#APPLE VS EPIC RULING SERIES#
TreeFrog Therapeutics, a French-based biotech focused on cell-derived cell therapies, raised $75 million (€64 million) in Series B funding. Accel, Avataar Ventures, and Norwest Venture Partners invested alongside Premji Invest, acquiring a stake held by Emerald Media and Mayfield Fund. Amagi, an Indian media tech business, raised $100 million.
Insight Partners led the round and was joined by investors including SoftBank Vision Fund 2, Declaration Partners, and DG Ventures, as well as existing investors Salesforce Ventures, ISAI Cap Venture, Lead Edge Capital, and Perpetual Investors. Copado, a Chicago-based maker of a DevOps platform, raised $140 million in Series C funding. Accel led the round and was joined by investors including Insight Partners and REWE Group. Commercetools, a maker of e-commerce APIs, raised $140 million in Series C funding valuing it at $1.9 billion. Growth Partners also participated, valuing it at $2.6 billion. Sapphire Ventures led the round and was joined by investors including Owl Rock, Whale Rock Capital, Sands Capital, and Endeavor Catalyst.
#APPLE VS EPIC RULING SOFTWARE#
JumpCloud, a Louisville, Colo.-based identity management software maker, raised $159 million in Series F funding. Will this button allow users to stay in the app to make the purchase, or will it require that they leave to an external website? If it is the latter, will users be willing to go through the irritation of opening up another window, thereby limiting the impact the ruling has on Apple’s app-store revenue? And then conversely, could and would app-makers themselves show differential pricing to users between in-app purchasing and external payment methods to encourage their consumers away from Apple payment methods? Here too is Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, cheekily asking Apple’s Siri “ what is a button” via Tweet on Sunday. Here’s a good breakdown from the Verge’s Nilay Patel. And while Spotify stated it was pleased with the judgement, it also called for more legislation to address “these and many unfair practices.”Īnd there’s another potential battleground brewing in the ruling itself not just for Epic, but for the broader game-making community: That’s the question of what exactly the “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms” will look like inside an app. In a sign of how Epic itself is seeing the decision-in contrast to some of the celebrations online-the Fortnite maker said Sunday it plans to appeal the ruling. “However it does find that Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions anticompetitive.” “The Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions,” Rogers wrote. And it is this 15% to 30% fee that has been a long-time irritation among app developers, and a very lucrative business for Apple.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision allowed gaming apps a way to bypass Apple’s in-app purchases by including “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to in-app purchasing.” So iOS users, if they wished, would have the ability to help companies bypass the 15% to 30% fee by either paying via Apple or via a different service. The judge in the case also did not find Apple to be a monopoly in the gaming transactions space.īut there was a notable err, kind of, win? There were a bevy of takes on the ruling, but it certainly was far from ideal for Epic: Apple won on nine of the 10 counts, with the gamemaker ordered to pay millions in breach of contract damages to Apple-representing about 30% of the revenues for the time it allowed payments to bypass the App Store when this debate really first blew up in mid-2020. On Friday, a federal judge handed down the much-anticipated decision on the battle between Apple and Epic Games.
0 kommentar(er)
