'Apple Tax is Dead in the USA' (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0180370567
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/12/1655239/apple-tax-is-dead-in-the-usa
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/epic-celebrates-the-end-of-the-apple-tax-after-appeals-court-win-in-ios-payments-case/
The appeals court also agreed that Apple acted in "bad faith" by rejecting viable, compliant alternatives in internal discussions. One divergence from the lower court: the appeals court ruled that Apple should still be able to charge a "reasonable fee" based on its actual costs to ensure user security and privacy, rather than charging nothing at all. What qualifies as "reasonable" remains to be determined.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney told reporters he believes those fees should be "super super minor," on the order of "tens or hundreds of dollars" every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. "The Apple Tax is dead in the USA," he wrote on social media. Sweeney also alleged that a widespread "fear of retaliation" has kept many developers paying Apple's default 30% fees, claiming the company can effectively "ghost" apps by delaying reviews or burying them in search results.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/epic-celebrates-the-end-of-the-apple-tax-after-appeals-court-win-in-ios-payments-case/
[2] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/05/01/055227/apple-must-halt-non-app-store-sales-commissions-judge-says
Re:What was the test to say 27% was unreasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was reasonable I presume companies wouldn't be complaining because it would be as cheap as or cheaper than setting up their own payment system.
Re: (Score:1)
No cut is reasonable. They're robbing anyone they charge.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you don't like the tax then don't use their app store.
This has the same feeling as, "if you don't like the laws then get out of the country!" How about a compromise? We get rid of the tax and you go fuck yourself?
Why is it so difficult for some people to break out of those false dichotomies? If you're playing Monopoly at a friends house and they say, "these are the house rules; If you don't like them, you don't have to play," you still have another option - change the rules! They (almost certainly) have changed the standard rules already, just as Apple made up
Re: (Score:2)
The clear guidance for what is unreasonable is any amount above what
There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center. Apple will be given an opportunity to show the cost of maintaining the Apple Store and keeping it secure, which of course will be scrutinized.
My guess is it will be
Re: (Score:1)
The "actual costs" are all Apple's servers... so if Apple needs to segment these people into sandboxed physically separated servers for "security" then "reasonable" could be easily $100K / month.
Re: (Score:2)
> The "actual costs" are all Apple's servers... so if Apple needs to segment these people into sandboxed physically separated servers for "security" then "reasonable" could be easily $100K / month.
Apple's servers aren't involved at all for in-app purchase payments through third party payment processors. And no sane person would consider such sandboxing to be reasonable for a server that just provides downloads of app binaries, because the server is not doing anything more than loading bytes from disk and sending them out over HTTPS. So that would get smacked down by the courts in a quarter of a second.
Competent lawyers do not play games like that, because they know that doing so is the surest way t
Re: (Score:3)
> There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center.
This. When Steve first introduced the App Store, he said they weren't trying to make a profit off of it. That was quickly proven to be a lie, because the economies of scale brought the costs way down, but the fees never decreased.
And the fact of the matter is that the decision to make apps go through the app review process is a decision made by Apple primarily for their benefit, not for the user's benefit. No other general-purpose platform (as opposed to game-only platforms like primitive cell phones and
Re: (Score:2)
> This. When Steve first introduced the App Store, he said they weren't trying to make a profit off of it. That was quickly proven to be a lie, because the economies of scale brought the costs way down, but the fees never decreased.
It seems to be more or less universal that when a for-profit company says "we're not looking to profit from X," that's either a lie when it's uttered, or an unrealistic expectation that fails to hold up.
Elon Musk saying Tesla would not profit from charging fees or repair parts is a fairly good example. Streaming services and their endless rounds of "buy this and there's no commercials!" "Oops, that has commercials now, but perhaps if we built a large wooden badger..." Also the countless companies discuss
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be fair if Epic/Unreal had a large enough market share of the gaming industry, and significant ability to lock their gaming customers into only Epic/Unreal gaming platforms, to be considered as much of a competitive concern as Apple's App Store. Neither of those are true.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple's worldwide marketshare in mobile phones is ~25%.
Epic has ~25% of the market and YES the studios that built on their engine a very locked. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/gamed... [reddit.com]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/8s20qp/i_researched_the_market_share_of_game_engines_on/
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple's worldwide marketshare in mobile phones is ~25%.
A swing and a miss!
> if Epic/Unreal had a large enough market share of the gaming industry, and significant ability to lock their gaming customers into only Epic/Unreal gaming platforms, to be considered as much of a competitive concern as Apple's App Store
Apple has 100% marketshare for iOS app distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple's worldwide marketshare in mobile phones is ~25%.
U.S. courts could not give two s**ts about worldwide market share. Apple has more than 58% of U.S. market share for cellular phones.
I'm still missing why Apple needs to bend the knee (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not an Apple fan and I've pretty much avoided their ecosystem. I'm not a fan of walled gardens but I can recognize why some people will be fine with the arrangement.
With that said, Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store. It's all their proprietary stuff, obviously sitting on top of BSD (still legal). Given they have no monopoly on cellphones, I don't really see why they can't set their market place fee to what they want. If a developer doesn't want to pay the price, they can go make an app for someone else. Apple doesn't owe anyone access to their ecosystem.
It's not like you must have an Iphone to get work done. Android is a huge ecosystem with the same stuff.
Someone feel free to break it down to me why Apple can't set it's own price policies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right. They should be able to charge what they wish. But if you agree to that, you should also agree that Microsoft should be able to take a 30% cut of any Windows application. And charge developers a fee to have the privilege of writing code on Windows. And prevent any application from accepting payment in any other form than the Windows Store payment system. And prevent you from displaying other payment options.
After all, it's their OS. They don't owe anyone access to their ecosystem.
Does Samsung take 30% of your steaming bill? Does (Score:2)
Does Samsung take 30% of your steaming bill? Does Samsung control and review the movies you are allowed to view on an TV?
Re: (Score:2)
I've no idea as I run an open source media center connected to a receiver and a projector for my media viewing experience. I control most of my media viewing outside of live sports.
I also don't have a single subscription for software on my phone. I had one briefly for a couple weeks in the past. Maybe it was 30% more but I didn't HAVE to buy that subscription. I choose to and I did so at the price listed. Not seeing the issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree that Microsoft should be able to do this. It's a strategic decision to be locked down or open. Playstation/XBox/Nintendo are locked down. iOS is locked down. Automaker OSes are locked down. It's not like Apple is some crazy exception here, and Android is an alternative that's more popular than iOS. I've never understood why, from a legal perspective, what the game console companies do is legal and what Apple does isn't. The argument that consoles lose money on hardware and make it up on softwa
Re: (Score:2)
> Yeah, I agree that Microsoft should be able to do this. It's a strategic decision to be locked down or open. Playstation/XBox/Nintendo are locked down. iOS is locked down. Automaker OSes are locked down. It's not like Apple is some crazy exception here ...
Actually, it is. Cars don't generally allow third-party apps at all. They're an embedded system. Therefore, those are entirely moot.
Gaming systems are largely limited to games, and to a limited extent, media consumption (e.g. Netflix), which makes them a much more specialized system than an iPhone.
And gaming systems don't need to be a single tool that serves all of a user's needs in the way that a cell phone does. Cell phones are something you carry with you all day, and generally require a monthly cell
Re: (Score:2)
A closer argument would be for the Sony Playstation and MS Xbox. They both charge 30% of revenue for app developers. The exact same arguments can be used against them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if people use windows, they deserve what they get. Linux work just fine for all my needs. I'm actually constantly surprised the world tolerates Microsoft and doesn't punish them by leaving the platform.
But legally speaking, I don't see a problem with what you wrote out.
Especially given how much worse things were with Windows and Microsoft in the 90s. They actually had a real monopoly at that point and were definitely abusing their position with hardware vendors (dell, hp, compaq). Apple has no monop
Re: (Score:1)
The Windows Store is definitely their first step into this direction.
Re: (Score:2)
If I sell any kind of product that is used on or supported by a mobile device, I really have no choice but to support Apple users. I can't be a bank or a retailer or a streaming provider or all kinds of things unless I support Apple users. Look at how many people swear they will never buy a GM automobile because they don't support Apple Carplay. So this isn't limited to developers, its Apple wedging themselves in between my customers and my business, whatever that business might be.
It's a new kind of pro
Re: (Score:1)
> If I sell any kind of product that is used on or supported by a mobile device, I really have no choice but to support Apple users. ... this isn't limited to developers, its Apple wedging themselves in between my customers and my business, whatever that business might be./p>
Of course you can choose not to support Apple. You've correctly determined you'll make more money, despite Apple's 30% tax, supporting Apple users.
Apple isn't wedging themselves between your customers and your business. Your business is dependent on another company making hardware and software that you can develop on. You don't have a business that can exist independently. If I make hats, I can sell them, even if no clothing store will stock them or even if no clothing stores exist. You don't have that kind
Re:I'm still missing why Apple needs to bend the k (Score:4, Informative)
you're misunderstanding
Here's a real world example: Apple forced Patreon to give Apple 30% of the money that supporters wanted to give to artists, under threat of having their app removed entirely from Apple devices. [1]https://news.patreon.com/artic... [patreon.com]
Why is Apple entitled to anything here? Patreon doesn't want to use Apple's services but they have no choice.
[1] https://news.patreon.com/articles/understanding-apple-requirements-for-patreon
Re: (Score:2)
> you're misunderstanding
> Here's a real world example: Apple forced Patreon to give Apple 30% of the money that supporters wanted to give to artists, under threat of having their app removed entirely from Apple devices. [1]https://news.patreon.com/artic... [patreon.com]
> Why is Apple entitled to anything here? Patreon doesn't want to use Apple's services but they have no choice.
Patreon should have just immediately pulled their app from Apple's store. They're a website. There's no obvious benefit to doing things in an app versus a website.
That said, nothing inherently prevents Apple from maliciously making it harder for Patreon's website to work on iOS. Apple controls the only web browser engine that is allowed to run on the platform.
[1] https://news.patreon.com/articles/understanding-apple-requirements-for-patreon
Re: (Score:2)
Can Apple users not open a web browser and go to your website? I ask sincerely as on Android, I can just open a web browser and go directly to the website. No extra support required.
It also doesn't sound like you would have a business if not for Apple developing a cellphone market place platform for you to sell your app on. If Apple shuts down their iphone, then what do you do?
At the end of the day though, you choose how to interact with your customers. It's not on Apple to make your life easier. I'm still
Re: (Score:2)
> Given they have no monopoly on cellphones ...
They, in fact, have 58% of the U.S. cellular phone market, which is more than enough control over the market to regulate them under antitrust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Given they have no monopoly on cellphones
Not this again.
The legislation isn't anti- monopolies, it's anti-trust. Are Apple big enough to have a distorting effect on the market? Yes. Do they make use of that for profit? Yes.
You don't need an absolute monopoly to be guilty of anti-trust violations.
Someone feel free to break it down to me why Apple can't set it's own price policies.
If Apple were one of 10 equal sized players, and demanded 30% fees, developers would leave. Because of their size developers canno
Re: (Score:1)
I'm happy for the ruling. The chief difference between Apple and Android is there is NO WAY to sideload apps on the iPhone. If you don't like Android's store, and can get people to find a url to your app, they can install it directly. That has never been the case with Apple, and they can arbitrarily deny store access. The chief difference between Apple and Sony/MS game consoles is the Playstation and Xbox hardware are sold at or below their COGS. So their cut of the store is al the revenue they get for
Re: (Score:2)
You mention a "marketplace fee". That's antithetical to the idea of free-market capitalism, if you care about that.
Free. Markets.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store
Remember, when iPhone came out there was no App Store.
That was a separate business that came later, competition was prohibited, and by prohibiting competition rents were extracted.
This is called "illegal tying" in the law.
It's weird to see antitrust law enforced (Score:1)
Fun fact the reason your grocery prices aren't going down thanks to antitrust law enforcement is that companies don't bother demanding enforcement and instead just Sue the monopolies and trusts themselves and get a payout every few years. McDonald's for example got 170 million from suing the four major meat packers.
You will be shocked to learn McDonald's isn't passing those savings on to consumers.
The Biden administration was knee deep in preparing antitrust actions before they lost the election. So
Re: (Score:1)
> Also in other news Democrats really really really suck at messaging...
That's because you are their spokesperson.
Re: (Score:2)
Grocery store margins are less then 3%. The grocery store is not gouging you.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that we'll see how impressed Trump was with that glass statue thing that "Tim Apple" gave him earlier this year.
Tim probably should have given him a private jet like Qatar did, then Trump would let them charge whatever commission they wanted.
What's a reasonable fee? (Score:2)
Okay so 27% feels like malicious compliance (and it is). But what is a reasonable fee, who decides what that is?
apple can claim they need $1000+ to review at app (Score:2)
apple can claim they need $1000+ to review at app at whale level + $200 hourly rate for 1-5 days (based on all over size of the game / app) (not that the worker gets that but that can be an all in rate).
Add say $500 in shop admin fees
And still endup way under 27% of all sales in an high use game.
Hell even let an reviewer take 2 weeks just to review 1 game and you still end up with a bill that for an big game is reasonable fee.
Lemmings! (Score:1)
such scummy practices, and yet they're regarded by their fandom as such paragons. crazy disconnect, there.
the really alarming thing is the number of people who seem not to recognize immediately that this is scummy behaviour which should have no role in human society, and want to quibble and defend it, usually because they're reserving the right to treat others like shit/like they've been treated when it's their turn on top.
Accepting unacceptable behaviour is the weird thing, yutzes. Don't lemming yourself
Re: (Score:2)
You are not required to associate with Apple in anyway. If you choose to develop an app that runs on Apple's technology stack, then you have to play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Take your ball and go home. They don't owe you anything.
I personally don't like the idea of a walled garden and that drives me away from the Apple platform. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have a walled garden, just that I am choosing not to bother with them.
No one is forcing you to deal with Apple. They are ju
Re: Lemmings! (Score:2)
What you are missing is that the barrier to switch platforms is nontrivial. Consumers would have to buy a whole new phone and lose any purchased apps. Apple is able to leverage this to act anticompetitively and extort more fees from consumers than they normally would be able to in a completely free market. Thus, the government must step in to balance the scales.
Maybe they'll stop featuring freemium crap... (Score:2)
... and start featuring games that don't exploit people's mental vulnerability.
Re: (Score:2)
> don't exploit people's mental vulnerability
Then who remains to buy iCrap?
Bye Bye free Apps. (Score:2)
Free Apps will be the first victim, Streaming services, Social Media, Banking Apps, Shopping Apps , etc etc etc. They cost Apple.
I would expect "developers fees" to be considered at some stage
I would expect the consideration of "validation fees" to get applied to both the initial App and for updates.
30% is a reasonable fee for Apps on their store, payments for 3rd party streaming services, not so much.
For some context, I can buy Electrical cable etc wholesale, I get up to 84% discount off retail
I
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And no.
Free apps will continue. As long as they are actually free. Anything that owes (owed?) Apple that 27% of in-app sales or other revenue sources is either not free. Or written by a very generous developer. Apple gots ta' get paid.
> I would expect "developers fees" to be considered at some stage
What do you think the current 27% fee is? Maybe replaced with a fee for Apple Store server space and installation bandwidth. That's what the now defunct Apple Tax supposedly covered. But the in-app sales revenue stream doesn't necessarily run through Apple systems. And p
Now go after (Score:2)
every store that charges 30%, it's absolutely ridiculous for most every listing service that charges that amount. You would think that an online listing would be somewhere in the 5% range. Hosting doesn't cost that much for software. Reviewing content and scanning apps for viruses, yeah that's a little more work.
There is a reason these companies are the richest on the planet, because they don't provide value, they provide a monopoly over their users.
Meanwhile (Score:1)
I just got a friendly email from google to the effect of "we have to let you link externally now so get ready for fees"