In April 2023, the Court of Appeals largely upheld the judge’s order, favouring Apple on nine out of ten counts but finding Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions to be anti-competitive. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021, which stated that Apple could not prevent developers from offering links to payment options outside of the App Store,ĭuring the appeals process in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Epic Games challenged significant aspects of the judge’s ruling that were favourable to Apple, while Apple contested the order specifically related to the App Store.

The case stems from an order issued by U.S. “I suspect most app developers will find a happy medium at some point in time.Apple has announced its intention to seek the US Supreme Court’s review of an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, which could potentially require Apple to allow third-party payment systems within its App Store. “The fact remains that the App Store is the world’s most popular place to find apps,” said Kumar. Regardless of whether Apple will enact an upfront cost for app developers, it still owns the largest app market. “There is just no point for Apple to keep an app on its App Store if they’re not going to make money off of it.” “I suspect what will happen is that the model for the App Store might be tweaked down the line where you as an app developer will have to pay upfront if it’s going to have a significant amount of transactions down the line,” said Kumar of Piper Sandler. Currently, app developers like Epic Games can publish its applications on Apple’s operating system for free. I expect this to have at most a 2% headwind to overall revenue and 4% to earnings.”ĭeeper implications of the App Store with this ruling remains to be seen. As for impact, overall the App Store is about 7% of total revenue and 14% of profits. “Epic won the steering count and Apple won that it’s not a monopoly. “It’s a mixed bag for both Apple and Epic,” he said. Gene Munster, managing partner and cofounder of venture firm Loup Ventures, agrees. But Apple wants to have complete control, and that is clearly not what happened.” “The ruling is irrelevant in terms of how much of a financial impact it will have on Apple.

“The ruling is definitely not as positive as Apple is trying to make it,” said Harsh Kumar, an analyst at Piper Sandler. No mention of the new requirement for alternative app store payments. She adds: “We are still analyzing the decision which is 180 pages long but the headline is that Apple’s app store business model has been validated.” “The Court has confirmed, after reviewing evidence from a 16-day trial, that Apple is not a monopolist in any relevant market and that its agreements with app developers are legal under the antitrust laws.” “We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling and we consider this a huge win for Apple,” said Kate Adams, senior vice president and general counsel at Apple, in a statement the day after the verdict was announced. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace.” “As the Court recognized ‘success is not illegal.’ Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world.

“Today the Court has affirmed what we’ve known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law,” the statement read. Apple currently collects 15% to 30% of app developers’ revenue if the payments were transacted through its App Store.Ī statement from Apple released shortly after the ruling focused only on Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ conclusion that Apple is not an antitrust monopolist.

Apple vs epic ruling