Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review App Store Contempt Ruling

[MrMacintoshIII]

All I’m gonna say is, I hope Apple gets everything they want. It will always be ridiculous to me that any developer would moan about fees when they have the choice to go to the crappy competitors if they want.

Apple created something amazing and now everyone feels entitled to their piece of it.

Where were these same developers ‘supporting’ Apple when Apple was a small near-failing company? I’ve had enough of this crap and one of the (very) few good things about a corrupt Supreme Court is that sometimes they have the ability to shut the whiners up and make a ruling that is actually sensible. This includes when they shut the President up and rule against him too.

I hope Apple gets to continue setting whatever terms they see fit. You don’t like it? Find another line of work or go to a competitor’s store.

It’s a privilege to be a developer, not at all a right.

Go out into the world and see how hard the rest of us have to work and toil for our money if you don’t like being part of Apple’s economy.

 

[Kr0019]

@surferfb

There's a lot I can rebut in your comment but I'm not going to win you over.

I like having choice and freedom.
There is risk in everything.
A corporation protects their interests not yours.
If there were only two car companies in the world, people would riot over such a duopoly.

When your choice affects those who wish not to have a less secure platform then what choice is there?
You have the freedom to choose whatever platform you like other than Apple.
There are hundreds of phone manufacturers around the world to choose from and if you don’t like the iOS ecosystem, go to android.
If you don’t like android then go to graphene.
Companies have a right to protect their products, their assets and even their customers.
There is risk in everything, but when the risk takers want push their risks onto every other user then where’s the freedom in that?
You do whatever you choose to do. Just don’t force others to lose their freedom of choice because you want what you want.
If you don’t like what you have, make the choice that suits you and leave the rest to do the same.
Not everybody wants what you want and right now the iOS walled garden is the platform of choice for the vast majority of users. If iOS was a democracy I bet you would still be unhappy about the outcome.
Complaining about iOS being a walled garden when you chose it, is like camping next to an open sewer and complaining about the smell.

 

[Happy_John]

@surferfb

There's a lot I can rebut in your comment but I'm not going to win you over.

I like having choice and freedom.
There is risk in everything.
A corporation protects their interests not yours.
If there were only two car companies in the world, people would riot over such a duopoly.

Both sides, Apple and Epic, are acting in bad faith in this case, Epic more than Apple.

Apple is monopolising the means of installing apps on your iphone, and iPhones are a large enough pet of the the market that they are rightly being hammered for this.

Equally, Sweeney had no interest in the end-users, he simply wants to have his cake and eat it.

Seeing Epic as attempting to rip off Apple does NOT nullify the argument that Apple monopolise app supply.

This isn’t a case of “four legs good, two legs bad”, despite who either side would frame it. A win for Apple is not good for the consumer, but a win for Epic is also not good for the consumer.

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

Saying Apple monopolizes app supply is like saying the best doctors monopolize good healthcare.

If someone does it better, we shouldn’t punish them.

People are losing track of what a monopoly even means.

Rural Americans not having access to decent internet is a result of monopoly bs.

Apple outcompeting everyone yet there still being a Google and whatever Android store is not a monopoly. GO TO THOSE TERRIBLE OPTIONS IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ELSE!!!

You are not entitled to decide Apple’s rules for them just because they cultivated the best space!!

How is this even happening? I weep for our culture. Such lack of education and sound moral reasoning.

 

[Happy_John]

Saying Apple monopolizes app supply is like saying the best doctors monopolize good healthcare.

If someone does it better, we shouldn’t punish them.

People are losing track of what a monopoly even means.

Rural Americans not having access to decent internet is a result of monopoly bs.

Apple outcompeting everyone yet there still being a Google and whatever Android store is not a monopoly. GO TO THOSE TERRIBLE OPTIONS IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ELSE!!!

You are not entitled to decide Apple’s rules for them just because they cultivated the best space!!

How is this even happening? I weep for our culture. Such lack of education and sound moral reasoning.

No. That’s a spurious argument.

A better analogy would be to imagine that all medicinal professionals (i.e, app developers ) have to work on contract for a singel comp oration that owns all the hospitals.

The reply to the argument that “you can just go to a different hospital chain” doesn’t work, as, in this case, it it the equivalent of saying, “we’ll, just move to another country”, as you are tellin people to migrate from one environment / ecosystem to another.

Extending the analogy, to look at pharmaceutical patents, these patents have a limited lifespan, so that, after R&D costs have been recouped (which they need to be - development of medicines and treatments cost money), the medicine and treatment is no longer manufactured and distributed by a single company.

There is no debate on whether Apple holds a monopoly on app distribution. That’s simply a fact. That alternative App Store have been allowed in certain countries or regions has had little effect on that monopoly (nad now it’s worth check what the world “monopoly” is legally defined as), but it does give an option for alternatives.

 

[mrochester]

No. That’s a spurious argument.

A better analogy would be to imagine that all medicinal professionals (i.e, app developers ) have to work on contract for a singel comp oration that owns all the hospitals.

The reply to the argument that “you can just go to a different hospital chain” doesn’t work, as, in this case, it it the equivalent of saying, “we’ll, just move to another country”, as you are tellin people to migrate from one environment / ecosystem to another.

There is no debate on whether Apple holds a monopoly on app distribution. That’s simply a fact. That alternative App Store have been allowed in certain countries or regions has had little effect on that monopoly (nad now it’s worth check what the world “monopoly” is legally defined as), but it does give an option for alternatives.

“Apple does not have a monopoly over app distribution according to a court ruling, which stated that competition exists because customers can choose Android devices instead”

It’s like how Mac Donald’s doesn’t have a monopoly on hamburgers simply because you can only buy big Mac’s from Mac Donald’s.

 

[Happy_John]

“Apple does not have a monopoly over app distribution according to a court ruling, which stated that competition exists because customers can choose Android devices instead”

It’s like how Mac Donald’s doesn’t have a monopoly on hamburgers simply because you can only buy big Mac’s from Mac Donald’s.

A country ruling. In many other regions of the world, in different judiciaries, the issue of whether The App Store is a amino loopy or not hs oreads been ruled on, and it is.

The USA is not the world. Apple does not only operate within the USA.

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

Oh come on you know the word spurious but then you insist on false analogies???

 

[mrochester]

A country ruling. In many other regions of the world, in different judiciaries, the issue of whether The App Store is a amino loopy or not hs oreads been ruled on, and it is.

The USA is not the world. Apple does not only operate within the USA.

I’m not saying the USA is the world, I’m merely pointing out that the debate as to whether Apple has a monopoly on app distribution is not settled.

 

[Happy_John]

“Apple does not have a monopoly over app distribution according to a court ruling, which stated that competition exists because customers can choose Android devices instead”

It’s like how Mac Donald’s doesn’t have a monopoly on hamburgers simply because you can only buy big Mac’s from Mac Donald’s.

When Big Macs exceed a certain percentage of all hamburgers sold, then it is a monopoly

monopoly:

A monopoly is when a single company or entity creates an unreasonable restraint of competition in a market. The term “monopoly” is often used to describe instances where there is a single seller of a good in a market. In a legal context, the term monopoly is also used to describe a variety of market conditions that are not monopolies in the truest sense. For instance, the term monopoly may be referring to instances where:

• There are only two sellers of a given good (duopoly)
• There are very few sellers of a given good (oligopoly)
• There is a single buyer of a given good (monopsony)
• There are only two buyers of a given good (duopsony)
• There are very few buyers of a given good (oligopsony)
• There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)

In essence, the term monopoly may be used any time that a market for a good is controlled by a limited number of actors.

monopoly

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

People keep saying Apple is a monopoly because the App Store is the best, but that argument doesn’t really follow.


Being the best, most popular, or making the most money is not the same thing as being a monopoly.


People seem to mix together three different ideas:

• Market leadership: lots of people prefer your product.
• Market power: you have influence over customers/developers.
• Monopoly: competition is severely restricted or effectively controlled.

My view is that even if Apple has the best App Store experience, that alone doesn’t make them a monopoly. Success through making a product people prefer is generally not illegal. The actual question is whether Apple controls a market in a way that unfairly prevents meaningful competition.


A few reasons I think this distinction matters:

1. Consumers still have alternatives.
   If someone doesn’t want Apple’s rules, they can buy an Android phone instead. Developers can build for Android, web apps, desktop apps, consoles, etc. Apple is not the only route to customers.
2. Owning a platform isn’t automatically monopolistic.
   Apple built iOS and maintains the ecosystem. Their argument has always been that controlling app distribution helps with security, privacy, quality control, payments, and consistency. You can disagree with that model, but owning and managing your own platform isn’t inherently anti-competitive.
3. Being “the best” isn’t illegal.
   If one company builds a better experience and wins customers, that’s competition working. Antitrust law is usually more concerned with excluding competitors than simply outperforming them.
4. The market definition changes everything.
   This is where most of the disagreement actually is.

Apple critics argue Apple has monopoly power over iPhone app distribution specifically.


Apple argues the market is broader: smartphones and mobile ecosystems overall, where Android is a massive competitor.


That seems like the real debate to me, not whether people think the App Store is good.


So I don’t think “Apple has the best App Store” automatically means “Apple is a monopoly.” Those are two completely different claims. The question isn’t whether Apple succeeded. The question is whether they succeeded in a way that unfairly blocks competition.

And the answer is no, they didn’t.

Your calling my analogy spurious does not make it so. Your follow-up analogy made far less sense.

 

[Happy_John]

People keep saying Apple is a monopoly because the App Store is the best, but that argument doesn’t really follow.


Being the best, most popular, or making the most money is not the same thing as being a monopoly.


People seem to mix together three different ideas:

• Market leadership: lots of people prefer your product.
• Market power: you have influence over customers/developers.
• Monopoly: competition is severely restricted or effectively controlled.

My view is that even if Apple has the best App Store experience, that alone doesn’t make them a monopoly. Success through making a product people prefer is generally not illegal. The actual question is whether Apple controls a market in a way that unfairly prevents meaningful competition.


A few reasons I think this distinction matters:

1. Consumers still have alternatives.
   If someone doesn’t want Apple’s rules, they can buy an Android phone instead. Developers can build for Android, web apps, desktop apps, consoles, etc. Apple is not the only route to customers.
2. Owning a platform isn’t automatically monopolistic.
   Apple built iOS and maintains the ecosystem. Their argument has always been that controlling app distribution helps with security, privacy, quality control, payments, and consistency. You can disagree with that model, but owning and managing your own platform isn’t inherently anti-competitive.
3. Being “the best” isn’t illegal.
   If one company builds a better experience and wins customers, that’s competition working. Antitrust law is usually more concerned with excluding competitors than simply outperforming them.
4. The market definition changes everything.
   This is where most of the disagreement actually is.

Apple critics argue Apple has monopoly power over iPhone app distribution specifically.


Apple argues the market is broader: smartphones and mobile ecosystems overall, where Android is a massive competitor.


That seems like the real debate to me, not whether people think the App Store is good.


So I don’t think “Apple has the best App Store” automatically means “Apple is a monopoly.” Those are two completely different claims. The question isn’t whether Apple succeeded. The question is whether they succeeded in a way that unfairly blocks competition.

And the answer is no, they didn’t.

Your calling my analogy spurious does not make it so. Your follow-up analogy made far less sense.

No, that’s not why people are saying Apple is a monopoly. Go back in read the thread.

Apple make good products, which I why I like them Nd they are a successful corporation. But they’re not hero’s, and Apple is a corporation, not a religion. There’s no need to try to claim that they have any ethical high ground here, they don’t. They’re a corporation whose aim is to increase shareholder value that’s being shaken down by another business entity that wants to increase its own profits.

Nothing in this case can be claimed to be for the benefit of the consumer.

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

Frankly, no. I don’t trust your ability to actually understand anything at this point.

 

[ifxf]

Rural Americans not having access to decent internet is a result of monopoly

Rural America does have access to decent internet, they just need to purchase Starlink. Urban areas shouldn’t have to subsidize people who choose to live in rural areas.

 

[surferfb]

That I did not know. No need to cite a source, I trust your info. So, have we seen a dramatic increase in malware on iOS in Europe since July 1st, 2025?

This was six weeks ago:

WhatsApp Alerts 200 Users After Fake iOS App Installed Spyware; Italian Firm Faces Action

WhatsApp alerted 200 users in Italy to spyware iOS app, highlighting Europe’s expanding surveillance crisis.

thehackernews.com

 

[mrochester]

Rural America does have access to decent internet, they just need to purchase Starlink. Urban areas shouldn’t have to subsidize people who choose to live in rural areas.

That means Starlink has a monopoly.

 

[jpatrickma]

This is all so ridiculous. The app store is not a 'market,' it's where you get apps if you chose to buy an iPhone. This is all jealousy: jealousy from Europeans whose only big tech company is Spotify (lol), and from greedy lookers-on who have no business trying to alter how another company works. If they want more money, they can try to convince people to buy different devices but the fact is this is all harmful to consumer choice as we have many options and this all takes them away from us.

 

[ifxf]

That means Starlink has a monopoly.

Eventually other companies like Amazon Leo will enter the picture and give competition, unlike the single provider of your copper line.

 

[CarAnalogy]

The “spirit” of the contempt ruling was to show what would happen if Apple charged nothing, since they wanted to be so obstinate about cooperating.

So now their case is weaker than ever because we have now seen for over a year in the real world that these bare minimum concessions to reality are actually a good thing.

 

[I7guy]

That means Starlink has a monopoly.

Starling should leave rural America./s

But back to the main event. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[racerhomie]

Apple doesn't collect fees for applications I download to my Mac. So why would they get a cut on their phones? Greed. Greed is always the answer.

...and if it's because the app is downloaded from the Apple App store then why don't they let me download from any store I choose? My Mac had freedom. Why not my phone?

One is a desktop platform with conventions from the 80s. Another is a platform in the 21st century and its conventions. Apple Made the platform themselves(iOS in 2007) in the 21st century and its security is much better than Mac due to sandboxing and App Store review to keep out badly made applications

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm with Dan here.

Apple needs to do a LOT better and a lot more on the curation front if they want to try to defend the safety, security, privacy, ethical ground, etc ... of their App Store, and have it be differentiated and worth the fees they charge.

The app is similar to dozens hosted in the Apple and Google app stores and advertised on Instagram and TikTok that promise to create AI images and videos of users as superheroes, animals, or influencers; behind a paywall, however, users could edit photos and videos with text prompts.

the “paywall” is — or was; the app has been removed — an in-app payment from which Apple takes a 15–30% cut.
These red flags are not obvious in hindsight; they should have been obvious from the time this app was submitted.

Meanwhile, apps from longtime and trustworthy developers like Manton Reece and Radu Dutzan are stuck in App Review for dumb and basically invalid reasons.

‘How Deepfakes Tore a High School Apart’ – Pixel Envy

Samantha Cole, 404 Media: On the morning of December 4, five ninth grade girls, all 14 or 15 years old, showed up for class at Radnor High School. By 8 a.m. — the sun had been up for less than an hour — it felt like the entire school already heard what happened the night […]

pxlnv.com

 

[germanbeer007]

There is no debate on whether Apple holds a monopoly on app distribution. That’s simply a fact.

App distribution on their own platform? Sure. As they should, just like Playstation holds a monopoly on game/app distribution (they even control games distributed through B&M stores). Microsoft and Nintendo too.

 

[germanbeer007]

and worth the fees they charge.

did you calculate all the fees Apple incurs for the current App Store? if so, break it down. if not, then that's just a baseless insinuation.

 

[germanbeer007]

I love how people can't explain why Playstation is allowed to control 100% of the apps/games on the Playstation hardware but somehow can explain Apple shouldn't be allowed to do the same on their own hardware.