Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[germanbeer007]

So hardware sales don’t cover the cost of running the App Store at all?

Well? Let's do some math.

50 mil registered apple developers (hardware not required to register btw). Let's assume 40% actually have some sort of Apple hardware.

20 mil registered devs with apple hardware. Of this 20 mil, how many didn't have Apple hardware and bought it for the sole purpose of developing for it? 25% I think is generous (if you disagree, let me know) so let's use that.

That's 5 million developers. App Store launched 17 years ago. That's about an extra 300k devices sold per year because of the developer program. That's maybe $400 million *revenue* per year. Of that revenue, maybe $3-$4 million goes towards App Store at best.

App Store costs Apple about a few billion per year to run.

Hardware sales don't cover the cost of running the App Store.

 

[germanbeer007]

You seem to be happy to choose Steam on the Mac. If it was like iOS (and i'm sure Apple would love to have it that way), you wouldn't have that option and you would have to sell it on the AppStore or not at all.

If a platform didn't offer me an option that I preferred, I won't buy/devote resources into that platform at all.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

Does this make a better customer experience that I have to leave the app? No. Wouldn't it be easier if I could just us Apple Pay for 2% or less commission and pay through the app? Yes. But that's not allowed. DUMB that it's not allowed. It's NETFLIX'S APP! They should be able to do what they want. Just like amazon does just like everyone does on a website. No COMPANY should own how your app does payments and 1000000% no company should get 30% of your digital products money! They did NOTHING to get it!!

Well, the AppStore rules are what they are. If you’re going to develop an app, you look at the app stores and decide if you want to play. Or not.

As for Apple doing nothing for that 30% … you are kidding right? They built an ecosystem from nothing. That ecosystem has hundreds of millions of users worldwide who all see your app. Your app is hosted on Apple’s servers and - oh yes - Apple takes care of the cost of your app downloads as well.

They also take care of all financials dealing with customer, both with regards to payments, subscription renewals and returns.

They do all that in return for a commission. You could argue that said commission is too high, but saying that Apple does nothing to earn that commission is just crazy.

 

[zahuh]

Well, the AppStore rules are what they are. If you’re going to develop an app, you look at the app stores and decide if you want to play. Or not.

As for Apple doing nothing for that 30% … you are kidding right? They built an ecosystem from nothing. That ecosystem has hundreds of millions of users worldwide who all see your app. Your app is hosted on Apple’s servers and - oh yes - Apple takes care of the cost of your app downloads as well.

They also take care of all financials dealing with customer, both with regards to payments, subscription renewals and returns.

They do all that in return for a commission. You could argue that said commission is too high, but saying that Apple does nothing to earn that commission is just crazy.

Your argument is broken in so many ways
1) CA law says Apple is unlawful
2) Then every digital purchase on my Mac should be 30% too?
3) For people like me, I believe apple deserves a cut for paid apps, and should not get anything from any other creator for in-app purchases. Once I'm in the app, just like I'm on a website, Apple is not controlling the experience.

 

[zahuh]

The idea that Apple “did nothing” is just wrong. The reason in-app purchases work as smoothly as they do is because of Apple’s APIs, payment processing, fraud prevention, refund handling, parental controls, and integration with Apple ID and Apple Pay. That’s all infrastructure Apple built and maintains.

I’d also argue that Apple’s strict rules are a big part of why consumers feel comfortable spending money in apps at all. People trust that if it’s in the App Store, it’s safe. That was not guaranteed after the late 1990s and early 2000s when viruses and scams were rampant. That trust is a large part of what drives the billions flowing through mobile apps today.

Netflix can avoid the fee (and they did) by removing in-app signup. What Apple objects to is companies wanting the benefit of selling inside the App Store (trusted, one-tap payments to a billion users) without paying for the value Apple created. That’s not ‘nothing.’ That’s the product

Hey Apple Pay works smoothly too. Would love to use the same Apple Pay 2% commission payment system I use on my website in my app. You just don't get it. Thank God CA judge gets it and deemed Apple unlawful. Seems very weird you are defending someone that was unlawful. I'll stick with defending the innocent.

 

[surferfb]

Hey Apple Pay works smoothly too. Would love to use the same Apple Pay 2% commission payment system I use on my website in my app. You just don't get it. Thank God CA judge gets it and deemed Apple unlawful. Seems very weird you are defending someone that was unlawful. I'll stick with defending the innocent.

CA courts ruled Apple was not in violation of the law you’re referencing. A federal judge incorrectly ruled Apple was in violation of said law. Unfortunately for Apple, the California courts didn’t rule until after the federal case was over, so the federal judge’s ruling stuck on a timing technicality.

If someone is convicted of a crime, and then is later exonerated, we don’t continue to say that person is guilty. Even if they were punished before they were exonerated. Same deal here.

 

[macduke]

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today

I mean, the constitution has lost all meaning in 2025, so that’s a weak position to take.

 

[zahuh]

CA courts ruled Apple was not in violation of the law you’re referencing. A federal judge incorrectly ruled Apple was in violation of said law. Unfortunately for Apple, the California courts didn’t rule until after the federal case was over, so the federal judge’s ruling stuck on a timing technicality.

If someone is convicted of a crime, and then is later exonerated, we don’t continue to say that person is guilty. Even if they were punished before they were exonerated. Same deal here.

1) Well.. I copied and pasted your message in multiple platforms and they ALL said you're not correct.

"So the statement that “the federal judge incorrectly ruled” and that the ruling only “stuck on a timing technicality” isn’t accurate. It’s a genuine federal/state-law conflict that arose after a final federal judgment; resolving that conflict (if at all) requires appellate modification, not a retroactive “exoneration.”

"The scenario you described appears to be a mischaracterization of the Epic Games v. Apple case, as a federal judge did not incorrectly rule Apple was in violation of the law, but rather that Apple did violate the existing injunction by substituting a 27% fee for the previously prohibited 30% commission on off-App Store purchases."


2) I don't want to continue to speak to someone who speaks facts and doesn't look them up to realize they have been wrong this entire time and won't admit it.

Okay, to conclude, you believe Apple should get 30% and continue to be one massive company taking 30% from all creators and developers. I believe once the experience is controlled by the developer/creator, the creator/dev should get the 30% and decide how they want to do their own payment system (could be to use Apple's). Making a market where companies can compete and improve to be the best payment system. You are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

 

[v3rlon]

I bought something on amazon.com on my Mac, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! I bought something on Ebay app, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! It's done on Apple's device and they should get a piece of every transaction!!! Oh wait, doesn't make ANY SENSE and they've made BILLIONS. I wish someone would sue them and give us developers our money back WE EARNED by a user going to our website/app and buying something.

I have decided to use your store to sell my products. I take up floorspace in your store, leverage your advertising, your existing customers, and even compete with some of your products, but you are not allowed to charge me anything because that wouldn't be fair.

 

[zahuh]

I have decided to use your store to sell my products. I take up floorspace in your store, leverage your advertising, your existing customers, and even compete with some of your products, but you are not allowed to charge me anything because that wouldn't be fair.

Your analogy is completely correct, just doesn't represent this topic though. But good job yes I agree with what you said.

To think about what we're discussing, think of it like google taking 30% cause you searched on google. Think of it like you have a website and because the person went on your website from a Mac, you must use Apple's payment system only.

These are what we are discussing that is not fair. People can control their own website and choose their own payment method. Should be the same with apps. The reason it's not the same with apps is because Apple created this system so they could make money from it. If apps could be downloaded like they are on the Mac, from a website or App Store, and people got to choose what they wanted and the devs get to choose how payments work, everything would be great. The Mac is king. We want the iPhone to be like the Mac.

And lastly, the judge agreed against Apple, so whatever you are arguing just remember you may disagree with the judge but Apple was found unlawful.

 

[Rogifan]

It’s no different from taxes being used to pay for infrastructure which benefits everybody.

I have no insight into what percentage Apple needs to charge in order to break even, but I suspect it’s nowhere as low as everyone is making it out to be.

Ballpark - 15-20% at least.

Besides, it’s all gachas and IAPs these days. Apple could charge them 50% and I wouldn’t shed a tear.

There is no law which states Apple is obligated to use hardware profits to pay for the App Store and not allowed to make a cent of profit off it. What’s wrong with Apple enjoying the best of both worlds and having both profitable hardware and a profitable App Store and well, just being able to extract handsome profits from every aspect of its ecosystem?

OK so you’re saying the cost of running the App Store is (or should be) 100% funded by developers? No percentage of hardware sales go to running the App Store? Did Steve Jobs ever say that?

Where is the law that states apps developers are obligated to cover the cost of Apple’s App Store? If there was no App Store and no 3rd party apps how much do you think Apple could charge for an iPhone?

 

[Rogifan]

how about when I buy something from Amazon, the next week i get at least one "purchase" email that is a scam.

someone is accessing that i bought something on Amazon and feeding it to a scammer.
my partner also gets them. "Oh, i've bought another iPhone 16 Pro so i better click on that link in the email".

it happens.

Sorry for you if you got scammed. Hasn’t happened to me. 🤷‍♀️

 

[Bigbuddy1]

EPIC does NOT, repeat DOES NOT get to dictate what ANY OTHER COMPANY CAN or SHOULD make. EVER. This is not something any company gets to do to another company. Whatever EPIC pays to run a similar system is THEIR business.

And people get hacked all the time from businesses that don't do the right thing to protect their customers/clients/members/etc. It happens ALL THE TIME. Apple at least is trying by saying "Look, you have to sell this way. It will ensure the end user is as secure as possible with anything that gets downloaded via the store. And in return, we ask for up to 30% of the sale price. For that YOU the developer gets access to all our VERY LOYAL and PAYING customer base". All sales are SALES, no theft no "sharing" of an application with another persons computer.

If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Just look online at the daily hackathon that happens world wide because company A got hacked, and YOU get your information all over the dark web. And for your troubles you get like $20 back and maybe a few months of free credit monitoring.

When countries are pissed they can't get access your MY information from MY device. That's the brand I'll stick with.

I suppose it comes down to this either Apple doesn’t think that companies can’t process refunds on digital transactions and thinks they can’t be trusted because of security and if that’s the case then why allow them on the app store if you think that
Or it’s you want to maintain their bottom line and squeeze more cash out of individuals.

Because we live in an era where individuals of all ages are given smartphones then unfortunately in some cases things go wrong
However in most cases it is caused by the individual because they generally don’t understand and are given these devices fresh out the box with no help nobody because certain companies say it just works out the box so in turn by doing that no wonder individuals have issues but putting a payment link in an app will not make a blind bit of difference to privacy and security anyway because you can still by things on the internet using your iPhone anyway
So this argument is nonsense.

 

[Rogifan]

We can’t know if Jobs wanted it to always be a break even part of Apple. It’s not worth speculating about what he would or would not want for it.

Is 30% needed? Not to break even (see my long comment about this earlier in this thread where I work out the math). 10% is likely around that point (maybe — Epic is losing money with a 12% store fee but it’s also trying to compete with Steam so it spends a lot of money giving away games). 15% is likely the point that would allow Apple to make a decent but relatively small profit, margins-wise.

The last thing I’ll add is that Steve Jobs was a fan of high margins — or at least allowed the company to have them. If you dig through old Apple data from the early 1990s (requires some leg work to find the news articles from old papers), you can see high margins back then.

Apple margins were not high in the 1990s (1994, for example was gross around 25% but net was only about 3.5%) until after Jobs came back to Apple. Under his leadership gross margins got back to 40%.

One thing we do know is back in 2011 Phil Schiller argued that Apple should reduce the App Store fees once App Store revenues hit $1B.

Also, Schiller apparently initially opposed the 27% fee on purchases made outside an app.

Apple's Phil Schiller Initially Opposed 27% App Store Fee on External Purchases

Apple Fellow Phil Schiller testified in court on Monday that he initially opposed the 27% commission Apple now charges on purchases made outside the...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Rogifan]

In summary, the law is on Apple's side when it comes to them requiring developers to use their IAP system for in-app purchases. Or at least it was until Judge Yvonne did an about-face and ruled otherwise, which is exactly what Apple is fighting to overturn right now.

And in 2024 the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from Apple or Epic. Not sure what has changed between then and now that would make the Supreme Court decide to take the case.

 

[Rogifan]

How about the entire technology behind the App Store. The platform, the servers, etc. Apple provides the marketplace for other companies to sell their apps, Apple should fairly get a cut. No different than merchants using Amazon to sell their merch, guess what…Amazon gets a cut.

OK so then why are any apps free? Why doesn’t every app have to cost something and a percentage of that something go to Apple to fund the App Store?

If there were no App Store and no 3rd party apps what do you think Apple could sell an iPhone for? How popular do you think it would be? A lot of the responses here make it sound like all developers do is mooch and take and don’t provide anything. I’d argue Apple needs developers as much as they need Apple.

 

[Rogifan]

Well? Let's do some math.

50 mil registered apple developers (hardware not required to register btw). Let's assume 40% actually have some sort of Apple hardware.

20 mil registered devs with apple hardware. Of this 20 mil, how many didn't have Apple hardware and bought it for the sole purpose of developing for it? 25% I think is generous (if you disagree, let me know) so let's use that.

That's 5 million developers. App Store launched 17 years ago. That's about an extra 300k devices sold per year because of the developer program. That's maybe $400 million *revenue* per year. Of that revenue, maybe $3-$4 million goes towards App Store at best.

App Store costs Apple about a few billion per year to run.

Hardware sales don't cover the cost of running the App Store.

I never said hardware sales would or should cover the entire cost of the App Store. I’m asking why some developers should cover the entire cost of the App Store. And as I said in a previous post, back in 2008 Steve Jobs said Apple’s intention was to run the App Store at break even. Clearly that isn’t the case. The App Store is a huge revenue/profit generator for Apple. Which is why they’re fighting so hard to keep devs from offering anything outside of IAP.

Whatever one’s opinions on this I think we can all agree if Apple had reduced its fees like Schiller suggested back in 2011 they’d be in a much better place now. But maybe not with Wall Street. And maybe the bottom line is what matters most to Tim Cook is pleasing Wall Street.

 

[Abazigal]

OK so you’re saying the cost of running the App Store is (or should be) 100% funded by developers? No percentage of hardware sales go to running the App Store? Did Steve Jobs ever say that?

Where is the law that states apps developers are obligated to cover the cost of Apple’s App Store? If there was no App Store and no 3rd party apps how much do you think Apple could charge for an iPhone?

I am saying that money is money. If the App Store is profitable, let it be profitable, the same way Steam is. The same way the Nintendo switch store. The same way the PS5 game store is.

If a game developer publishes a title for the Nintendo switch and you have no issues with them giving Nintendo 30%, I honestly don’t see why it’s suddenly an issue when Apple takes a similar cut.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

And I think it’s very telling when people who claim they want open options continue to buy Apple’s closed option, despite knowing it’s closed. It’s like buying a Tesla or GM or Rivian knowing full well it doesn’t have CarPlay and then complaining how unfair it is that CarPlay isn’t an option and how the government should force the car companies to let CarPlay work, even if the car companies are worried it’s a worse user experience or less safe for their customers.

If it’s that important to you, buy a product that offers what you want. You’re not entitled to have Apple make the exact product that you want. It’s Apple’s intellectual property, they get to decide how it’s used.



No one is claiming that, it’s a ridiculous straw man argument. But if Apple lets Epic do it, they have to let everyone do it.

And when my kids spends accidentally $700 on some in game currency, maybe Epic refunds it, or maybe they don’t. Maybe Epic does but sketchy Chinese game developer doesn’t. And then for most users that reflects poorly on Apple, because Apple has advertised for nearly 20 years now “if you download an App in the App Store, you’re safe.” And now all of a sudden that has changed because a few big companies don’t want to pay Apple for the value they’re getting from Apple.

Your point sounds like when an employee has a legitimate complaint about his work his boss says if you don’t like it here then there’s the door it’s a very odd response from individuals who just buy the products and don’t actually get paid by the company 🤔

If a parent allows their child access to their card details and said child rinses out their account then that is a failure of said parent and not the company for allowing their child access to it in the first place don’t blame companies for your failures.

it’s very strange that when someone has a legitimate point about apple then the exact same comment always comes out maybe you should purchase another brand it’s as if it’s a
🤔

 

[surferfb]

1) Well.. I copied and pasted your message in multiple platforms and they ALL said you're not correct.

"So the statement that “the federal judge incorrectly ruled” and that the ruling only “stuck on a timing technicality” isn’t accurate. It’s a genuine federal/state-law conflict that arose after a final federal judgment; resolving that conflict (if at all) requires appellate modification, not a retroactive “exoneration.”

"The scenario you described appears to be a mischaracterization of the Epic Games v. Apple case, as a federal judge did not incorrectly rule Apple was in violation of the law, but rather that Apple did violate the existing injunction by substituting a 27% fee for the previously prohibited 30% commission on off-App Store purchases."

It’d be better to read Apple and Epic’s briefs (which I have), because then you have a better understanding of the legal questions at hand, but I understand not everyone has that sort of time or interest, particularly when what you find may call your prior assumptions into question. But if you’re not going to read the briefs and instead are going to use AI to research highly technical legal issues, don’t be surprised if it leads you astray.

The facts:

• Despite ruling Apple violated no federal antitrust law, Judge Rogers ruled the anti-steering language violated California state antitrust law and ordered Apple to allow link outs as a result of that violation.
• After the federal case was over, a California court ruled the anti-steering language didn’t violate the law, the California Appeals court confirmed it didn’t, and the CA State Supreme Court declined further appeal.
• Had all that happened before Judge Rogers ruled, she would have been bound to follow CA state precedent, because it’s a state law, and a state court’s interpretation of their laws overrides a federal court’s interpretation of state law. (In other words, It’s not a “federal/state law conflict” as your first quote states.)
• But because CA ruled after the federal case was over, her ruling based on her incorrect interpretation of CA law stands.

Had you read Apple’s brief, you’d see it’s a major point in Apple’s appeal of her order. Apple also is arguing that even if she was right, her order of “no commissions on link outs” is unconstitutional, which is what this thread is arguing about in the first place.

Whether Apple violate or didn’t violate Judge Rogers’ order (the second quote you included) has no bearing on whether or not her interpretation of CA state law was correct/incorrect regarding California law in the first place. Had she ruled correctly, there would have been no order for Apple to (allegedly) violate.

2) I don't want to continue to speak to someone who speaks facts and doesn't look them up to realize they have been wrong this entire time and won't admit it.

That is amazingly rich coming from someone who has made numerous mistakes on basic facts throughout this thread, keeps throwing up strawman arguments, cartoonishly misstating the beliefs of those who disagree with you, repeats logical fallacies followed by “checkmate, you lose”, and generally seems incapable of understanding that the case is not black and white, people can have different opinions than you without arguing in bad faith, or honestly engaging with points that undermine your argument.

But if you’re tired of engaging with me, I encourage you to either stop or use the “ignore” button so you don’t see what I have to say.

Okay, to conclude, you believe Apple should get 30% and continue to be one massive company taking 30% from all creators and developers. I believe once the experience is controlled by the developer/creator, the creator/dev should get the 30% and decide how they want to do their own payment system (could be to use Apple's). Making a market where companies can compete and improve to be the best payment system. You are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Again, another strawman argument. But you’re correct that we’re not going to change each other’s minds, so I’ll take my own advice stop engaging here. Have a good one!

 

[AppliedMicro]

it rarely holds a judge accountable for gross incompetence. A judge who reacts punitively because a respondent failed to read her mind is not fit for the bench. Unwritten rules, unwarranted overreach, and judicial petulance -- read her new ruling, it sounds like a tantrum -- are not justice

Par for the course.
It transcends well beyond the judicial branch in that country.

Although...

because a respondent failed to read her mind

There has been no failure to read minds.
This was a well-calculated play by Apple to defy the court's previous decision.

 

[AppliedMicro]

20 mil registered devs with apple hardware. Of this 20 mil, how many didn't have Apple hardware and bought it for the sole purpose of developing for it? 25% I think is generous (if you disagree, let me know) so let's use that.

How many people bought Apple hardware for the express reason that there's only one store and way of installing apps?
25% is generous, I believe.

And when my kids spends accidentally $700 on some in game currency, maybe Epic refunds it, or maybe they don’t. Maybe Epic does but sketchy Chinese game developer doesn’t. And then for most users that reflects poorly on Apple, because Apple has advertised for nearly 20 years now “if you download an App in the App Store, you’re safe.”

Why would it reflect badly on Apple? Quite the contrary.
It'd just serves to underline Apple own's argument:

"See, we told you so. Third-party sales can't be trusted.
Proof why our Apple App Store is more secure and customer-friendly."

And given how Netflix's and Spotify's (and Uber's, and DoorDash's ...and Amazon's and eBay's) transactions are handled without Apple's IAP on iOS devices today, it's not as if customers were unable to tell payment methods apart.

 

[wbeasley]

If you're genuinely asking, here's the article when Netflix removed the in-app purchase system from their app.
Does this make a better customer experience that I have to leave the app? No. Wouldn't it be easier if I could just us Apple Pay for 2% or less commission and pay through the app? Yes. But that's not allowed. DUMB that it's not allowed. It's NETFLIX'S APP! They should be able to do what they want. Just like amazon does just like everyone does on a website. No COMPANY should own how your app does payments and 1000000% no company should get 30% of your digital products money! They did NOTHING to get it!!

Netflix No Longer Allowing Subscribers to Pay Through Apple's App Store

Netflix subscribers who still pay their monthly fees through the App Store in-app purchase system will soon need to add a new payment method to keep...

www.macrumors.com

how much do UberEats get for connecting a restaurant to an eater?

quite a lot. and that using a digital platform to sell physical stuff.
and Apple dont get anything for the transaction.

you deciding 2% is fair is your opinion. other will want more or less.

if you buy an Netflix gift card at the supermarket (or an Apple one) you can bet the shop is getting a decent cut from that transaction. Newflix doesnt seem to have an issue there so why is a digital enabler cut different?

 

[jlc1978]

OK so you’re saying the cost of running the App Store is (or should be) 100% funded by developers? No percentage of hardware sales go to running the App Store? Did Steve Jobs ever say that?

yes. It makes the P&L clearer, better represents teh true margin, and avoids cross-subsidizing issues.

 

[wbeasley]

Sorry for you if you got scammed. Hasn’t happened to me. 🤷‍♀️

i didnt get scammed but i worked with elderly people and saw two of them get their Android phones bricked and had to buy new ones because they installed something a friend sent them a link to.

and when I worked at a Disability company we had the network go down three times due to an Android user who knew the network password and connected their phone to watch Netflix overnight (seemed innocent enough even though it broke corporate guidelines on acceptable use) and their infected phone latched on and brought down the email system as it tried to perpetuate itself.

Now it's easy to say "the IT department needed better firewalls" etc.
True there's always more you can do but their tougher stance then made the client management app I supported behave strangely. First install it needed to verify with the external provider servers and it wouldnt connect if Wifi was connected when it was meant to use cellular. Turning off wifi for a moment to initially validate and then reconnecting wifi fixed it. weird. but an unwanted tech side effect.

so yeah, Android has more issues in real life than Apple's close controlled walled garden in my real world experience