling two years for the company. Back in 2019, Huawei was placed on the “entity list” which prevents companies trading in the U.S. from doing business with the company. This was done after reports surfaced of the company potentially providing access to data to the Chinese government.

Since then, Huawei has been facing hurdle after hurdle when it comes to acquiring technologies for its broad range of products. This has led to Huawei losing access to Google’s Mobile Services (GMS) which has impacted its smartphone businesses which use Google’s Android operating system. Huawei has been hard at work building its own Huawei Mobile Services and App Gallery to complete the user experience on their smartphones. The company has also been working on their own proprietary OS – Harmony OS – which is intended to replace Android on its devices.

With these latest developments, it doesn’t seem like Huawei will be getting a break anytime soon, unlike Xiaomi which had a judge rule in their favour.

Business, News

Xiaomi Gets A Break From U.S. Court

1 Comment

It looks like Xiaomi is likely going to have a break when it comes to their impending U.S. ban. In a court ruling released on the 13th of March, a judge in the District of Columbia, Rudolph Contreras, found that the classification of Xiaomi as a “Chinese Communist military company” was “arbitrary and capricious” and granted the company a preliminary injunction against the restrictions that were due to take effect. In addition to issuing the preliminary injunction, the judge stated that filing of the claim from the Department of Defense lacked “a satisfactory explanation” and lacked a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion made. The preliminary injunction bodes well for Xiaomi as the company looks to reverse the classification all together.

Xiaomi found itself in the middle of a legal battle towards the end of Trump’s administration. The Department of Defense, under Trump, declared Xiaomi a threat to national security citing ties to the Chinese government. However, Xiaomi has since denied the claim. In their court filing, the company cited that the classification would cause irreparable damage and losses. Keep in mind, the ban that Xiaomi was facing is not the same as the one Huawei is facing. Xiaomi was facing a ban on investments from the U.S. If the injunction was denied, any individual or company linked to the United States would have had to divest their shares in the company by November. This was clarified by Xiaomi when it announced that Google Play Services would remain on its international phones.

Xiaomi has since issued a public statement regarding the matter.

News, Social Media

Facebook and Google Could Have to Pay for News Content in Australia

Leave a comment

Facebook and Google are arguably the largest content providers in the world. They have, in some cases, become the sole source of content for users. The companies have played the role of content aggregator and ad providers for many years. However, some countries are beginning to take a hard look at how they could have played a role in the slow demise of news outlets over the years.

The main issue being looked at in a lot of countries is the distribution of ad revenue. In most of these countries, the argument is that Facebook and Google’s hold on an unprecedented share of ad revenue has led to the decline in overall revenue for news outlets. This has led to an increased scrutiny by governments. Unsurprisingly, governments are beginning to argue that companies such as Google and Facebook should be paying for the content they are using on the platform.

The latest country to seriously consider the possibility of introducing such laws is Australia. The country has ordered that its Competitions and Consumer Commission (ACCC) create a mandatory code of conduct to address the issue. The code of conduct would, essentially, require companies like Facebook and Google to pay for using content generated by others; this would include listing the content. While we’ve already seen similar measures adopted in countries like France, the ACCC’s code of conduct would also require companies to share data, algorithm changes, news ranking and adopt some form of revenue sharing with content companies.

The move to introduce some form of legislation is spurred by the economic impact of COVID-19 on the news and content sectors. The country is also citing the disproportionately large share of online revenue taken by Facebook and Google in the country. A draft of the Australian code of conduct is expected to be prepared by July 2020. However, there is no clear indication of when the code of conduct will finalised.