Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,732
41,066


Apple returned to court this week to argue that a federal judge exceeded their authority when they held the company in contempt and barred it from collecting any commission on external in-app transactions, Bloomberg reports.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

Apple told the appeals court that a U.S. District Judge went further than their 2021 order allowed when they banned Apple from taking any commission on purchases made outside apps. Apple said the order only required it to allow links to outside payments, not to stop collecting fees entirely.

Apple argued that if the judge disagreed with its approach, they should have clarified the order instead of punishing the company for contempt. It told the judges that the contempt ruling was "punitive" and that Apple is entitled to "some compensation" when developers use its platform and ecosystem.

Epic told the court that Apple knowingly violated the order instead of asking for clarification. The company said Apple only started claiming it should be paid for external purchases after it was caught violating the injunction.

The case arises from Epic's 2020 decision to add an external payment link to Fortnite, which led to its removal from the App Store. In response to the 2021 order allowing alternative payments, Apple created a new 27% fee on external transactions. Epic argued this violated the spirit of the order. A judge later agreed and held Apple in contempt, banning any commission on external payments. Apple is now asking the Ninth Circuit to overturn that contempt ruling.

Article Link: Apple and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and Starfia
No company should get a free ride on Apple's platform.
Epic wants no more of a free ride than what other companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, etc get. They're asking to be treated the same as them.

Does Apple get a cut of sales from these companies? No.

Why should Epic, Spotify, etc give Apple a cut of sales when Apple isn't hosting their content, just the downloadable app?

Why isn't Apple claiming that macOS app developers are getting a free ride by being able to sell their apps outside of the Mac App Store where Apple gets $0.00 from the sale?
 
Epic wants no more of a free ride than what other companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, etc get. They're asking to be treated the same as them.

Does Apple get a cut of sales from these companies? No.

Why should Epic, Spotify, etc give Apple a cut of sales when Apple isn't hosting their content, just the downloadable app?

Why isn't Apple claiming that macOS app developers are getting a free ride by being able to sell their apps outside of the Mac App Store where Apple gets $0.00 from the sale?
Isn’t the difference between them that McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks provide physical goods & service vs digital?

I agree that the double standard existing between Mac/iPhone should not be ignored, especially since the two platforms are closer than ever now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plutonius
Some things caught my eye here

I’m also very interested in the below in Bold.

Upon hearing Apple’s arguments, the court seemed interested in understanding how Apple would calculate exactly how much it should be compensated for payments processed outside the App Store, while also questioning Apple’s commitment to actually solving the issue:

The court, however, was skeptical of Apple’s argument that the decision should apply only to Epic Games rather than to all App Store developers in the United States. In response, Mr. Garre maintained that the ruling should be limited to Epic, and that other developers would need to bring their own lawsuits if they wanted similar changes to affect them.
 
Epic wants no more of a free ride than what other companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, etc get. They're asking to be treated the same as them.

Does Apple get a cut of sales from these companies? No.

Why should Epic, Spotify, etc give Apple a cut of sales when Apple isn't hosting their content, just the downloadable app?

Why isn't Apple claiming that macOS app developers are getting a free ride by being able to sell their apps outside of the Mac App Store where Apple gets $0.00 from the sale?
Why does anybody still think this is a reasonable argument? The obvious answer is that Apple gets to decide what it charges for access to its platform. Just like any other company. I can charge a fee for posting hearts, but allow people to post other emojis for free.

The court in the Epic case in the US has confirmed that Apple has a right to charge for access to its platform. It's like people are totally unaware of any business arrangements outside of what they are currently discussing!
 
Some things caught my eye here

I’m also very interested in the below in Bold.

Upon hearing Apple’s arguments, the court seemed interested in understanding how Apple would calculate exactly how much it should be compensated for payments processed outside the App Store, while also questioning Apple’s commitment to actually solving the issue:

The court, however, was skeptical of Apple’s argument that the decision should apply only to Epic Games rather than to all App Store developers in the United States. In response, Mr. Garre maintained that the ruling should be limited to Epic, and that other developers would need to bring their own lawsuits if they wanted similar changes to affect them.
In all honesty, all companies should be required to submit financial data to Apple and the share calculated from it.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ProbablyDylan
Apple might not be able to keep taking a 30% or 15% cut on some of these transactions, but there was no way the previous court ruling was ever going to fully stand. Companies have the right to charge for their goods and services. This is likely going to end in a reduced commission, but not zero commission.
 
Epic wants no more of a free ride than what other companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, etc get. They're asking to be treated the same as them.

Does Apple get a cut of sales from these companies? No.

Why should Epic, Spotify, etc give Apple a cut of sales when Apple isn't hosting their content, just the downloadable app?

Because if McD/Amazon/Starbucks/Uber were forced to give Apple 30%, the business would be unsustainable. If a business is unsustainable through an app, that app will never be made and Apple's customers would never get that app. Exceptions were made.

Let's not forget Tim Sweeney of Epic praised Apple's App Store after the release of Infinity Blade saying developers can "flourish" because of the App Store.
Screenshot 2025-10-23 at 10.02.08 AM.png
 
Apple is forcing app developers to use their ecosystem, their argument is fundamentally flawed - there are no alternative app stores, therefore no other option for developers to put apps on consumer phones, and the phones do not belong to apple. That same logic can be used to justify allowing alt app stores and even sideloading.
 
Epic wants no more of a free ride than what other companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, etc get. They're asking to be treated the same as them.

Does Apple get a cut of sales from these companies? No.

I can’t figure out if people don’t realize this or they are just “ok” with different rules for different companies all using the exact same amount of Apple IP, services, APIs, etc.

The arbitrary nature and selective application of Apple rules is a huge issue and problem, walled garden debates aside.
 
I can’t figure out if people don’t realize this or they are just “ok” with different rules for different companies all using the exact same amount of Apple IP, services, APIs, etc.

The arbitrary nature and selective application of Apple rules is a huge issue and problem, walled garden debates aside.
Personally speaking, it's Apple's IP and they should get to choose how to charge for absent a really compelling reason.

I think "digital goods and services are almost exclusively designed to be used and enjoyed on the device, have zero marginal cost, and wouldn't exist and function on said device without Apple's IP" is a perfectly reasonable reason to charge them when you don't charge for physical goods and services.

Understand reasonable people can disagree on that, but it's not like it's because Tim Cook is saying "I like McDonalds but not spotify."
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.