Supreme Court Lets Apple Delay App Store Fee Fight for 24 Hours

[Unregistered 4U]

Not a fair market though, that’s kind of the point. Developers can either get robbed or not be developers.

It's really sad that Apple controls the only way for deveopers to make money. If there were only… I don't know, computers that were kind of personal I guess? That were available to release code for! OR maybe some other smartphone platform, that would be cool!

But, nope, if you're developing for Apple devices, you're getting robbed. And if you're not, you're, I don't know, a chartered accountant? Working retail? Uber?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple operate globally.

The Supreme Court… doesn't?

Or are you saying that any company requiring commissions WORLDWIDE is operating illegally? 🙂 Whew, that's a looooooooootta companies!

 

[mike2q]

I don't disagree, but the market has decided it's completely fine for Apple to take 1/3rd of the gross revenue. Tons of apps are added daily under the same agreement.

The top point though is that the market didn't decide because this isn't a free market for app developers. Their choice is to pay 30% or get cut off from those customers. If there were alternative app stores and developers still choose the Apple store then you could say the market had decided. Since no alternatives are possible then it's just Apple using anti competitive practices to force other companies into an agreement that has no other choice.

 

[1674117]

Okay, provide data to support your claim that Apple catches very little malware going through the App Store.

Just a quick Google brings up the following but there are many, many more. Those of us who lived through the last 20 years remember many examples.
Please provide a (non-Apple) source showing how much malware they actually catch, if any.

• The XcodeGhost Incident (2015): The largest historical outbreak involved counterfeit developer tools distributed on cloud services, which secretly injected malicious code into legitimate projects. Security firms estimated that anywhere from 4,000 to over 4,100 legitimate apps were inadvertently infected and hosted on the store. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Adware and Click Fraud Campaigns: Smaller batches surface periodically. For instance, security researchers identified 18 apps using evasive code for click fraud in 2019, and 9 apps tied to the Scylla ad-fraud operation in 2022. [1, 2]

• Cryptocurrency and Phishing Scans: Threat actors frequently upload targeted spoofing or data-harvesting tools. Recent disclosures highlighted dozens of malicious crypto-related apps, including 26 fake wallet appsand specialized OCR screenshot-reading malware embedded in productivity and utility tools. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[1674117]

It's really sad that Apple controls the only way for deveopers to make money. If there were only… I don't know, computers that were kind of personal I guess? That were available to release code for! OR maybe some other smartphone platform, that would be cool!

But, nope, if you're developing for Apple devices, you're getting robbed. And if you're not, you're, I don't know, a chartered accountant? Working retail? Uber?

What a curious and wildly off topic response. We’re discussing mobile developers here, obviously. Apple have complete control of half the mobile app market. It would be difficult to succeed with an app that isn’t available to half of the world.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The top point though is that the market didn't decide because this isn't a free market for app developers. Their choice is to pay 30% or get cut off from those customers. If there were alternative app stores and developers still choose the Apple store then you could say the market had decided. Since no alternatives are possible then it's just Apple using anti competitive practices to force other companies into an agreement that has no other choice.

15%.

 

[I7guy]

The top point though is that the market didn't decide because this isn't a free market for app developers.

There is no legal requirement to have a free market for app developers. Someone other than apple can get that effort started on a new platform, built from scratch.

Their choice is to pay 30% or get cut off from those customers.

Nope. Their choice is to opt-in to the Apple iOS ecosystem, at that point they have made a business decision and accepted the terms.

If there were alternative app stores and developers still choose the Apple store then you could say the market had decided.

If you believe alternative app stores are important, than build a new feature packed product from the ground up and include all features and functions you believe should be in this product.

Since no alternatives are possible then it's just Apple using anti competitive practices to force other companies into an agreement that has no other choice.

That is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What a curious and wildly off topic response. We’re discussing mobile developers here, obviously. Apple have complete control of half the mobile app market. It would be difficult to succeed with an app that isn’t available to half of the world.

OH NOOOES! Mobile developers and there’s only one mobile platform to develop for! I wish someone, maybe Google, would have released an Operating System that many OEM’s could use to release competing phones with an App Store that doesn’t go through Apple. Unfortunately, that’s not the reality we live in.

What would REALLY be cool is if it was also 70% of all the smartphones sold worldwide. What a huge market to go after that avoids Apple entirely!

 

[I7guy]

Just a quick Google brings up the following but there are many, many more. Those of us who lived through the last 20 years remember many examples.
Please provide a (non-Apple) source showing how much malware they actually catch, if any.

• The XcodeGhost Incident (2015): The largest historical outbreak involved counterfeit developer tools distributed on cloud services, which secretly injected malicious code into legitimate projects. Security firms estimated that anywhere from 4,000 to over 4,100 legitimate apps were inadvertently infected and hosted on the store. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Adware and Click Fraud Campaigns: Smaller batches surface periodically. For instance, security researchers identified 18 apps using evasive code for click fraud in 2019, and 9 apps tied to the Scylla ad-fraud operation in 2022. [1, 2]
• Cryptocurrency and Phishing Scans: Threat actors frequently upload targeted spoofing or data-harvesting tools. Recent disclosures highlighted dozens of malicious crypto-related apps, including 26 fake wallet appsand specialized OCR screenshot-reading malware embedded in productivity and utility tools. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

You inadvertently proved the point. With millions of apps there is very little malware that slipped through apples review.

 

[1674117]

You inadvertently proved the point. With millions of apps there is very little malware that slipped through apples review.

I asked specifically for (non-Apple) evidence that malware is being removed, did you read the request? Forum rules require you to provide that evidence or withdraw this comment.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

DEVELOPERS SHOULDN’T PAY APPLE 30%. They don’t deserve more than half that!
Ok, done. Like even before you said that. As the vast majority pay Apple a 15% commission.
Oh… really?
Yeah, seriously half. For awhile now. Pretty good deal when what they offer is access to over a billion paying customers.
…
DEVELOPERS SHOULDN’T PAY APPLE 15%!
What should they pay?
Man, I don’t know. It’s just… you know… Apple stopped making wireless access points, and they stopped making the GOOD Final Cut Pro, and they stopped making the Mac Pro… Shouldn’t they be punished for that? I LOVED THOSE!!

 

[surferfb]

Please provide a (non-Apple) source showing how much malware they actually catch, if any.

Of course there isn’t a non-Apple source about how much malware Apple caught, because that’s data only Apple has.

But the judge in this case ruled that “there is little dispute completely unrestricted sideloading would increase malware infections” and that “centralized App Store distribution increases security”. The 9th Circuit court of appeals affirmed that - they accepted that improving security and privacy constitutes a “plainly procompetitove” rationale for the restrictions - which is why neither court forced the App Store open.

Or we can look at Nokia data. They found 81% of smartphone infections were from Android and iOS was at 4%. What makes more sense rationally: “malicious actors aren’t trying to get on iOS” or “something Apple is doing preventing them from getting on.”

Or we can look at Netcraft. They found fewer than 50 malicious apps over six months of scouring the App Store. But they looked at just 350 apps on unsanctioned third party stores (AltStore and Sideloady) and found 14 malicious apps or 5% of apps listed.

Look, you can absolutely argue “I think Apple’s restrictions do more harm to consumers than good” or “Apple makes security out to be a bigger issue than it would be in practice”.

But unless you have a solid explanation for why MacOS has significantly more infections than than iOS despite well over a billion fewer devices, and why Android has significantly more malware than iOS, arguing the restrictions don’t have anything to do with security and aren’t doing anything or that there is more malware on the store than Apple catches just isn’t a remotely credible argument.

 

[I7guy]

I asked specifically for (non-Apple) evidence that malware is being removed, did you read the request? Forum rules require you to provide that evidence or withdraw this comment.

This is what you responded to: “Okay, provide data to support your claim that Apple catches very little malware going through the App Store.”

You came back with some examples, which proves the OPs point exactly. Apple never claimed it catches everything. Their claim is they do their best to make the App Store as safe and secure as possible. I have no idea of why you citing forum regulations, when I didnt state any fact, only acknowledged that you proved the point about “little malware”.

 

[1674117]

Of course there isn’t a non-Apple source about how much malware Apple caught, because that’s data only Apple has.

This is all that you needed to say. The rest of your post addresses a completely different topic.

 

[1674117]

This is what you responded to: “Okay, provide data to support your claim that Apple catches very little malware going through the App Store.”

You came back with some examples, which proves the OPs point exactly. Apple never claimed it catches everything. Their claim is they do their best to make the App Store as safe and secure as possible. I have no idea of why you citing forum regulations, when I didnt state any fact, only acknowledged that you proved the point about “little malware”.

Yes, and I asked for a source to back up the claim that Apple remove malware outside of their own marketing. You have failed to provide that and made the same spurious claim again. SOURCES PLEASE.

 

[surferfb]

Yes, and I asked for a source to back up the claim that Apple remove malware outside of their own marketing. You have failed to provide that and made the same spurious claim again. SOURCES PLEASE.

You’re demanding data that cannot exist. How about a source explaining why Apple’s published data about how much malware they prevent is untrustworthy.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, and I asked for a source to back up the claim that Apple remove malware outside of their own marketing. You have failed to provide that and made the same spurious claim again. SOURCES PLEASE.

I do not understand the question nor what you are asking, so if you want to report the post, go ahead.

It doesn’t diminish though that you proved that apple doesn’t catch every malicious app, including the doctored app that epic sent to the iOS App Store that started this entire thing.

 

[surferfb]

So you’re making a claim you can’t back up. Please delete your posts as per forum rules. I provided several sources for my claim.

The App Store stopped over $2.2 billion in fraudulent transactions in 2025

In 2025, Apple prevented over $2.2 billion in potentially fraudulent transactions, adding to a total of more than $11.2 billion in the past six years.

www.apple.com

The App Store prevented more than $9 billion in fraudulent transactions

In the last five years, the App Store has protected users by preventing over $9 billion in fraudulent transactions, including over $2 billion in 2024.

www.apple.com

Just because you have arbitrarily decided you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the source doesn’t exist.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Developing mobile apps these days requires multiplatform support. That’s what makes this anti-consumer and monopolistic behaviour.

Thankfully the courts are starting to address it, and at least in EU Apple are being made to behave. It will eventually be easier to comply globally than provide point fixes for one (massive) market, just as Microsoft found previously with Windows N editions.

If you must reply, try to be grown up about it

Ohhh, you’d better reach out to those independent and solo devs that are making money JUST on Android! They’d probably like to know how it is they’re not making the money they’re making! OH, and those with web apps, too. Better let them know how they’re not able to make money without paying Apple.

Indicating that it’s impossible for a developer to make money while paying a 15% commission OR that it’s impossible for a developer to make money without developing very specifically for the iPhone just isn’t reality. I understand a lot of developers WANT to develop for the iPhone, Apple has built a large number of customers that pay for digital content. But want is the effective word. No one is forcing them, no one is coercing them, and in 100% of the cases, it was a choice the developer made.

 

[1674117]

Just because you have arbitrarily decided you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the source doesn’t exist.

Nobody up to this point provided a source to their claims 🤷‍♀️
Your links don’t either, fraudulent transactions are a part of charging facilities not malware prevention. Visa and Mastercard do the same for a LOT less than 30%

 

[1674117]

Indicating that it’s impossible for a developer to make money while paying a 15% commission

Nobody said that as far as I can tell. The argument is that they’d make more money if Apple didn’t take so much of their money, which is clearly the case.
I’m curious why you’re trying so hard to believe Apple’s fees are justified, it’s a weird stance to take.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The App Store stopped over $2.2 billion in fraudulent transactions in 2025

In 2025, Apple prevented over $2.2 billion in potentially fraudulent transactions, adding to a total of more than $11.2 billion in the past six years.

www.apple.com

The App Store prevented more than $9 billion in fraudulent transactions

In the last five years, the App Store has protected users by preventing over $9 billion in fraudulent transactions, including over $2 billion in 2024.

www.apple.com

Just because you have arbitrarily decided you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the source doesn’t exist.

Yeah, this is a case where even if you were to find another source, it’s VERY easy to just say, “Oh well Apple could have paid them off”. And if you show proof that Apple didn’t pay them off, “Well, they probably have a relative or friend that works for Apple”. And if you show proof that there is no one they’re related to or an acquaintance of that is connected to Apple, “Well, they’re probably a shareholder…”

You’re in the realm of “I know this to be a fact, change my view.” 🙂

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Nobody said that as far as I can tell. The argument is that they’d make more money if Apple didn’t take so much of their money, which is clearly the case.
I’m curious why you’re trying so hard to believe Apple’s fees are justified, it’s a weird stance to take.

So, the weird stance to take is actually, “Every company in the world currently accepting commissions based on an agreed to sum between the two parties is fine. But it’s not fine for <this one company>.” It doesn’t even matter what the name of the one company is. Just a weird stance. 😉

 

[surferfb]

Nobody up to this point provided a source to their claims 🤷‍♀️
Your links don’t either, fraudulent transactions are a part of charging facilities not malware prevention. Visa and Mastercard do the same for a LOT less than 30%

Just think about this logically for a second. If what you are claiming is true, and the App Store does little to nothing to prevent fraud, don’t you think we’d see that reflected in data? Don’t you think security researchers would be chiming in saying “not true”. Wouldn’t you expect to see a similar malware rate on iOS and Android? What is your explanation for that? What is your explanation for MacOS having more malware than iOS?

Again, reasonable people can disagree whether Apple’s restrictions are worth it. But you can’t argue that Apple’s restrictions provide zero benefit. You said “Apple's App Store policies don't increase the safety and security of iOS devices” and then cite “some stuff gets through” as proof. That’s not how this works. That’s like arguing a vaccine that prevents 95% of people from getting sick is useless because you know someone who got sick despite getting the vaccine.

 

[1674117]

Yeah, this is a case where even if you were to find another source, it’s VERY easy to just say, “Oh well Apple could have paid them off”. And if you show proof that Apple didn’t pay them off, “Well, they probably have a relative or friend that works for Apple”. And if you show proof that there is no one they’re related to or an acquaintance of that is connected to Apple, “Well, they’re probably a shareholder…”

You’re in the realm of “I know this to be a fact, change my view.” 🙂

No, we’re in the realm of no evidence being shown to support claims whatsoever. If it’s true, you can provide evidence. The fact that you’re posting this instead suggests even you don’t think you’re right.
Attacking me for asking says more about you than me. I provided evidence when asked.