Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple appeal to pause injunction enforcement allowing external linking fails

Apple must continue allowing developers to bypass commissions

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.

11 Comments

neoncat 6 Years · 190 comments

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.

It's not that big of a mystery, at least in the case of Fortnite. Sweeney indicated the split of purchases since its return to the App Store is about 60/40, in favor of Apple's in-app payment system, although it continues to trend toward 50/50. Seems some people like having a choice, and some people like sticking with what they know. Everyone wins? 

2 Likes · 2 Dislikes
teejay2012 13 Years · 432 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.

4 Likes · 1 Dislike
Wesley_Hilliard 5 Years · 542 comments

neoncat said:

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.

It's not that big of a mystery, at least in the case of Fortnite. Sweeney indicated the split of purchases since its return to the App Store is about 60/40, in favor of Apple's in-app payment system, although it continues to trend toward 50/50. Seems some people like having a choice, and some people like sticking with what they know. Everyone wins? 

The purpose of this statement wasn't to suggest winners or losers, just speculation on how much impact the move will have. That 50% still use IAP is a sign that Apple has a chance to make the courts happy and still make money.

2 Likes · 0 Dislikes
freeassociate2 4 Years · 235 comments

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?

These software companies … because let’s be clear these are not solo or small developers, but large companies led by overcompensated executives and owners trying to squeeze everything they can out of everyone, including their users and employees. 

These software companies typically erect barriers to leaving platforms in ways that Apple prohibits. Cancellation runarounds, either on their sites or through thier customer service. Refund issues. Overcharges, particularly with kids. Awful pricing arrangements. No family sharing. Unresponsive support. 

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. 

But I’ll point out that there’s no cross-linking of who’s got a better deal. I have to do the legwork, so to speak. If one doesn’t have the intelligence to know that there are shopping options, I don’t think a link out is going to help. But that’s just me I guess. 

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?

My point is that there’s are lots of points of friction when purchasing anything, yet there’s no mass revolt or market defining lawsuits on the part of either manufacturers, retailers, or consumers to make it easier. Yet here we are quibbling about shopping links. It’s bizarre, not bazaar. 

5 Likes · 1 Dislike
neoncat 6 Years · 190 comments

The purpose of this statement wasn't to suggest winners or losers, just speculation on how much impact the move will have. That 50% still use IAP is a sign that Apple has a chance to make the courts happy and still make money

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just meant that we already have some data (however limited) that shows,interestingly, it's not as simple as everyone prefers Apple's system or everyone can't wait to be free of it. The choice seems to be giving people options that meet their individual needs and in the end that's s net-win. I'd rather Apple pivot to selling and promoting the benefits of its system (compete on merit) than working so hard and spending so much goodwill and PR trying to keep it locked down.

4 Likes · 1 Dislike