Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind:<p>(1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the legal standing to bring this case at all.<p>(2) If Apple loses at the Supreme Court, this just gets sent back to a lower court. It's not going to force Apple to do anything at this point.<p>(3) Most importantly, there's no guarantee that if Apple <i>does</i> ultimately lose that the remedy will be opening the iOS ecosystem up to other app stores.<p>The complaint in <i>Apple v. Pepper</i> is literally that Apple's lock on app distribution drives up app prices. If app prices are not being driven up by that lock, the argument has a very good chance of falling apart.<p>This is not a case about what restrictions Apple puts on the app store , about software or device freedom, and it's not even a case about whether Apple's mandatory 30% cut is "fairly priced" by whatever definition of fair you care to use -- the case as filed literally hinges on the claim that iOS app prices are artificially inflated by that cut. And I think that in a world where people have been trained to think that $4.99 is a crazy high expensive price for software, that could be a real tough case to prove.