Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil

[MacRumors]

Apple today announced that developers in Brazil will be allowed to distribute iPhone apps through alternative app marketplaces on iOS, and accept payments through third-party platforms. In other words, developers in Brazil will be able to circumvent the App Store and Apple's in-app purchase system, but there are still fees.

Alternative app marketplaces will have to be authorized by Apple and will need to meet ongoing requirements. For apps that are still distributed through the App Store, developers will be able to include an alternative payment processing method in their app and/or link users to a website to complete a transaction.

These changes are available on iOS 26.5 and later, and they are the result of regulatory action from Brazil's competition regulator. Apple has added a new page on its website with additional details for developers in Brazil.

Apple said these changes introduce privacy and security risks for users, including children. The company has introduced safeguards to mitigate these risks, including a notarization process for iOS apps, an authorization process for app marketplaces, and limitations on external links and alternative payments for users under the age of 18.

Apple has already allowed alternative app stores and/or third-party payment systems on iOS in the EU, Japan, and South Korea, and it will likely be forced to do so in the UK and Australia too, due to similar regulations in those countries.

Fees

iOS apps distributed on the App Store in Brazil will be able to take advantage of a lower commission of up to 21% on digital goods and services, down from a maximum of 30%, but many developers qualify for a commission as low as 10% through things such as the Small Business Program, Video Partner Program, and Mini Apps Partner Program.

If an app uses the App Store's in-app purchase system, there is an additional 5% fee.

Developers with iOS apps on the App Store in Brazil will pay a commission of 15% on transactions for digital goods and services made on a website linked to by the developer's app. In some cases, this commission will be lowered to 10%.

iOS apps distributed outside of the App Store in Brazil will be required to pay a 5% commission on the sale of digital goods and services, including paid apps. Apple says this "Core Technology Commission" compensates it for the tools, technologies, and services that enable developers to offer apps to iOS users.

By July 6, 2026, all current members of the Apple Developer Program will need to agree to an updated Apple Developer Program License Agreement, which includes new terms that allow for these options in Brazil.

Article Link: Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil

 

[2low_tech]

Apple needs to bite the bullet and just roll this out everywhere. It’s inevitable It’s going to happen no sense waiting for governments force you to do it.

 

[one more]

This reminds me of what Apple did in the EU a while ago, implementing it in such an awkward way that not much end-user benefit came out of it.

 

[UliBaer]

It's all about the money anyway...

Now it's called "Core Technology Commission" from former "Core Technology Fee". 🤣

 

[svish]

Good to know and it is not surprising.With various regulations in different countries, Apple is being forced to comply. Think it is only a matter of time before similar changes appear in many other countries.

 

[scha94]

Say what you will about apple deserving their fair share for building the technologies etc ($99 developer fee?) but with over 1 billion active iphones out in the wild they’re no longer just a platform providing value but an active chokehold on app and web development. Imagine if it were the same on mac os or windows, 15 - 30% of every transaction going to apple/microsoft simply through buying digital goods and software using your computer.. what a nightmare

 

[Samplasion]

It's all about the money anyway...

Now it's called "Core Technology Commission" from former "Core Technology Fee". 🤣

I think the "Commission" is a step up from the "Fee", as it seems to be calculated based on developer earnings from apps and not a flat fee per install count.

 

[erikkfi]

I don’t understand why these junk fees are allowed when Apple isn’t even distributing the apps. The whole world has gone insane.

 

[jdavid_rp]

Apple needs to bite the bullet and just roll this out everywhere. It’s inevitable It’s going to happen no sense waiting for governments force you to do it.

Moneywise it makes sense as it makes the usage propagation more slowly. If it was available worldwide devs would be more inclined to make apps for AltStore and more people on social networks would be talking about it.

 

[surferfb]

I don’t understand why these junk fees are allowed when Apple isn’t even distributing the apps. The whole world has gone insane.

Because the App doesn’t exist and doesn’t run without use of Apple’s intellectual property, which they are entitled to be compensated for.

 

[homosensus]

These fees are a joke. It's apple trying to reinvent the computer. The Macbook works absolutely fine without the lock onto the apple app store so using the 'privacy' jargon to justify their grip on the app store is infuriating.

 

[homosensus]

Because the App doesn’t exist and doesn’t run without use of Apple’s intellectual property, which they are entitled to be compensated for.

Why? We buy their devices. That should be sufficient compensation no? Do developers pay apple to be able to have their software available on the internet to be installed on a macbook?

 

[Cesar Battistini]

Noooooo!

Let the fragmentation and Androidization of iOS begin......

And yes, Apple is all about money, it's a private company.

 

[surferfb]

Why? We buy their devices. That should be sufficient compensation no? Do developers pay apple to be able to have their software available on the internet to be installed on a macbook?

The device purchasers are different than the developers. The consumer bought hardware and the right to use it; Apple got its margin on that sale. The developer is a separate commercial actor running a business on top of the platform and monetizing Apple’s user base. Apple is well within its rights to ask for compensation for that commercial actor’s use of Apple’s IP.

iOS and macOS are two different products embodying two different bargains, that were built in different eras with different assumptions.

Apple has always advertised iPhone a curated, integrated, single-rail platform where the payment system and the security model are part of the product. I don’t think an option for that sort of platform should be taken away from those who want it when the other option exists for those who care.

Forcing Apple open is also a huge net negative for security and privacy. There’s a reason Android has a lot more malware than iOS, and it’s not because Apple users are more sophisticated or Apple hires better engineers.

 

[iOS Geek]

These fees are a joke. It's apple trying to reinvent the computer. The Macbook works absolutely fine without the lock onto the apple app store so using the 'privacy' jargon to justify their grip on the app store is infuriating.

In my opinion…the app experience on Mac is NOT fine. It is a complete PITA and the reason it is the least favorite of my Apple devices to deal with. Having to go to multiple different places to get what I need and manage it is unnecessarily annoying. Personally, I don’t want that same crap experience on my other Apple devices.

 

[MilaM]

In my opinion…the app experience on Mac is NOT fine. It is a complete PITA and the reason it is the least favorite of my Apple devices to deal with. Having to go to multiple different places to get what I need and manage it is unnecessarily annoying. Personally, I don’t want that same crap experience on my other Apple devices.

You could use your iPad as a desktop. Pro models can drive pretty large external screen nowadays.

 

[turbineseaplane]

These changes are available on iOS 26.5 and later, and they are the result of regulatory action from Brazil's competition regulator.

Must be nice to live in places where regulators do things …. At all

 

[turbineseaplane]

This reminds me of what Apple did in the EU a while ago, implementing it in such an awkward way that not much end-user benefit came out of it.

We have a term for that. It’s called malicious compliance.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don’t understand why these junk fees are allowed when Apple isn’t even distributing the apps. The whole world has gone insane.

I agree with you. It feels like sanctioned rent seeking.

 

[rjp1]

Because the App doesn’t exist and doesn’t run without use of Apple’s intellectual property, which they are entitled to be compensated for.

One hand washes the other.

If the apps don't exist, then people have no use for the iPhone - and their percentage of 0 is 0.

 

[scha94]

The device purchasers are different than the developers. The consumer bought hardware and the right to use it; Apple got its margin on that sale. The developer is a separate commercial actor running a business on top of the platform and monetizing Apple’s user base. Apple is well within its rights to ask for compensation for that commercial actor’s use of Apple’s IP.

iOS and macOS are two different products embodying two different bargains, that were built in different eras with different assumptions.

Apple has always advertised iPhone a curated, integrated, single-rail platform where the payment system and the security model are part of the product. I don’t think an option for that sort of platform should be taken away from those who want it when the other option exists for those who care.

Forcing Apple open is also a huge net negative for security and privacy. There’s a reason Android has a lot more malware than iOS, and it’s not because Apple users are more sophisticated or Apple hires better engineers.

You're right apple marketed ios as a curated platform but it isn't a stretch to think competition would force them to prove security and privacy deserves the premium they're charging for it. Regardless of what consumers choose and when, having a sole company act as regulator, competitor and landlord simultaneously over a platform that is the gateway to the internet for over a billion people, i hope, would give anyone pause

 

[I7guy]

Must be nice to live in places where regulators do things …. At all

One could always move there. However it’s not like the regulators in the US don’t do “anything”

 

[I7guy]

You're right apple marketed ios as a curated platform but it isn't a stretch to think competition would force them to prove security and privacy deserves the premium they're charging for it.

It’s not a stretch to think people could pass on a company that produces a discretionary product.

Regardless of what consumers choose and when, having a sole company act as regulator, competitor and landlord simultaneously over a platform that is the gateway to the internet for over a billion people, i hope, would give anyone pause

Nope no pause here. Other than some oddball situations Apple is not a monopoly. And the app store is their product which launched a few companies and should be left alone. The cure for gatekeeperism is worse than the disease.

 

[scha94]

It’s not a stretch to think people could pass on a company that produces a discretionary product.

Nope no pause here. Other than some oddball situations Apple is not a monopoly. And the app store is their product which launched a few companies and should be left alone. The cure for gatekeeperism is worse than the disease.

No one is saying monopoly. Regulated competition is not the same as no gatekeeping at all. Telecommunications, banking, payment providers, airlines, literally 1998 microsoft.. the cure is rarely worse than the disease. You can target intervention without burning the house down

 

[BGrifter]

Must be nice to live in places where regulators do things …. At all

To be fair to American regulators, they do a very effective job of keeping competition from Huawei out.

It would be nice if they considered doing good things for a change though.