The Ongoing Antitrust Battle Over Apple’s App Store

This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter that dives into a key story from the tech landscape. For insights into the ongoing legal challenges facing major tech players, keep an eye on the developments. The Stepback lands in subscribers’ inboxes at 8 AM ET.

How it started
Back in 1998, Microsoft, the dominant force in personal computing, found itself in hot water over antitrust violations, including its aggressive tactics against Apple, a much smaller competitor. While Microsoft commanded over 80% of the PC market, Apple’s QuickTime multimedia player posed a threat to its dominance. A court ruled that Microsoft had attempted to stifle QuickTime, pressuring Apple to abandon its Windows version and suggesting it would restrict distribution options if Apple didn’t comply.

Fast forward to today, and Apple’s position has dramatically changed. While it may not have dethroned Microsoft in the PC realm, it has become a powerhouse in mobile computing. The iPhone ecosystem generates revenue at multiple levels: from hardware sales to accessories, software services like Apple Music, and commissions from app developers on the App Store. Even the iOS search bar is a revenue generator, thanks to a deal that makes Google Search the default.

This immense power, coupled with Apple’s stringent control over its mobile ecosystem, has sparked significant backlash. Developers have accused Apple of copying their tools (a practice known as Sherlocking) and then locking them out of certain iOS features that its own tools can access. While copying isn’t typically illegal, restricting access can be. Many developers criticize the App Store commission, often referred to as the “Apple Tax,” and both developers and users express frustration over Apple’s resistance to third-party app stores and sideloading, which rival Google allows (albeit with its own restrictions).

In recent years, Apple has joined the ranks of major tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny. Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite, has been a vocal critic, filing legal complaints in various countries to push for its own payment system and a third-party app store on iOS. Governments worldwide, including those in the US, EU, Brazil, Korea, and Japan, are also seeking to challenge Apple’s tight grip on its digital ecosystem.

The core antitrust argument against Apple is straightforward: it has become the ultimate gatekeeper for billions of users’ primary computing devices, keeping competitors at bay while imposing hefty fees on the developers it allows in. While the specifics differ, the situation echoes the earlier case against Microsoft — both narratives revolve around a company restricting user freedom on personal devices.

Navigating the legal landscape surrounding iOS design has proven complex, and implementing changes is even more challenging.

How it’s going
Regulators and courts globally have mandated changes at Apple, particularly concerning the App Store, but progress has been sluggish. For over five years, Apple has been slow to comply with these orders.

One of the most notable antitrust cases was initiated by Epic in 2020, where it sought to compel Apple to open iOS to third-party app stores and alternative payment methods. While Apple largely won this battle — with a 2021 ruling affirming the safety benefits of its walled-garden approach — it has been embroiled in a lengthy dispute over a smaller issue: allowing developers to link to external payment systems. Courts have found that Apple intentionally failed to comply with this order, even imposing a “prohibitive” fee for its use. This isn’t the first time Apple has faced penalties for non-compliance; it previously incurred fines for not allowing third-party payments for dating apps in the Netherlands.

Apple also managed to sidestep collateral damage from another antitrust case, US v. Google, which found Google monopolizing the search market through its deal with Apple. However, a judge declined to ban such agreements after Apple argued they could harm its business.

In other regions, Apple has faced stricter demands, particularly from the EU, which introduced the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to foster competition. Under pressure in 2024, Apple began allowing third-party app stores on iOS in the EU, but it imposed numerous restrictions and fees that deterred developers from making the switch. A year later, Apple, alongside Meta, was fined for violating the DMA due to “overly strict” requirements and new fees. Additionally, Apple has refrained from introducing certain features in the EU, such as Live Translation for AirPods and iPhone Mirroring, citing challenges in supporting these features under DMA regulations.

Despite Apple’s resistance, some changes have occurred. For over a decade, purchasing ebooks through Amazon’s Kindle iOS app was impossible, but in mid-2025, Amazon began including “Get Book” links following the US court order. The alternative iOS app store, AltStore, launched in the EU and Japan, with plans to expand to Brazil and other regions; Epic also introduced its Epic Games Store on iOS in Europe. While Epic hasn’t disclosed its iOS store numbers, AltStore reported “hundreds of thousands of users” as of last October. In China, Apple recently reduced developer fees to avoid a potential investigation.

However, for many users, antitrust actions haven’t significantly altered the iPhone experience. Another EU third-party store, Setapp, shut down earlier this year, citing “still-evolving and complex business terms,” with Apple and the EU at odds over responsibility. iOS remains one of the two dominant smartphone platforms globally, and Apple retains substantial control over it.

What happens next
Apple is likely to continue its legal battles with governments. Countries like Australia are pushing for pro-competitive regulatory changes. In 2024, the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against Apple related to iOS, which is gradually moving toward trial — though judges may hesitate to impose drastic remedies even if a monopoly is established. Meanwhile, Chinese regulators are expected to keep pressing for further changes, which could become a significant issue for Apple in the coming year.

The EU and Apple will also be negotiating what DMA compliance will entail for iOS. Apple initially aimed to implement a new fee structure by early 2026 but claimed the EU “refused to let us implement the very changes that they requested,” citing a lack of response to its compliance plan and alleging “political delay tactics.”

In the meantime, a new potential threat looms for Apple: the rise of generative AI. Companies like OpenAI are working on creating a new computing pipeline that could bypass traditional phones and app stores, potentially introducing their own devices. Apple has made relatively few strides in AI and remains reliant on other companies as it attempts to enhance Siri. This situation could position Apple as an incumbent tech giant at risk of being disrupted by emerging technology, reminiscent of Microsoft’s challenges in the 90s with the web.

However, Apple has weathered previous challenges to its dominance, such as Mark Zuckerberg’s failed multibillion-dollar metaverse initiative. So far, losing the AI race hasn’t dented iPhone sales. Early attempts at AI-first phone alternatives have been underwhelming, and the concept of an AI app economy remains undefined. Thus, the struggle over Apple’s influence is likely to continue.

By the way
* Google, Apple’s competitor, operates a more open phone ecosystem with Android, but it has a worse antitrust history, having lost a legal battle with Epic that may end in a settlement, and it has been labeled a monopolist in the search and ad-tech sectors.
* Long before App Store competition became a hot topic, Apple was embroiled in a different, arguably stranger, antitrust case over ebook publishing, resulting from a 2012 DOJ lawsuit that accused it of colluding with major publishers to challenge Amazon’s market dominance. This case concluded with a $450 million settlement.
* Apple was a key target in a 2021 US congressional push for antitrust reform, with testimonies from companies like Tile and Spotify detailing its allegedly anticompetitive practices. As expected, this initiative ultimately failed.