Epic Games Has Paid Over $100 Million in Legal Fees to Fight Apple's App Store Rules

[zahuh]

2.9%? Where did you pluck that from?
I have an idea but I'll refrain from mentioning it.

Young? I'm a professional software engineer with 35 years experience and I also have an MBA.
The MBA part of me wishes there was something else as good as the App Store for finding paying users.
Double my income please. Take 15%, hell take 30%! You do know what an affiliate marketing network is, right?
There isn't. The Play store is a poor 2nd in comparison and Amazon's app store attempt was pathetic at best.

There's also the Phantom Menace of Meta behind all of this.
Zuck would just love to not have to follow Apple's strict privacy rules and bring all Meta app users to heal once again.
He could do that through a separate "freedom store". Free to do what he likes with you and your data.
That'll be the next big one. "Facebook & Instagram only available on Meta's new app store".

The ignorance in todays world trotted out like it's a beacon of sanity and enlightenment is just unbelievable...
"Wise men have something to say, fools just have to say something".

It’s super clear that you’re uneducated about what’s going on. We are not talking about alternative app stores. I agree with you that having alternative App Store’s confuses things for developers. We can move on I agree with you.

What we are talking about….

Apple’s actions of trying to control developers “in-app purchases” experience was deemed ILLEGAL. Now for in-app purchases, the developer in the US App Store can automatically open Safari, have the user pay with Apple Pay with something like Stripe for 2.9%, and when the transaction successfully finishes, automatically return back to the app. This is why developers are so excited. Again this is just today. Potentially the law will change where developers can just run Apple Pay from within their app rather than having to go to Safari and do the auto return trip.

Please try to stay focused you seem to have real trouble with that. We are not discussing alternative stores, we are not discussing whether Apple deserves a cut. We are only discussing that it is illegal to make developers use apples in app purchase system and not allow the developer to have the choice to use an alternative payment method like Apple Pay through stripe which would be 2.9% plus $.30 per transaction fee. For something that is $.99 apples in a purchase system is still a better deal but anything more than that now in the USA App Store there is an alternative in app purchase payment method

This is great news! I hope this clears thing is up and we can agree and agree

 

[zahuh]

But most devs never paid the 30% right? You needed to make over a million dollars or something? And then it got halved to 12% or something after yr1. I would imagine only huge developers paid any of this. So was Sweeney really fighting for normal devs?

And now he wants his own AppStore and is charging 12% himself for some tiers. So is he against any tax of is he advocating that a tax is actually necessary after all and he was just upset at the terms?

I’m confused??

I agree you’re definitely confused. Please let me just quickly educate you. We are not excited about alternative stores. We are excited because it was deemed illegal to force developers to use apples in app purchase system and not allow for alternative payment methods. Now in the USA App Store a developer can have a payment through stripe for example that will use Apple Pay and once the in app purchase transaction is successful, it will let the app know and the developer will only have to pay 2.9% plus $.30 per transaction. This is not a good deal for items that are $.99 but anything above three dollars or any subscription this can save the developers a lot of money.

I hope that clears things up for you and you are now excited to have the option to pay 2.9% plus $.30 per transaction fee rather than being forced to pay 15% to Apple. It’s just about having the option! You don’t have to do it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Tim Sweeney thinks they do.
Spotify thinks they do.
Half the commenters in this forum think they do.
The previous EU regulator thought they should have to.
That’s the whole point here.

Epic paid for a developer subscription.
So do Spotify.

I haven’t heard of them challenging that.
Neither have I heard of them asking Apple to provide its App Store service (and downloads) for free.
Nor the EU asking Apple to do that.

 

[Stuwil]

But most devs never paid the 30% right? You needed to make over a million dollars or something? And then it got halved to 12% or something after yr1. I would imagine only huge developers paid any of this. So was Sweeney really fighting for normal devs?

And now he wants his own AppStore and is charging 12% himself for some tiers. So is he against any tax of is he advocating that a tax is actually necessary after all and he was just upset at the terms?

I’m confused??

Yes he wants his own App Store because he believes that a mobile device is a multi purpose device

In regards to the commission he thinks it should be 12% because of how Apple’s business model is setup

 

[mrochester]

Well that’s not true because in one country there is a 3rd mobile OS that competes with iOS & android but the west don’t allow them

However I think this is funny that the minute any developer challenges Apple
It’s well epic should go & build there own mobile OS
Because they challenged Apple in court because they wanted to improve their terms and conditions

More mobile OSes and ecosystems will benefit everyone. That’s why I advocate for regulation to facilitate that happening.

 

[0049190]

The US and EU should launch investigations into the excessive fees charged by lawyers and limit the amount they can take from any final settlement.

 

[mrochester]

Yes he wants his own App Store because he believes that a mobile device is a multi purpose device

In regards to the commission he thinks it should be 12% because of how Apple’s business model is setup

Apple can’t charge 12% when the purchase is made using an alternative payment provider. They can only charge a percentage when the developer uses Apple’s own payment method (as per court order).

That means Apple could potentially lose a lot of revenue from the App Store. It probably means Apple will need to change how it monetises the App Store so that each service they provide (app download, app review, notarisation etc) attracts a fee so that developers who only accept payments from a non-Apple payment provider still pay a share. Right now Apple don’t charge specific fees for specific services and roll it all into a percentage commission. If the percentage commission goes away the fee structure has to change correspondingly.

 

[AndiG]

Not a fun time in the boardroom at Apple these days

The industry is shifting, and it’s time for Apple to evolve its business model to better align with modern developer expectations, regulatory trends, and global competition.

It would be quite simple:

App Store Rules: A More Flexible Business Model
1. Maintain the current model for typical users and developers, keeping the 15–30% revenue share intact.
2. Introduce an alternative model for larger players (and optionally for all developers) that shifts from commission-based pricing to a service-based structure. This could include:
• A hosting fee for using Apple infrastructure
• A push notification fee (e.g., $0.0001 per message via APNS)
• A testing center fee for advanced QA tools and resources
• A tiered developer program fee with access to enhanced tooling and services
• A tax handling fee, if Apple continues to manage tax compliance on behalf of developers
• A competitive In-App Purchase (IAP) fee that rivals Stripe, PayPal, etc., but with superior integration and convenience

By unbundling services, developers pay for what they use—similar to AWS, OpenAI, and other modern platforms.

Expanding Services
• Apple Pay is reliable but no longer unique. Licensing it to third-party hardware manufacturers (e.g., Garmin) would help extend its reach without diluting brand value.

New Markets
• Enter the automotive OS market by licensing a version of iOS for use in cars. Prioritize a collaborative model over a restrictive one to encourage broad adoption by manufacturers.

Conclusion

Apple’s aspiration to become a service-oriented company began over a decade ago. Now is the time to fully realize that vision by modernizing its platform rules, unbundling services, and entering new markets. Flexibility, transparency, and developer-friendly policies will ensure Apple’s continued relevance and growth in the evolving digital ecosystem.

 

[Stuwil]

Apple can’t charge 12% when the purchase is made using an alternative payment provider. They can only charge a percentage when the developer uses Apple’s own payment method (as per court order).

That means Apple could potentially lose a lot of revenue from the App Store. It probably means Apple will need to change how it monetises the App Store so that each service they provide (app download, app review, notarisation etc) attracts a fee so that developers who only accept payments from a non-Apple payment provider still pay a share. Right now Apple don’t charge specific fees for specific services and roll it all into a percentage commission. If the percentage commission goes away the fee structure has to change correspondingly.

Because they are greedy because all of this could have been avoided if they negotiated with epic to get the IAP down to 12%
However Apple as a company is still not giving up the fight & want payment links removed because they are greedy

 

[mrochester]

Because they are greedy because all of this could have been avoided if they negotiated with epic to get the IAP down to 12%
However Apple as a company is still not giving up the fight & want payment links removed because they are greedy

All companies are ‘greedy’ and pointing it out doesn’t add any value to he discussion.

The interesting aspect to all of this is what Apple ends up changing.

 

[Stuwil]

All companies are ‘greedy’ and pointing it out doesn’t add any value to he discussion.

The interesting aspect to all of this is what Apple ends up changing.

Apple refused to negotiate an IAP price with epic and because of that then epic took them to court because one of the reasons is the IAP fee is to high because of Apple business model.

Now as a consequence of getting taken to court Apple have now got to put payment links in apps and can no longer get 30% cut on every transaction because as a company they said we are not budging

 

[Stuwil]

More mobile OSes and ecosystems will benefit everyone. That’s why I advocate for regulation to facilitate that happening.

Not going to happen in the west due to how the current smartphone model is set up

 

[mrochester]

Apple refused to negotiate an IAP price with epic and because of that then epic took them to court because one of the reasons is the IAP fee is to high because of Apple business model.

Now as a consequence of getting taken to court Apple have now got to put payment links in apps and can no longer get 30% cut on every transaction because as a company they said we are not budging

Yes, which is why the discussion is now speculating about what Apple might change if they can no longer collect a percentage commission. They’ll have a lot of revenue to make up for.

 

[mrochester]

Not going to happen in the west due to how the current smartphone model is set up

It could do if regulations were put in place to foster competition.

 

[Stuwil]

It could do if regulations were put in place to foster competition.

There is nothing stopping a new mobile OS coming on the market
However it is very unlikely because of how android is setup in the western market

 

[mrochester]

There is nothing stopping a new mobile OS coming on the market
However it is very unlikely because of how android is setup in the western market

Your second sentence highlights exactly why the thing in the first sentence does not happen. Hence the need for regulations to stop Android from being a barrier to new entrants.

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, which is why the discussion is now speculating about what Apple might change if they can no longer collect a percentage commission. They’ll have a lot of revenue to make up for.

Apple as a company don’t want to put a realistic figure on it that is why they are going back to court to get the payment link option removed
Because if they have to put a realistic figure on it would be about 12% so then epic wins because that is what they said all alone regarding Apple’s commission

 

[Stuwil]

Your second sentence highlights exactly why the thing in the first sentence does not happen. Hence the need for regulations to stop Android from being a barrier to new entrants.

How do you stop a company from giving their product away for free when that means they are not discriminating against anyone that is how it can’t be regulated

 

[mrochester]

Apple as a company don’t want to put a realistic figure on it that is why they are going back to court to get the payment link option removed
Because if they have to put a realistic figure on it would be about 12% so then epic wins because that is what they said all alone regarding Apple’s commission

Yeah it’s much better for Apple to continue to collect a percentage commission. It’s a much simpler approach and makes them a ton of revenue.

But if they are forced to remove the percentage commission then it has to be replaced with something else.

 

[mrochester]

How do you stop a company from giving their product away for free when that means they are not discriminating against anyone that is how it can’t be regulated

Huh? Giving Android away for free discriminates against any potential competitors from even existing.

No one would ever consider entering the mobile OS market as long as Android continues to exist in its current guise. That’s why we need regulations to force Android to move over and make room for competitors to emerge.

We also need strong enforcement against dumping in the market (selling products below cost to put competitors out of business/maintain a dominant position). Android is definitely sold below cost (given Google charge £0!).

 

[Stuwil]

Yeah it’s much better for Apple to continue to collect a percentage commission. It’s a much simpler approach and makes them a ton of revenue.

But if they are forced to remove the percentage commission then it has to be replaced with something else.

Nobody is forcing them with zero commission the judge said it’s zero commission until you come back with a realistic figure and Apple said 27% she said go away
That is why they are trying to get this thrown out because they have no intention of ever changing.
That is why companies should take them to court like epic has done and then get changes implemented that way for everyone

 

[Stuwil]

Huh? Giving Android away for free discriminates against any potential competitors from even existing.

No one would ever consider entering the mobile OS market as long as Android continues to exist in its current guise. That’s why we need regulations to force Android to move over and make room for competitors to emerge.

Ok so how do you put a figure on android that doesn’t discriminate against smaller OEM’s from using it to sell their product
Unless your suggesting that google are forced to sell android at different price points then is that not discrimination

 

[mrochester]

Nobody is forcing them with zero commission the judge said it’s zero commission until you come back with a realistic figure and Apple said 27% she said go away
That is why they are trying to get this thrown out because they have no intention of ever changing.
That is why companies should take them to court like epic has done and then get changes implemented that way for everyone

I don’t think you’ve got that quite right. The 27% commission is fine, what the judge didn’t like were the scare screens and other hoops developers had to jump through to offer alternative payments. Those are the things Apple has to remove.

Apple wants to maintain the percentage commission. But if it’s too easy for app developers to avoid paying that to Apple then Apple will likely have to change the App Store business model to collect those fees another way.

 

[Ethosik]

Oh I see the problem, you're not educated what happened. We are not talking about alternative app stores. The ILLEGAL activity Apple was doing was not allowing developers to specifically in-app purchases from their own app. Now, developers for the USA store can have a button to pay, auto-opens Safari, the user can click Apply Pay, when the transaction is complete, it returns back to the app. 2.9% fee + $0.30 fee. NOT a good deal for $0.99 price items. Those still good for using Apple's in-app purchase system since Apple takes 15% or 30%. But for anything above $2-3, and 9.99 or subscription items, developers can KEEP a lot more $. Hope that makes sense. Nothing to do with alt stores

That is not what we are talking about here. This is about alternate app stores. Not links to external payments.....

 

[mrochester]

Ok so how do you put a figure on android that doesn’t discriminate against smaller OEM’s from using it to sell their product
Unless your suggesting that google are forced to sell android at different price points then is that not discrimination

You get Google to say how much it costs to develop and maintain Android, add a margin, and sell for that amount.

No price discrimination. The fee is the same regardless of how big the OEM is.