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
70,335
41,941


Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has said that he will never agree to share revenue with Apple for external purchases linked from iOS apps, even after a U.S. appeals court ruled that Apple is entitled to charge a reasonable fee for such transactions.

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

Speaking to The Verge following the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that partially modified the injunction in the Epic Games v. Apple case, Sweeney outlined his position on what Apple should and should not be allowed to charge developers as the dispute returns to the district court for further proceedings. The appeals court ruled that Apple must be allowed to collect some form of compensation for purchases made through external links in iOS apps, reversing a lower court order that had permanently barred Apple from charging any commission at all.

Sweeney acknowledged that Apple incurs operational costs in reviewing apps that include external payment links and said Epic would accept flat, submission-based fees tied directly to that work. However, he rejected outright the idea that Apple should receive any percentage-based commission on revenue generated outside the App Store.

Sweeney characterized the appeals court ruling as a decisive rejection of Apple's longstanding approach to App Store fees. He said the decision "completely shuts down, I think, for all time, Apple's theory that they should be able to charge arbitrary junk fees for access." He went on to suggest that the U.S. decision could influence regulators abroad, arguing that other countries would be unlikely to permit Apple to charge fees that a U.S. court had found to be unlawful.

However, the appeals court did not block Apple from charging commissions on external purchases. Instead, it said the district court went too far by permanently banning all commissions, calling that approach more like a punishment than a corrective measure. Although the court agreed that Apple deliberately violated the original injunction by making external links hard to use, it ruled that Apple must still be allowed to cover its costs and receive some payment for the use of its intellectual property.

As a result of the ruling, the case has been sent back to the Northern District of California to determine what constitutes an appropriate fee structure. The appeals court said that Apple may not charge any commission on purchases made via external links in iOS apps until the district court approves a rate.

Article Link: Epic Games CEO Says Apple Should Be Paid for App Review Only, Not External Purchase 'Junk Fees'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starfia
Setting up their position and lobbying for it before the fee structure gets determined.

Nothing unusual here and Tim Sweeney is not "evil" or the "enemy" or "awful".

He's doing just what Tim Cook does ... defend his company's position.
To be honest, I don’t see Tim Cook reaching out to a number of publications and posting on social media to decry everything epic does.
And it would be different if Sweeney wasn’t so hypocritical. Can other developers open their own stores with dances and outfits in his games?
 
No one likes that it's Sweeney, and he makes a lot of ridiculous side arguments.

But I still don't get why Apple is entitled to tax every single transaction that happens on the platform.

Developing and distributing is not free. Apple isn't doing this as a charity.

But they are also forcing people to only use one method of distribution when they would gladly use another, and then taxing them heavily on that one method.

Safari is always the classic example, and I'm sure if certain people had a time machine they would go back and destroy the open web, too.

If I can use Safari to buy things without a tax, and I can use certain blessed apps like Amazon without a tax (or be kicked out to the one exempt app, Safari, and do it anyway) why is it that certain things are treated differently?

I just don't understand that specific logic.
 
I partially agree with the idea... App sales maybe should be one fee and in-app sales should be a lower fee, for instance. But totally free? That's not even a reasonable ask. That's like asking Visa to eliminate interchange/swipe fees. It's one thing to say they're too high, but saying it should be free is complete nonsense.

Plus, developers can just make everything in-app as most already do. So, you have to meet in the middle somewhere anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djphat2000
I partially agree with the idea... App sales maybe should be one fee and in-app sales should be a lower fee, for instance. But totally free? That's not even a reasonable ask. That's like asking Visa to eliminate interchange/swipe fees. It's one thing to say they're too high, but saying it should be free is complete nonsense.

Plus, developers can just make everything in-app as most already do. So, you have to meet in the middle somewhere anyway.

He said that about external purchases
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.