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

[The_Gream]

I think your solution is a viable one actually. I make no claims as to what the solution should be, there’s many imo. That being said the reality is that the only reason this case exists is because Apple insists on the App Store being the only way to install apps. It is also reasonable that people should be able to use hardware they purchased however they want. Apple doesn’t have to make it easy as someone pointed out earlier in the thread but I think it would work in their favor if they did.

lol. You can use the hardware anyway you like.
You can put it in your pocket. You can hold it in your hand.
You can drop it in the toilet.
You can run it over with your lawn mower.
There are so many things you can do with the hardware.

YET!!!!!

Your issue isn’t the hardware you bought, but the software license you readily agreed to when you went through that hardware’s set up phase!!!!

I am sure some tech savvy person could show you how to flash iOS off the hardware that would then allow you to install an OS that is more open to what you are looking for…

Just curious, have you tried taking that route?

 

[cyrrus]

I remember when I first tried out the fantastical app (a subscription-based calendar app). I downloaded it from the iOS App Store, created an account instantly via "Sign in with Apple", subscribed via iTunes, and was up and running in less than a minute. The ease of use here has definitely helped sell a few more subscriptions compared to say, the friction involved in needing to create an account before you can use an app.

People (especially developers) forget what the situation was like in the early 2000s. Nobody downloaded apps, because everyone was scared of viruses and malware. Apple recreated a market that had ceased to exist, and they did it with their promises of ease of use and safety and security. Like if you don't like an app, you can just delete it. You can readily request for an app refund. You aren't going to get scammed because there's only one way to pay. You get to authenticate with face or Touch ID. Even today, there are some services which require you to call in to get it cancelled, vs just terminating it via the App Store directly.

Is this not worth anything?

So let me ask you this... If Quickbooks distributed an app for their customers to engage with their services with via an app. Should they take 30% of lets say, a $100 a month Quickbooks subscription which renews month after month after month? Even though they did all the advertising, a vast majority of the product is actually back-end services, updating everything with tax-time changes and developing new features?

Apple would have you believe they are entitled to almost a THIRD of Quickbooks' revenue?

And Quickbooks wouldn't be allowed, in this situation, to say look you can sign up here and use Apple's services for $X, or you can sign up via our website which is still secure for $Y. Like I said, if your entire business is inside an app on your phone, that's where they begun. But they are asking for HUGE cuts of business and demanding a monopoly on payments for services industries. That's where I draw the line.

This isn't software in a box bought at your local computer store in the 90's, who by the way paid for it up front, pays for insurance, rent, staff etc. It's a tiny amount of server power, and then services and they want to take this cut month after month after month. It's anti consumer and inappropriate.

 

[cyrrus]

Should BestBuy be forced to hand out Walmart coupons to customers? That would never fly in the physical world. Why is linking mandated within the App Store?

The real issue is that the App Store is the only officially supported way to get apps onto the iPhone (outside the EU).

Apple should just build an "App Store platform" allowing anyone to build an app store on top of an Apple-provided secure foundation. Those stores can then charge whatever they want for apps (while hosting the binaries and paying processing fees). That keeps Apple in some control. If those "subordinate app stores" violated any major operating guidelines, Apple can shut them down to protect users.

Perhaps Tesla should add a per kilowatt charge for any electricity you put into the car no matter where it's from? There's an idea. 50 cents per kilowatt hour to charge up at home. No free marketplace, no competition, just straight up and down highway robbery.

What an idea!

 

[cyrrus]

No value? Regularly-updated development tools. Secure, trusted search and distribution. *Free* distribution of all binary updates to all users. The bandwidth alone is a massive cost.

I agree that the original 30% was becoming too much as the store has grown in size, but it's no longer the only rate. Lower rates are provided when certain conditions are met.

What do you propose, other than Apple just giving away their services for free? Surely you're not proposing completely free? They are incurring ongoing costs.

The bandwidth alone is not a massive cost. At this scale people pay to build pipes to you because their end users are sucking down so much of your data. It's not like paying for a fibre optic connection for your office. Apple operates one of the world's largest private CDN's and internet exchange points and ISP's will often welcome Apple servers into their networks because they reduce upstream transit costs for themselves.

And yes, no value. Or very little value. Every month they want almost a third of software services. You're not buying an app, you're paying for a service. If people aren't using Swift, Log in with Apple, XCode, of being discovered on the app store search because they are driving their own signups (which almost everybody has to do) what exactly is Apple bringing to the table that is worth such an ludicrous cut?

It basically boils down to payments infrastructure. How about Audible that has to license all the books, pay authors, etc. but Apple wants 30% for doing what Stripe has built a $100B business on for 3%? Most of that goes to the bank that issues the card by the way, their cut is way smaller than that.

I don't propose Apple gives its services away for free - they can charge for pay per click in search like everyone else. They can innovate and have affiliate programs for apps, which they can keep a small cut of. They can charge for payments like Stripe does and makes a hefty income from. They can charge for Xcode, charge for app licensing to keep the app store safe.

If they do a great job they will have a great business. Right now they know they can not do a great job and have an amazing business, which is anti-competitive.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I wonder if you are being independent in your comments. Here is why?

Yes because I enjoy the current pricing now. I get tons of value from Apple's provided services that's built into the $99/year + 15%-30% cut.

That makes no business sense. Even if you enjoy your current setting it should not mean that you are opposed to any other options. You dont need to take them right? Which you clearly are. Why?

Are you talking about big developers earning $$$ and the Apple cut pays for services for smaller devs?

Yes, exactly. Most of Apple’s App Store revenue comes from games, where top developers like Tencent, miHoYo, Roblox, and King account for a large share—probably 50–60%. In that segment, Apple’s 15–30% cut works well because monetization (in-app purchases, gacha mechanics, subscriptions) is entirely digital. The console-style approach makes total sense.

Outside of gaming, however, most downloaded apps are ad-driven or hybrid experiences, so Apple earns little from big names like TikTok, Instagram, Netflix, Amazon, Temu, and others. The bulk of revenue from non-gaming apps actually comes from small and mid-sized developers, meaning Apple’s system indirectly supports these giants technologically and monetarily, while mostly bypassing its cut.

But things get more complicated: drawing a dividing line based on whether a service is “fully digital” versus not is becoming increasingly problematic. For instance, major banks are moving to abandon the analog counterpart of money, making payments effectively entirely digital. So the assets being played here are indeed digitalized. In this context, why shouldn’t Apple take a 15% cut for in-app money transfers?

Well, Apple originally forced Netflix to include IAP so that Netflix essentially pays for the hosting/distribution. Apple relaxed the rules so that IAP is allowed to be 30% more expensive than outside the app.

Yes. So?

Not sure what you mean. You can sell the lessons and content outside the app without commission. But generally they'll use some processor like Stripe and Paddle. Paddle takes 10% for items under $10 which is not far from 15% that Apple takes.

I am not sure what you mean either. Stripe 2.9%+.30 (fixed). PayPal takes 2.9% for a basic service. Only Paddle takes 10% because it takes tax care of tax and compliance, no other tier I suppose. If the teacher can take care of its own tax and compliance, choosing Paddle makes no sense.

Now here is the drill. You still need to take care of tax and compliance your self. Any money your business gets from Apple is not tax and compliance free, you still need a financial department / accountant ... at least in the EU. I mean, if your business is ... well actually a business. So in the end it only releases you from international taxation related affairs. Look if all takes 7% of your revenue either get another accountant or you really need to increase revenue.

 

[surferfb]

The bandwidth alone is not a massive cost. At this scale people pay to build pipes to you because their end users are sucking down so much of your data. It's not like paying for a fibre optic connection for your office. Apple operates one of the world's largest private CDN's and internet exchange points and ISP's will often welcome Apple servers into their networks because they reduce upstream transit costs for themselves.

Yes it is. I agree Apple’s unit cost is tiny per GB, but Apple’s volume is huge. Like 10-15 billion GB a year huge. Even assuming the absolute cheapest rates for using their own CDN, delta updates, app thinning, etc we’re still talking tens of millions of dollars a year just in bandwidth. And the fee is for far, far more the just bandwidth.

And yes, no value. Or very little value. Every month they want almost a third of software services. You're not buying an app, you're paying for a service. If people aren't using Swift, Log in with Apple, XCode, of being discovered on the app store search because they are driving their own signups (which almost everybody has to do) what exactly is Apple bringing to the table that is worth such an ludicrous cut?

For the vast majority of apps it’s 15%, not 30%. Saying there’s “no value” ignores what that 15–30% actually covers. Even if you never touch Swift or App Store ads, you’re still using a ton of Apple’s infrastructure and your customers are still relying on it.

Developers get things like Xcode and SDKs, secure code-signing and distribution, TestFlight, global hosting and updates, automatic VAT/tax handling, and compliance reviews. And their customers get Apple’s fraud detection, refund system, parental controls, Family Sharing, easy cancellations, etc..

I can understand why a developer wouldn’t want to pay for easy subscription cancellations, good parental controls, etc. But all of that results in a better experience for the customer, and which leads to customers spending more on apps in general.

It basically boils down to payments infrastructure. How about Audible that has to license all the books, pay authors, etc. but Apple wants 30% for doing what Stripe has built a $100B business on for 3%? Most of that goes to the bank that issues the card by the way, their cut is way smaller than that.

Again, you’re assuming the commission is just for payment processing which is wrong.

And I’d argue discovery isn’t just search ads; it’s being safely installed, updated, and trusted by default on a platform with over billion devices. Even if you “driving your own signups,” you’re monetizing inside Apple’s environment and using their property to do so.

I don't propose Apple gives its services away for free - they can charge for pay per click in search like everyone else. They can innovate and have affiliate programs for apps, which they can keep a small cut of. They can charge for payments like Stripe does and makes a hefty income from. They can charge for Xcode, charge for app licensing to keep the app store safe.

If they do a great job they will have a great business. Right now they know they can not do a great job and have an amazing business, which is anti-competitive.

Apple doesn’t get to coast. The only reason the App Store model works is because people trust iOS to be safe, private, and seamless. If Apple stopped doing a great job on security, APIs, developer tools, payments, and updates, users would stop spending and developers would shift focus to Android where the same apps can reach even more people. And, Apple provides ways for the developers who really believe Apple provides no value to put their money where their mouth is and still stay in the App Store by pushing all purchases to the web.

Calling that “anti-competitive” ignores the fact that both customers and developers keep opting in because the value is real. Just because some big developers and their defenders don’t want to pay for that value doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to.

 

[jlc1978]

And yes, no value. Or very little value. Every month they want almost a third of software services. You're not buying an app, you're paying for a service. If people aren't using Swift, Log in with Apple, XCode, of being discovered on the app store search because they are driving their own signups (which almost everybody has to do) what exactly is Apple bringing to the table that is worth such an ludicrous cut?

Access to a very large, lucrative customer base. I doubt any small developer could make the same revenue going it alone, and do it for less; as for the ones making millions they certainly can afford teh 30% Year 1/ 15% cut afterward in exchange for teh huge revenue stream Apple brings in.

If Apple's user base wasn't valubale why would EPIC care if Apple didn't carry Fortnite in the EU? Or other big developers abandon the App Store?

I am not sure what you mean either. Stripe 2.9%+.30 (fixed). PayPal takes 2.9% for a basic service. Only Paddle takes 10% because it takes tax care of tax and compliance, no other tier I suppose. If the teacher can take care of its own tax and compliance, choosing Paddle makes no sense.

PayPal also has a fixed fee, depending on transaction type and some percentages are higher than 2.9% and additional fees for international transactions. Paddle is 5% plus 50 cents so an app selling for 5 Eur is already at 15%, cheaper apps are even higher.

If you make international sales, tax compliance can get quite complex and no doubt most developers would find it difficult to comply.

Apple's 15% doesn't look to bad in that context for small developers.

 

[I7guy]

Errrrmagerrrrd all these bootlickers.

Should Apple be able to take 30% of anything you buy online on a website? Should Apple get to take 30% of any transactions you make from you internet banking apps? How about if they took another 30% on top of the fee Uber Eats and Grub Hub takes? No? What's the difference? "Hurr durr it's their right".

They are taking 30% of subscription revenue for business services like accounting services which operate PRIMARILY on the web, but also have an app, if the app has a signup in the app.

They are artificially jacking the prices up on everything by bloating the costs without actually adding any value.

Enough with the bootlicking, as customers demand better! We need to get rentseekers out of the value chain.

30% of an in app purchase for candy crush, which was promoted on the App store where I discovered it.... Fine....

30% of a software service I primarily use on the web, like business software. No.

30% of the food I order online, or when sending money to family and friends with banking apps. **** no.

Where is the line is what is being debated - NOT whether they should have a carte blanche right to do so without criticism.

Pretty simple if you don’t like the Apple business model, or find their hardware and services overpriced, there is competition.

I support apples business model as I support my right to not use Apple products and services.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple is not tax and compliance free, you still need a financial department / accountant ... at least in the EU.

Not necessarily, but it makes life easier. I have one because it’s less hassle than keeping up with filings myself.

But that’s true no matter how you sell stuff. Leaving the app store and going it alone eill still require dealing with tax and compliance issues and be an added cost.

In the end the question for developers is which option gets them the best return and most profit.

 

[laptech]

People in here complain about how the EU is behaving towards Apple and yet here is Apple doing everything it can to prevent app developers from putting links in their apps that allow users to link to an external website. All Apple needed to do was allow app devs to use the main app code that allows the app that redirects users to an external website but no, what Apple did so they could get their ounce of blood..i mean money is to create separate bit of code that allows the ability to redirect to external websites and tell app dev's they must now use this extra bit of code if they want to use external links in their app but it's going to cost them to do so because this is extra code, it is not part of the main code that devs already pay for in their yearly fee to Apple.

People here seem to think it's OK for Apple to act appallingly towards others but not for others to act appallingly towards Apple.

 

[surferfb]

People in here complain about how the EU is behaving towards Apple and yet here is Apple doing everything it can to prevent app developers from putting links in their apps that allow users to link to an external website. All Apple needed to do was allow app devs to use the main app code that allows the app that redirects users to an external website but no, what Apple did so they could get their ounce of blood..i mean money is to create separate bit of code that allows the ability to redirect to external websites and tell app dev's they must now use this extra bit of code if they want to use external links in their app but it's going to cost them to do so because this is extra code, it is not part of the main code that devs already pay for in their yearly fee to Apple.

People here seem to think it's OK for Apple to act appallingly towards others but not for others to act appallingly towards Apple.

Again, link outs are a worse experience for users. They're clunky, create friction, expose personal data, and are less secure. It is a much better experience to have everything go through the App Store. Obviously EU regulators don't think user experience matters given their mandatory cookie pop-ups and browser choice screens, but many of us do, and we don't appreciate governments making it worse so the Spotifys and Epics of the world can make more money by freeloading off of Apple's hard work. And let's be clear: they're absolutely not going to pass the savings onto customers.

This isn't Apple "acting appallingly," it’s Apple setting terms for the use of its own intellectual property. Developers want the benefit of Apple’s ecosystem (APIs, distribution, a billion paying customers, etc.) but don’t want to pay for it. I am sure Netflix and Spotify don't like paying to license their content either, but if you are using others' property then you need to come to an agreement with how to compensate them for that use. You don't get to government to come in and give it to you for free because you need it or think you deserve it.

Apple competes head-to-head with Android, where the same apps are available, so this isn’t monopoly behavior. It’s a business model that’s worked for both sides for nearly 20 years

 

[maxoakland]

It’s their IP, so frankly, they do. If you don’t like their stance on that, other options exist.

Their “IP” doesn’t take precedence over my purchase

This is like banning people from highlighting text in a book they bought. They shouldn’t have control over the product after I buy it

 

[maxoakland]

Again, link outs are a worse experience for users. They're clunky, create friction, expose personal data, and are less secure. It is a much better experience to have everything go through the App Store.

You still believe Apple cares about the user experience?

They filled the OS with ads for their own products, have repeatedly *hurt* the App Store user experience to spite devs or make money. And their latest OS has the worst UI in company history. And I could go on and on about the ways Apple has changed away from a user focused company

This is a great example how user experience can be used as an excuse to justify control, and ignored whenever it conflicts with Apple’s real goals.

It’s also a false choice. If linkouts are a bad user experience, Apple should stop forcing devs to rely on linkouts as the only alternative to IAPs. They could easily let devs use their own payment systems but that wouldn’t make Apple money so they created a convoluted and compromised user experience

 

[maxoakland]

Sure they do. Nothing says they have to make it easy. It's their OS.

“It’s their OS” is not a justification for bad behavior. Users have the right to control the products they buy.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They do. It’s called Android;

It’s not. Because iPhone owners do not buy Android apps. They literally don’t run on iPhones.

So are developers greedy for not lowering prices when Apple lowered their cut? Or because the marginal cost of the next sale is negligible?

Their prices are competitively determined - because there is, you know, competition that users can switch to.
Without shelling out hundreds for a different (Android) smartphone and replacement apps, let alone the hours it takes to switch.

 

[surferfb]

Their “IP” doesn’t take precedence over my purchase

This is like banning people from highlighting text in a book they bought. They shouldn’t have control over the product after I buy it

It literally does. You bought the hardware device that came with a license to use the software on it in accordance to the Software Owner's rules. I own my phone, but I also chose a managed platform. iOS isn’t a paper book. Highlighting a book affects only me; installing arbitrary code changes the attack surface for everyone my device touches: my contacts, payments, messages, and the developers whose apps must interoperate with my system.

Look, I am not against tinkering. I run a headless Linux server in my home. But the place for it is platforms that are designed for that. iOS' appeal for a huge number of people is that it isn't designed for tinkering. A whole lot of people aren't choosing iOS in spite of the restrictions, but because of them. I don't think that should be taken away when other options exist.

You still believe Apple cares about the user experience?

They filled the OS with ads for their own products, have repeatedly *hurt* the App Store user experience to spite devs or make money. And their latest OS has the worst UI in company history. And I could go on and on about the ways Apple has changed away from a user focused company

This is a great example how user experience can be used as an excuse to justify control, and ignored whenever it conflicts with Apple’s real goals.

Yes I do. I don't love everything Apple has done recently, but I still think they absolutely care about UX. I think a lot of people mistake "Apple has made different choices than I would make" for "Apple is only doing this for their own benefit" without realizing that Apple has a lot more customers to think about that tech enthusiasts like me who run Linux servers and post on MacRumors.

It’s also a false choice. If linkouts are a bad user experience, Apple should stop forcing devs to rely on linkouts as the only alternative to IAPs. They could easily let devs use their own payment systems but that wouldn’t make Apple money so they created a convoluted and compromised user experience

Using their own payment systems is also a worse user experience. Apple's App Store/IAP is the layer that gives users the better experience: refunds, receipts, Family Sharing/Ask-to-Buy, subscription cancellation in one place, fraud controls, and consistent privacy prompts and disclosures. Letting every app bolt on its own checkout breaks those guarantees and leads to confusing and worse user experience.

If you want an open model with third-party billing, Android offers that; forcing iOS to adopt both models removes the closed, safer option people deliberately chose because you can't be bothered to pick a tool that better meets your needs.

 

[jlc1978]

It’s not. Because iPhone owners do not buy Android apps. They literally don’t run on iPhones.

Which is irrelevant since a user and developer has a choice on which OS to use; it is a choice.

Their prices are competitively determined - because there is, you know, competition that users can switch to.
Without shelling out hundreds for a different (Android) smartphone and replacement apps, let alone the hours it takes to switch.

So the are greedy and using locking; after all they gota 15% windfall from Apple they simply pocketed.

“It’s their OS” is not a justification for bad behavior. Users have the right to control the products they buy.

You can, it's just not easy to do. Just like I can code my BMW but it is anon-trivial undertaking taht BMW does not support.

 

[31 Flavas]

Errrrmagerrrrd all these bootlickers.

Should Apple be able to take 30% of anything you buy online on a website? Should Apple get to take 30% of any transactions you make from you internet banking apps? How about if they took another 30% on top of the fee Uber Eats and Grub Hub takes? No? What's the difference? "Hurr durr it's their right".

Answer this then: Why do Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo get to take 30% from every developer without pushback from you or Epic or anyone else?

Let me guess, you’re going to say: The difference is physical sales, right? “They don’t have a monopoly because I can choose to buy a physical copy from any retailer I want”. Are you really going to tell me the developer gets to skip the 30% cut because they do a physical release?

 

[PlayUltimate]

“It’s their OS” is not a justification for bad behavior. Users have the right to control the products they buy.

Ugh. . . .you own the hardware. You license the software. This has been true on every computing device that has ever been made. For example, if I bought an IBMPC back in the early 80s, I still only owned the hardware. Microsoft owned the software.

 

[germanbeer007]

That makes no business sense.

Disagreed. For my work as a side solo app developer, it makes perfect business sense.

Even if you enjoy your current setting it should not mean that you are opposed to any other options.

If hosting requires additional capital, we would see a lot less free apps since it's a lot riskier to put out free apps.

You dont need to take them right? Which you clearly are. Why?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't want to pay for hosting. Plain and simple.

Yes, exactly.

Great.

Outside of gaming, however, most downloaded apps are ad-driven or hybrid experiences, so Apple earns little from big names like TikTok, Instagram, Netflix, Amazon, Temu, and others. The bulk of revenue from non-gaming apps actually comes from small and mid-sized developers, meaning Apple’s system indirectly supports these giants technologically and monetarily, while mostly bypassing its cut.

But things get more complicated: drawing a dividing line based on whether a service is “fully digital” versus not is becoming increasingly problematic. For instance, major banks are moving to abandon the analog counterpart of money, making payments effectively entirely digital. So the assets being played here are indeed digitalized. In this context, why shouldn’t Apple take a 15% cut for in-app money transfers?

That's where the competition from Android comes in. If Apple forces IAP exclusively (no outside purchases) and requires a cut from all the revenue from Netflix/Amazon/Temu/Coinbase/Robinhood/etc... gets through iOS, they will never build the app because it's not sustainable. Which means users will likely leave the platform because they'll see Android having that capability. This hurts small and big developers of iOS if iOS loses users. So that's why Apple can't just take $$$ from companies that already operate on razor thin margins.

Hope this explains your inquiry.

Yes. So?

It explains the competition part.

I am not sure what you mean either. Stripe 2.9%+.30 (fixed). PayPal takes 2.9% for a basic service. Only Paddle takes 10% because it takes tax care of tax and compliance, no other tier I suppose. If the teacher can take care of its own tax and compliance, choosing Paddle makes no sense.

No. For stores selling smaller items at high volume, Paddle offers a 10% flat fee, otherwise it's 5% + $0.50. Stripe can do the same via custom pricing but I haven't inquired for low priced items.

Regardless exact pricing far from the point. Point is, you're framing it as if math teachers would be free from fees. It's just different fee structure with less responsibilities by the provider. I don't recall Stripe hosting the files, so that's just more fees math teachers will need to figure out.

Now here is the drill. You still need to take care of tax and compliance your self. Any money your business gets from Apple is not tax and compliance free, you still need a financial department / accountant ... at least in the EU. I mean, if your business is ... well actually a business. So in the end it only releases you from international taxation related affairs. Look if all takes 7% of your revenue either get another accountant or you really need to increase revenue.

For solo developers? From my experience I haven't needed a financial department. Apple collects and remits VAT/sales taxes to reduce my burden. The only App Store recent change was EU required an address to be publicly listed which I know plenty of my USA friends rented out a PO Box to list it under.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Which is irrelevant since a user and developer has a choice on which OS to use; it is a choice

…a choice that is only made every couple of years.

Not day-to-day (like Burger King & McDonald‘s. Walmart and Target and all the other misguided comparisons).
Consumers spend money and commit to a platform.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Which is irrelevant since a user and developer has a choice on which OS to use; it is a choice.

Yeah this is fantasy land isn't it.

 

[djphat2000]

It's a tiny amount of server power, and then services and they want to take this cut month after month after month. It's anti consumer and inappropriate.

Tiny?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If hosting requires additional capital, we would see a lot less free apps since it's a lot riskier to put out free apps.

Yet you just don't know. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Honestly your line of argumentation makes no business sense, especially when referring to a supplier. Solo developer or not.

Nevertheless I think it is established that makes perfect sense to you.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Not necessarily, but it makes life easier. I have one because it’s less hassle than keeping up with filings myself.

But that’s true no matter how you sell stuff. Leaving the app store and going it alone eill still require dealing with tax and compliance issues and be an added cost.

In the end the question for developers is which option gets them the best return and most profit.

My point is, that you still need to carry taxation costs yourself. Whether you are willing to externalize international taxation work or not should not be tied to you ability to sell your product. Imagine you are selling your service only to the US, why pay the cost? That is tying who two very distinct services.