Wesley Hilliard
Apple must continue to allow apps to link out and avoid its App Store commission during its appeal against an injunction resulting from the Epic anti-steering ruling.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple willfully violated an injunction against its anti-steering practices in the Epic vs Apple case. Even though Apple was compelled to remove its anti-steering rules, the new rules were too aggressive for developers to bother supporting.
According to a report from Reuters, Apple's request to pause enforcement of the judge's ruling during appeals failed. The U.S. appeals court denied Apple's request, where it shared that "we strongly disagree."
Several apps like Spotify have taken advantage of this new ruling, which allows companies to freely link out to websites with alternative payment options. It also means those companies owe Apple zero commission on those sales.
Epic Games has been treating the ruling as a victory for the company, even if it still isn't quite what the company wanted. It can't run its own app store on iPhone, but at least it can run Fortnite on iPhone with links out to V-Bucks purchases.
Apple's services revenue could take a hit, but it remains to be seen how many users will actually take advantage of the external links when in-app purchase is still an option. Customers could become confused by being pulled out of an app or game and suddenly asked to fill out a payment form.
With WWDC 2025 in starting Monday, it is not a great time for Apple's public image to developers. It is going to make announcements and proclamations around how much it supports the community while simultaneously trying to combat them in courts.
Andrew O'Hara
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
Andrew Orr
Amber Neely
11 Comments
Not surprising. Apple clearly does not retain the best lawyers and Apple majorly annoyed the judge by slow walking her orders. Not sure that Apple will lose that much. I personally will not share payment credentials with each and every developer, so I will stay with Apple for IAP unless there is a signficant discount. While having a choice is user friendly, could Apple force developers to be 'in' or 'out' as far as payments, and offer perks to those that remain 'in', like app development tools at a discount, longer lead times for new iOS features, accelerated reviews of submitted apps, etc. Apple spends money on the App Store. They should not give it away for free.
Uhhhh… isn’t it the other way around? The developers are battling Apple in court, not Apple suing them. So let’s not obscure who the instigators are, yes?
Stop me if I’m wrong here, but most of these companies are not good community members but are either close to or are actually predatory. Guess we’ll see how that works out.
Personally, I do try to deal directly with companies when it makes sense. I often get better service and convenience buying direct than using retailers like Assmazon and Walfart.
It just seems so nonsensical. Can I scan bar codes at Target and pay the manufacturer directly, whereby the onus is on the manufacturer to reimburse the retailer at the adjusted price? Can I easily pay the Walmart price at Amazon, or Joe-Shmo stores, or are there lots of barriers to getting the price adjusted?