The way I read it (which might be wrong) was that the developers could put links to external websites in the app, but not necessarily require that the transaction be allowed to occur in the app itself.

In the case of Fortnite, Epic could include a link to their online store where you could buy V-Bucks that would be linked to your Fortnite account. This link would open in Safari, but could also be done on any other computer.

Under the old rules, Epic couldn't do this. Nor could Netflix send you a link to their webpage, or Kindle a link to the Amazon web site to buy a book.

Maybe it's the legalese, but the phase "direct customers to purchasing mechanisms" makes me think that the judge is referring to these external methods.

But as I mentioned on a sibling comment, I'm really unsure as to what is meant by "In-App purchasing". Is this Apple's mechanism, or any mechanism? It isn't clear to me, without more context. There may be a couple of interpretations.

There's no such reference to "external websites" in the ruling. I'm not sure why so many people are taking this logical leap.

The injunction simply references "directing to purchasing mechanisms". There's no such qualifier that the purchasing mechanism must be an HTML document displayed from web browser.

I think the reason is the phrase “direct to purchasing mechanisms”. The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external (otherwise you wouldn’t direct them to it, you’d just let them purchase it).

It could be a website, a phone number, mail order, whatever.

Also, the sentence specifically includes “external links” as part of the App Store metadata/description, so that’s a logical step.

If there is a reference to allowing in-app purchases, it would be the next clause, but it isn’t clear to me what the proper interpretation is. It could be allowing a purchasing mechanism in addition to the existing Apple In App purchasing pipeline, or that Apple can’t disallow In App purchasing.

I bet it’s the former, but I’m sure it will be part of the appeal.

I agree this is confusing. Pages 149-150 of the ruling explicitly conclude that it is not illegal for Apple to require developers to use IAP for purchases of in-app content. On the other hand, the injuction on page 168 says Apple cannot prohibit developers from linking to other purchasing mechanisms besides IAP.

The way I would interpret this is:

1. If you want to make a purchase inside the app itself, you still have to use IAP.

2. But you are allowed to leave the app to make a payment that does not use the IAP system, and Apple cannot prevent developers from telling users about such alternative payment systems.

That’s exactly how I’d interpret it. Which is not what many people here have been arguing. If this is the case, it’s not what Epic ultimately wanted and still lets Apple avoid allowing alternative In-App purchasing mechanisms. But it makes a lot of sense… protect people inside the garden, but still let people buy their VBucks anywhere else they want to. This also mirrors what happens on other game platforms - if you buy vbucks on Xbox, it has to go through Microsoft. But you can also buy prepaid VBucks gift cards at Target.

If this is the case, it’s a minor win for Epic, at best. And limits the collateral damage to other game platforms (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that also have the same in-app purchasing restrictions.

Well, I wouldn't even consider it much of a win for Epic considering:

1. The court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store which will have underlying consequences to their Unreal Engine business.

2. The court fully rejected Epic's monopolization claims which deals a huge blow to their goal of running their own app store.

3. It's not clear whether Apple is prohibited from charging commissions or licensing fees on purchases made outside of the IAP system. Everyone is assuming so, and the accounting would be much more complicated, but if you read through the ruling the judge repeatedly agrees that Apple is entitled to some sort of compensation for the use of their intellectual property. It may very well be that developers will be allowed to add external payment options but will still owe Apple some form of commission/licensing fee in exchange.

> The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external

Huh?

There's nothing about the definition of "direct" that has any notion of externality.

If a judge rules that I have the permission to direct visitors in my house to a bathroom, that surely does not mean the bathroom must to be in another building.