Apple has released a new update for its experimental browser Safari Technology Preview, bringing it to version 244. This tool, aimed primarily at developers and advanced users, introduces fixes and improvements across key areas such as Accessibility, Animations, CSS, Forms, HTML, Images, JavaScript, MathML, Media, Networking, Rendering, SVG, Scrolling, Security, Storage, Web API, Web Extensions, Web Inspector, WebAssembly, WebGL, and WebGPU. Support for WebGPU, in particular, represents a significant step forward for advanced graphics rendering and parallel computing directly in the browser, paving the way for more immersive and high-performance web applications.
The new Safari Technology Preview 244 is compatible with macOS Sequoia and the latest version of the operating system, macOS Tahoe. Users who have already downloaded the browser from Apple's official website can install the update through the standard Software Update mechanism in System Settings. Apple's stated goal is to gather feedback from the developer community and users to refine features that will be integrated into future stable versions of Safari. This iterative development cycle allows Apple to test innovations without compromising the end-user experience. The push for browser innovation is part of a broader context where artificial intelligence is rewriting digital interactions, as analyzed in this article on AI Everywhere, a phenomenon that also impacts software ecosystems.
The App Store Legal Battle Reaches the Supreme Court
Alongside technical updates, Apple has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the series of rulings that led to significant changes in App Store linking rules and commissions. The case originated from the 2021 lawsuit with Epic Games, where Apple secured a partial victory. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules, allowing developers to link to alternative payment options. Apple complied but introduced a 12-27% commission on external links instead of the standard 15-30%. Considering payment processor fees, developers saw little to no discount, and few opted in. Additionally, Apple restricted button design to a single plain text link.
Epic Games returned to the judge, claiming Apple was violating the court order. In April 2025, the judge found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating the 2021 injunction. Consequently, Apple was barred from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store and has collected no money for link-outs in third-party apps since then. Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Apple was in contempt but ruled that Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee for its intellectual property. Apple does not want courts deciding the fees it can collect and is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Apple raises two main issues. The first concerns the nature of the contempt itself: Apple argues that the original injunction did not prevent it from charging a fee when developers linked to third-party payment options. Both the district court and the appeals court agreed that Apple violated the spirit of the injunction by charging a high fee. Apple contends that prior court decisions have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been clearly and unambiguously violated. A contempt ruling based on spirit is a recipe for abuse, according to Apple. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 reinforces this understanding by demanding specificity in injunctions to ensure clear notice. The Ninth Circuit's spirit-based inquiry is antithetical to these requirements.
The second point concerns the scope of the injunction. Apple cites the case Trump v. CASA, a ruling stating that lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block nationwide policies. Apple argues that the court ruling requiring it to drop fees for all developers goes far beyond the scope of the Epic Games case, and any relief ordered should be limited to Epic. The current injunction enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered worldwide developers that are not parties to this case. Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple's conduct against all other developers was necessary to provide relief to Epic. According to Apple, the combination of contempt based on spirit and an order applicable to all developers has created an injunction that could reshape the global app marketplace.
Epic Games responded that the Supreme Court has already rejected Apple's previous attempt to overturn the injunction and that this challenge is a last-ditch Hail Mary to delay the case's conclusion and avoid opening the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers. Apple and Epic have agreed to an expedited schedule, and Apple's petition will be considered on June 25. A decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case is expected by the time the justices recess for the summer in late June or early July. For more context on how major tech companies face regulatory and operational challenges, see the article on Waymo suspending service in four cities. The legal battle, intertwined with technical innovation, shows Apple trying to maintain control over its platform while pushing forward the evolution of the web through projects like Safari Technology Preview. The resolution of this case could have profound implications for the entire app ecosystem and how developers monetize their work outside Apple's ecosystem. More details on the legal history between Apple and Epic Games are available on Wikipedia.
Sponsored Protocol
