{"id":47685,"date":"2025-05-12T14:37:51","date_gmt":"2025-05-12T18:37:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=47685"},"modified":"2025-06-06T17:08:19","modified_gmt":"2025-06-06T21:08:19","slug":"apple-appeals-epic-anti-steering-injunction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/05\/12\/apple-appeals-epic-anti-steering-injunction\/","title":{"rendered":"Apple Appeals Epic Anti-Steering Injunction"},"content":{"rendered":"

Under the Radar<\/a> (David Smith<\/a>):<\/p>\n

I maintain a sense of optimism that this situation could ultimately lead to a meaningful reset in the developer relationship. Maybe that is naive optimism but I think it is the best chance we’ve had in a while.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Bruce<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This situation could<\/em> ultimately lead to a meaningful reset. But reading the Apple lawyers’ latest arguments is infuriating.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Tim Hardwick<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple has filed an emergency motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause key parts of a recent ruling that dramatically changes how the App Store operates, following a contempt finding in its long-running legal battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games.<\/p>

In court documents<\/a> filed Wednesday, Apple called the district court’s order “extraordinary” and argued it unlawfully forces the company to permanently give up control over “core aspects of its business operations.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Apple is specifically seeking to halt two major provisions while its appeal moves forward: a ban on charging any commissions for purchases made through external links, and restrictions on Apple’s ability to set conditions for how those links appear in iOS apps.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Kevin Purdy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A certificate<\/a> (PDF) accompanying the emergency filing states that the order “fundamentally changes Apple’s business and creates destabilizing effects” for App Store customers.<\/p>

The restrictions, “which will cost Apple substantial sums annually,” are not based on the company’s conduct, Apple claims, but “were imposed to punish Apple for purported non-compliance” with the 2021 injunction. In her ruling<\/a> (PDF), Gonzalez Rogers described Apple as conducting an “obvious cover-up” and said that Apple “at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Apple argued in its emergency motion last night that its appeal would show that it complied with the 2021 injunction “by allowing iOS app developers to convey information to users about alternative purchase options.” Apple argues that the original injunction “says nothing about commissions or pricing,” nor about conditions for link placement and language.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

So 34 was the number in May last year<\/em>. But did the number go up in any significant way since then? I was thinking about it this week, and I’ve not only never seen an app that used these link-outs, I’d never even heard about one that did.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

But it really makes you wonder how anyone at Apple thought the court would see this plan as compliant.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Matt Stoller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

In its appeal of the ruling, Apple says that allowing developers to label their own buttons on the App Store is a violation of Apple’s First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Sarah Perez<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The firm’s estimates indicate that U.S. App Store revenue from commissions more than doubled between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, Apple’s share of App Store commissions was approximately $4.76 billion, growing to over $10.1 billion by 2024.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

In the report, Apple calculated the portion of an app’s total revenue that is facilitated by the App Store, even if the purchase was made elsewhere. For instance, if a user buys a subscription to Hulu on the web, but then spends 60% of their time streaming Hulu on Apple devices, Apple credits itself with facilitating 60% of that user’s spend.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>, Dithering<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Apple’s argument here might go along the lines of Ben Thompson’s theory (in a subscriber-only post last Friday<\/a>) on the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tripp Mickle<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Mr. Cook sided with Mr. Maestri, and Apple set out to justify that choice. It “manufactured” an independent economic study to legitimize its decision, a federal judge said in an angry ruling last week. It withheld thousands of documents under attorney-client privilege claims. And at least one of its executives lied on the witness stand.<\/p>\n

The judge’s ruling, as well as witness testimony this year and company documents released on Thursday, shows the extraordinary measures that Apple took to keep every penny it collected in the App Store. The decision by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who heard the initial lawsuit brought by the video game company Epic Games in 2020, could cast a shadow over Apple’s business for years, weakening its credibility as legal scrutiny of its operations intensifies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ian Betteridge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

It is really hard to see how Tim Cook can remain as CEO of Apple on the back of this mess. Even if he hadn’t been directly involved with some of these decisions, the right call would be to resign. That he was the one taking them makes it even worse.<\/p>

One of the most shocking things is that the estimated loss from implementing a link with no revenue was only about a billion dollars - a lot of money, but pocket change to a company the size of Apple.<\/p>

For that, they have burned a huge amount of credibility with judges in the future, as well as taking a massive hit to their brand credibility – and losing control over how the App Store works in a pretty fundamental way.<\/p>

And that, of course, leaves aside the lying under oath and creating fake reports to justify its prices! This is a company that feels out of control.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Siracusa<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Despite making my living<\/a> by criticizing<\/a> Apple<\/a>, I tend not to get caught up in the controversy of the moment. When Apple ruined its laptop<\/a> keyboards<\/a>, I wasn’t calling for Tim Cook’s head. I just wanted them to fix the keyboards. And they did (eventually<\/a>).<\/p>

But success hides problems<\/a>, and even the best company can lose its way. To everything, there is a season.<\/p>

As far as I’m concerned, the only truly mortal sin<\/a> for Apple’s leadership is losing sight of the proper relationship<\/a> between product virtue and financial success—and not just momentarily, but constitutionally, intransigently, for years. Sadly, I believe this has happened.<\/p>

The preponderance of the evidence is undeniable. Too many times, in too many ways, over too many years, Apple has made decisions that do not<\/i> make its products better, all in service of control, leverage, protection, profits—all in service of money<\/i>.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Every new thing we learn about Apple’s internal deliberations<\/a> surrounding these decisions only lends more weight to the conclusion that Apple has lost its north star. Or, rather, it has replaced it with a new, dark star. And time and again, we’ve learned that these decisions go all the way to the top.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Matt Birchler<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Like I said in that piece last year, I still think Apple makes a lot of great products that are best-in-class and I’ll continue enjoying for years to come, but the vibe has definitely shifted. I’ve been using Apple products since 1995, and Siracusa has been here at least a decade longer than me. Neither of us are prone to hyperbole “for the clicks”, so I think it’s notable when people like us are like, “hmm, things haven’t been like this before.” But like John, I don’t think all is lost.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Joan Westenberg<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s not the mistakes that matter. Apple has made them before. The Newton, MobileMe, the butterfly keyboard. What matters is the posture. A company once defined by joyful provocation—by thinking different—is now defined by its defensiveness. Its leadership acts not like inventors but like stewards of a status quo. They protect margins like relics. They fear dilution. They optimize at the expense of surprise.<\/p>\n

Charles V believed the Church could not err. Apple believes its operating procedures cannot be wrong. Both relied on closed systems enforced by powerful institutions—canon law or App Store guidelines, pick your poison. Both found themselves increasingly out of step with the forces swirling around them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Adam Engst<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

More so than any other tech giant (Google’s fading “Don’t be evil” slogan notwithstanding), Apple has built its brand over the years around being a good corporate citizen. Apple has long espoused a commitment to user experience, privacy, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility, touting its attention to detail in product design, its sustainability efforts, and its focus on accessibility.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

The problem here isn’t just recalcitrant legal compliance. It’s one thing for Apple to exert tight control over the App Store ecosystem in ways that legitimately serve users, such as by detecting and rejecting malicious apps. However, it’s difficult to see how users benefit when Apple charges high fees and restricts how developers can communicate. Those are just a few of the complaints developers have with the App Store, many of whom feel trapped in a system that prioritizes Apple’s profits over collaborative partnership.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

I’m disappointed in Apple’s behavior throughout the Epic case. Rather than come off as truculent and money-grubbing, Apple could have—and still can—extend the culture of excellence and care that’s so evident in its hardware and interface design to the people who make the apps that power its devices.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I think this is also why Phil Schiller has a different perspective on the App Store than Tim Cook or Luca Maestri. Schiller has been involved with developer relations at Apple for decades, since long before the iPhone even existed. In the mid-1990s, Schiller left Apple for a few years and was a senior executive at Macromedia, maker of then-essential design tools for the Mac. He knows that developers need<\/em> to be treated as partners by Apple, that that’s the only way a platform can thrive. Games are different, but for all other apps, Apple should view developers as a precious resource to be cultivated, encouraged, and protected — not as a profit center to be squeezed. The only benefit from developers to Apple that Apple should be concerned with are the first-class apps those developers are creating to enrich and broaden Apple’s platforms. Especially apps that are exclusive to Apple’s platforms. (Why doesn’t Apple offer a lower App Store commission for platform-exclusive apps? What if the split were 70\/30 for cross-platform apps but 90\/10 for iOS\/Mac-exclusive apps?)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Apple actually does the opposite: multi-platform apps get special treatment for payments.<\/p>\n\n

Nilay Patel<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

That’s the context for the other major theme here that you’ll pick up on in this conversation: Apple’s major shift toward digital services and whether that’s fundamentally changed the company’s culture. You see, as Apple kept selling newer and better iPhones, it simply ran out of people to sell them to. So, in order to keep growing revenue and keep Wall Street happy, it started squeezing more money from its existing customer base, including the very developers that put apps on the App Store.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

All of that combined with Apple’s scale created a kind of hubris and, as you’ll hear Gruber say, a major blind spot for Apple that has pushed it toward these high-profile and public legal defeats that could reshape its business.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n