The court has ruled that Apple will not be able to push back which ordered a change in the App Store payment

Apple has it failed persuading US District c to delay changes to the App Store which he ordered in September. As a judge of Apple vs. Epic, Rogers ruled in favor of the top 9 in 10, but also thought Apple. must allow Developers to direct users to other paid machines within their programs by December 9th. In response to this, Apple asked to be on a law prohibiting its establishment for a period of one year. Now, Rogers has rejected the company’s request to stay and says his actions are “very wrong.”

He wrote in system (PDF, via Price CNBC):

“… Apple’s appeal is based on the Court’s findings and disregards all aspects of the law, which are offensive practices, including the high cost of labor and the lack of cost. ”

Apple has stated that it will take more time to develop new protections for consumers, manufacturers and users alike if they allow alternative payment methods. It also previously stated that compliance with court orders and allowing developers to join other payment systems by December 9 would be “ineffective” due to Epic’s “inevitable” cases related to the size of its compliance. In addition, it is still appealing the decision, and the Court of Appeals may take up to a year to appeal.

In his ruling, Rogers argued that the party that would benefit most from being with Apple, as well as that the court could “see a number of ways” for the technical giant to pursue and protect its users. “With the exception of, perhaps, the need for time to put the Order in place, Apple did not provide a valid reason for the Court to believe that this ruling could lead to destruction,” he added.

Monga Price CNBC has noticed, however, that allowing manufacturers to connect to external payment methods does not mean that Apple does not take any part of its revenue. Google, for example, recently he announced that it now allows the use of alternative payment methods for Play Store apps in South Korea to comply with local laws. Although it reduced its activity by four percent for manufacturers who use their paid processors, they still pay for the company.