Australian court finds Apple, Google abused app store market power
While Judge Jonathan Beach found that the two tech giants had abused their dominant position in the market for app distribution to limit competition, he rejected Epic's claims that the companies had engaged in 'unconscionable conduct.'
Epic Games has been fighting Apple and Google's fee structure for in-app purchases in various jurisdictions around the planet. The company scored a major win against Apple this year in the U.S, and as a result, Fortnite returned to Apple's U.S. App Store after five years.
Tuesday's ruling could yield a similar result for Epic in Australia: the company's CEO Tim Sweeny said that the Epic Games Store and Fortnite would return to the Apple App Store in the country soon.
'We welcome the court's rejection of Epic's demands that we distribute app stores from within the Google Play store, and Epic's attacks on other critical security protections that users rely on. However, we disagree with the court's characterisation of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships,' a Google spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
Meanwhile, Apple told ABC News that its app store is the safest way for users to get apps, and that it disagreed with the court's ruling on some of Epic's claims.
Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Behold The ‘Cook Model' To Tariff Exemption
Earlier this month, Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office with Apple CEO Tim Cook on one side, a 100% semiconductor tariff threat on the other, and a $100 billion 'investment pledge' hovering somewhere in between. By the end of the press conference, Cook and Apple had walked away with the tariff exemption every multinational tech CEO in the world will soon want—and all it cost Cook was an unenforceable spending promise, a round of presidential praise, what appeared to be some kind of commemorative Apple trinket, and whatever moral high ground he may have previously enjoyed. It was more than just a corporate win, it was a prototype for a new kind of tax policy: tariff exemptions as personal favors granted to executives in real time, for the cameras. And, make no mistake, the tariff is a tax—and the exemption is a tax credit. But, unlike in the actual tax code, there was no legislation required, no permanence offered, and no pretense of equal treatment. This is economic nationalism by invitation-only; like a rewards program for loyal members of the global C-suite. The planned mechanics appear simple enough. Trump has threatened a 100% tariff on semiconductor imports. Then, he offered an escape hatch: any company willing to 'commit' to building in America will be spared. Apple's $100 billion pledge was their golden ticket. The fact that much of it overlaps with previously announced spending, or that the timelines of the deal stretch far beyond the current administration, is immaterial. Never mind also the minor issue that no one has explained how the pledge will be verified or enforced. It was enough to check the White House's box for 'made in America' and, most importantly, enough to make for a good headline. And that's exactly what makes it such a bad deal. In the previous version of economic policy drafting, Congress writes a law, agencies issue regulations under that law, and companies compete on equal terms for the same incentive. In the Cook Model, you bypass the whole system; all you need is a sufficiently large and photogenic promise, and a moment in the presidential spotlight. The obvious winners here, in the short term, are Apple's shareholders. The obvious losers are everyone else. When tariff exemptions become political favors, the costs don't vanish—they just change forms. If Apple gets a pass, someone else pays the tariff, and those costs get baked into prices. That means consumers foot the bill twice: once at the checkout counter and again when economic instability slows investment and eliminates jobs. Nonetheless, the bigger loss is invisible and much longer-lasting. It comes in the form of the erosion of predictable and rules-based economic policymaking. One of the United States' most valuable competitive advantages, to this point, has been policy stability. Investors can assume the same rules will apply to everyone, and those rules will more or less remain constant—at least in the near term. Exemptions were rare, codified, and transparently administered. Tearing that up invites a future where one's tax burden turns less on a business model and more on your ability to flatter the person sitting behind the Resolute Desk. That isn't just bad for competitors that might lack political clout or, heaven forbid, are on unfriendly terms with the president. It's bad for the country. Once corporate America realizes tariff rates are entirely negotiable, every CEO becomes a lobbyist, every half-considered investment plan becomes a bargaining chip, and the only thing transparent about the national economy is its status as a hostage to televised backroom deals. The Cook Model amounts to a playbook with four steps: first, announce a large round-number 'investment'—preferably with enough zeros to make headlines. Second, make sure it is in a politically useful location—for now, Texas is a good bet. Third, stand next to the president while making the pledge. Fourth, collect your tariff exemption and let the market reward you for your patriotism and service to your shareholders. This is the Cook Model, and it is easy to see why CEOs will rush to copy it. The pledge doesn't even have to be new money, it certainly doesn't have to be legally binding, and it doesn't have to happen on any particular schedule. It just has to appear big enough and domestic enough to play in that particular political moment. Today, it's semiconductors. Tomorrow it could be automakers promising new plants, energy firms pledging oil or coal jobs, or pharmaceutical companies pinky-promising to build big beautiful factories in swing states. The process is always the same: turning a vague promise into a de facto tax cut, bypassing the mess and expense of legislation, lobbying legislatures, and competing on merit. The problem is, once it works a few times, it stops being an exception and becomes the default. To be clear, presidents have been cutting bespoke deals like these since long before Tim Cook. Nixon's 1971 import surcharges were replete with carve-outs for politically useful industries and foreign states. Reagan negotiated 'voluntary' export thresholds with Japan that looked an awful lot like backroom favors. What distinguishes the Cook Model from past deals is the speed, scale, and stakes. In the past, such deals were negotiated for in legislation or trade agreements. They were the product of months or years of lobbying, which at least gave markets some time to react and adapt. Today, a president can reprice a trillion dollar supply chain in the span of a press conference—and reverse it later on social media. Modern supply chain realities only amplify these risks. When a White House handshake can shift sourcing for a product assembled across five countries and multiple continents, the ripple effect hits not just domestic competitors, but suppliers, logistics providers, and workers oceans away. Multiply that across every CEO that takes up the Cook Model and you've replaced a rulebook with a Rolodex and certainty with instability. If the goal is to encourage domestic semiconductor manufacturing, there are ways to achieve that end. Congress should establish clear, legislated, and enforceable criteria for the provision of tariff exemptions, tied to actual benchmarks. Things like jobs created, production volume, timelines, and coupled with penalties for missing targets. That's how you align economic incentives with actual outcomes. The road we are currently on is one of policy by applause line, and optics over substance. Companies are incentivized to engage in investment theater rather than delivering on any durable economic gains. The real danger is the undermining of one of the last great advantages the United States had over many of its competitors: policy stability. Tear that up, and we trade a rules-based economy for a patronage system. Whatever Apple may have gained from this deal, the country has lost far more. If exemptions become a matter of personal favor, we won't just erode trust in our institutions—we'll invite a permanent race among CEOs to out-empty-promise and out-flatter one another for political grace. Enter the Cook Model: where tax and tariff policy becomes reduced to a set of White House talking points, and corporates don't need lobbyists—they need a courtier.
The Verge
20 minutes ago
- The Verge
Stop using these ESR power banks that have been recalled for fire and explosion risks
ESR has issued a recall for 33,000 HaloLock wireless power banks, in 6,000mAh and 10,000mAh versions, because their lithium-ion batteries can 'overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.' The power banks were cheaper alternatives to Apple's MagSafe accessories (priced between $32 and $40) but offered slower 7.5W wireless charging speeds when used with an iPhone. Other Qi2 compatible chargers offer at least 15W speeds. The company has received nine reports of the power banks catching fire and exploding, causing around $20,000 of property damage, but no injuries, according to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Although the exact model number wasn't revealed, seven months ago, a Reddit user shared images of the aftermath of a power bank exploding and catching fire in their home, which they later identified as an 'ESR 10000 mah wireless portable charger.' Approximately 24,000 power banks were sold in the US through Amazon, Home Depot, and ESR's online stores between September 2023 and July 2025, plus an additional 9,000 in Canada. CPSC: This recall involves ESR HaloLock wireless power banks with model numbers 2G520, 2G505B and 2G512B. 'ESR' is printed on the back and the model number is printed on the right side of the pocket-size power banks. They were sold in dark blue, light blue, gray, white and black. All recalled models have five circular LED display lights on one side. Consumers are urged to stop using the recalled power banks immediately, even if they seem to be functioning properly, but before properly disposing of them, they can contact ESR for a full refund. The company is asking owners to send a photo of the power bank showing its model number and the word 'recalled' written on it in permanent marker to [email protected]. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Andrew Liszewski Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
MLB negotiating with Apple, Netflix, ESPN, NBC for possible broadcast packages: Sources
Major League Baseball executives are in negotiations that could result in new broadcast packages and relationships, with Netflix, ESPN, NBC and Apple in the mix, according to officials briefed on the discussions. NBC/Peacock and Apple TV+ are considered the top contenders for Sunday Night Baseball and first-round playoff games, while ESPN could add weekday games and a bigger daily digital presence, the officials said. Netflix has emerged as the potential Home Run Derby destination. Advertisement No deals have been finalized, and talks are active, creating an opportunity for other platforms to jump in. All the contracts are expected to be for three seasons. MLB declined to comment. The main rights in play are the ones ESPN opted out of in February, including the Home Run Derby, Sunday Night Baseball and eight-to-12 first-round playoff games per year. MLB had three seasons remaining on that deal with ESPN, which was paying, on average, $550 million per year. ESPN is now after a new set of rights. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned having a deal done by the All-Star break. Now, he and the league's top negotiators are trying to divvy up and create more inventory to reach the $570 million MLB was owed for the upcoming year. The value of these deals escalates over time, so the number MLB is trying to match is slightly higher than the annual average it was receiving from ESPN. While Manfred called ESPN a 'shrinking platform' immediately after the spring training divorce, it appears as if MLB may stay in business with the company. A weekday package could keep ESPN in the baseball business, while the network is also interested in the league's crown jewel that offers out-of-market games for all its teams. ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro has repeatedly stated his interest in local games as the network launches its new direct-to-consumer product next week. Netflix has emerged as a strong contender for the Home Run Derby, which Bloomberg recently reported. Netflix is into eventizing, and the Derby may fit its strategy. It could also add World Baseball Classic rights in Japan, which Puck first reported. Meanwhile, Apple and NBC/Peacock appear to be the final contenders for the Sunday Night Baseball package and, presumably, playoff games. Apple already pays $85 million annually for exclusive doubleheaders on Fridays. It is possible MLB could split Sunday night and the playoffs. MLB also has a national Sunday late-morning package with Roku worth $10 million per season. Advertisement The terms of the deals are expected to be for three years, as MLB's goal is to have all its rights, including the World Series and the playoffs, open for bidding in the 2029 season. After 2028, Fox and TNT Sports' deals with the league will conclude. With the Fall Classic available, MLB hopes to reset its national market with its deals. Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
