> Mr. Onak commented that “if we want to ‘scare’ users a bit, i like the addition of ‘out’ because it raises questions and hesitancy haha. out? out where? omg what do i do?”

Well then Mr. Onak, what *will* you do?

> Mr. Onak testified that “in term of UX writing, the word ‘scary’ doesn’t . . . mean the same thing as instilling fear. […] Rather, ‘scary’ is a term of art”
> Mr. Onak’s testimony was not credible and falls flat given reason, common sense

I guess the answer is perjury

> Apple claimed the static URL requirement protects users’ security and privacy.
> Yet, despite these concerns, developers can program dynamic links for any other purpose—Apple in general only prohibits the use of dynamic links for external links for link-out purchases.

> As of the May 2024 hearing, only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases in the first place.

In case you were wondering

> Adding a lawyer’s name to a document does not create a privilege.
> The record is rife with such examples of over-designation of privilege.

I guess it’s now Apple’s turn to do the “you can’t mark everything PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL” trick

> Apple filed a “response,” but that response ultimately harms its position. […] In its defense, Apple blames everyone but itself

> As these are restrictions on the specific actions Apple took to violate this Court’s Injunction and as they require no affirmative action on Apple’s part, the INJUNCTION IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

So, yeah, ALL CAPS “you gotta do this stat”. Want to bet App Review will listen?

@saagar I would not be surprised if this ruling somehow never makes it to app review. They can’t seem to follow their own policies, why should they follow those from the court? 🫠

@calicoding Oh good point