According to 9to5Mac, Apple is seeking permission to appeal a UK lawsuit that could cost the company between $1.3 billion and $2.6 billion. The case involves over 1,500 app developers who sued Apple in 2023 over what they called “abusive” commission levels. Last month, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled against Apple, finding that both developers and iPhone users were harmed by excessive fees. Today’s hearing will determine how damages are calculated, with final amounts decided sometime next year. The tribunal even cited Steve Jobs’ 2008 statement that Apple didn’t intend to make money from the App Store. This comes as Apple fights similar battles in the EU and just released a study arguing commissions don’t affect app pricing.
Apple’s four arguments look familiar
Apple’s appeal strategy relies on four main arguments that should sound familiar to anyone following their legal battles. First, they’re sticking with the “relevant market” debate – claiming they don’t dominate the “mobile apps” market globally, while courts keep saying the real market is “iPhone apps” where Apple has a 100% monopoly. Then there’s the games console comparison, arguing that 30% isn’t unusual. They’ll also push the security angle, saying third-party stores can’t match their privacy standards. And finally, they’ll point to that new study claiming lower commissions wouldn’t change app prices anyway.
Why this matters beyond the money
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just about billions in potential payouts. The UK case is becoming a crucial test for how Apple’s walled garden holds up against antitrust challenges worldwide. When courts start quoting Steve Jobs’ original vision against the company’s current practices, you know we’re in new territory. And the tribunal’s finding that Apple’s security arguments don’t justify blocking competition? That’s basically the same conclusion regulators are reaching in the EU and elsewhere. It’s starting to feel like the walls are closing in on Apple’s complete control over iOS app distribution.
What happens next in this legal chess match
The UK legal system has this interesting quirk where losing parties need permission to appeal. The tribunal could refuse Apple’s request today, but then Apple would just appeal that refusal. Given how much is at stake, this will probably work its way through the entire UK court system. Meanwhile, we’re seeing the same playbook unfold across multiple jurisdictions – Apple fighting to maintain its 30% cut while developers and regulators push back. It’s like watching the same movie with different actors. The real question is: how many more legal defeats can Apple absorb before the business model has to fundamentally change? Sasun Bughdaryan/Unsplash
The broader implications for tech
This case isn’t happening in isolation. We’re seeing similar challenges to Apple’s model everywhere from the EU’s Digital Markets Act to ongoing US litigation. What’s fascinating is how Apple’s arguments are becoming increasingly standardized across these different battles. They’re essentially using the same playbook worldwide. And when you consider that industrial computing often relies on specialized hardware like those from IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, it makes you wonder – should different rules apply to consumer versus industrial technology markets? Probably. But Apple’s trying to defend a one-size-fits-all approach that’s looking increasingly unsustainable.
