US Supreme Court declines to hear appeals in Apple-Epic Games legal battle
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals in the Apple–Epic Games case, leaving in place lower-court rulings that Apple does not hold an illegal monopoly over mobile games but did violate California law with “anti-steering” rules that blocked apps from pointing users to cheaper payment options outside the App Store. Commenters examine what this means for in-app payments, noting Apple can still charge commissions on many external payments and is responding with tightly controlled linking rules. The conversation broadens into whether iOS and Android app stores function as de facto monopolies, how antitrust law and regulation should adapt to vertically integrated tech platforms, and whether courts or legislatures are the right venues to change the status quo.
App-store control and device ownership
- Many commenters dislike Apple’s walled garden and want to “own” their phones: sideload apps, run alternative OSes, and install real firewalls/VPNs.
- Others argue most users value safety, convenience, and integrated experiences more than openness, and simply choose iOS or Android accordingly.
Sideloading, open phones, and tradeoffs
- Sideloading is seen by some as essential freedom; others warn it could enable worse privacy abuses by big apps without Apple/Google as gatekeepers.
- Linux phones (Librem 5, Pinephone) are cited as fully open alternatives, but commenters say they’re not yet reliable as daily drivers and lack key ecosystem features (e.g., NFC wallets, broad app support).
Legal outcome of Apple–Epic
- Courts defined the relevant market as mobile gaming broadly, not “iOS games,” and found Apple lacks monopoly power there.
- Epic lost on federal antitrust claims but won under California’s unfair competition law on Apple’s “anti-steering” rules that blocked developers from pointing users to cheaper external payments.
California law, jurisdiction, and scope
- Discussion covers why California law applies: companies doing business with Californians fall under its rules, regardless of HQ.
- Some note that one state’s regulation can effectively become national if companies don’t want to geofence or exit that market.
Supreme Court’s cert denial
- Several emphasize SCOTUS didn’t “side” with anyone; it found no novel federal or constitutional question worth review.
- Commenters debate the Court’s proper role: applying existing law vs. “fixing” perceived unfairness, and argue genuine reform must come from legislatures.
Monopoly, platforms, and antitrust
- Long debate on whether iOS/Android app stores are monopolies: formal vs. legal definitions, duopoly dynamics, and vertical integration (hardware, OS, store, payments, messaging).
- Some see Apple’s closed stack as harmful private “feudal” markets; others say vertical integration and “innocent monopolies” are legal unless abused post-dominance.
Payment alternatives and Apple’s response
- Anti-steering win means apps can tell users about cheaper external purchase options.
- Apple’s compliance: special “external purchase” links allowed, but Apple still charges a reduced commission (e.g., 27%/12%) on sales traced to those links, which many view as “malicious compliance.”
- Commenters debate whether users will trade Apple’s frictionless, trusted IAP for modest savings via external processors, and whether developers will bother given extra complexity.