Apple's fight with Epic over App Store fees reaches the Supreme Court

[midian182]

In a nutshell: The long-running Epic versus Apple fight is heading back to the US Supreme Court. It seems that five years, several appeals, a Fortnite exile, a 27% workaround fee, and a contempt finding were not enough drama for one App Store dispute.

The justices have agreed to hear Apple's appeal against a lower-court ruling that found the company in contempt of a 2021 injunction from US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

That order required Apple to let developers point users to payment options outside the App Store, allowing them to avoid the iPhone maker's usual 15% to 30% commission.

The company did allow developers to include external payment links, but added new restrictions and demanded a 27% commission on purchases made through those links within seven days.

Epic argued that this was not compliance. Rogers agreed, finding in April 2025 that Apple had willfully violated her order and telling the company to stop charging fees on outside purchases.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December. It also said that Apple could return to the district court and argue what, if anything, it should be allowed to charge for purchases of digital goods made outside its payment system.

Apple says the contempt ruling goes too far because a company cannot be punished for violating the "spirit" of an injunction rather than an express command.

"This is an important question of law, and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case," Apple said.

Epic, unsurprisingly, framed the case rather differently.

"We're heading to the Supreme Court where we'll continue to fight against junk fees Apple charges on third-party payments," the company wrote on X.

– Epic Games Newsroom (@EpicNewsroom) June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October. Importantly, the justices appear to have rejected Apple's request to review whether the injunction should apply only to Epic, rather than to millions of other developers. That means the case is narrower than Apple wanted, but still important for anyone who makes money through iOS apps.

The legal battle has been dragging on since 2020, when Epic slipped its own payment option into Fortnite, Apple kicked the game from the App Store, and Epic immediately sued.

The 2021 ruling mostly went Apple's way, rejecting Epic's broader monopoly claims, but it still forced the company to loosen its anti-steering rules and let developers point users to outside payment options.

Apple later tried to preserve most of its commission through a 27% fee on external purchases, leading to the 2025 contempt order accusing it of defying the court. Fortnite eventually returned to the US iOS App Store after nearly five years away.

The Supreme Court will not decide whether Apple runs an illegal monopoly. It will decide whether the company's response to the court order was allowed or amounted to contempt. The answer could have major consequences for App Store fees.

Permalink to story:

Apple's fight with Epic over App Store fees reaches the Supreme Court

 

[Axeia]

"The company did allow developers to include external payment links, but added new restrictions and demanded a 27% commission on purchases made through those links within seven days.

Epic argued that this was not compliance. Rogers agreed, finding in April 2025 that Apple had willfully violated her order and telling the company to stop charging fees on outside purchases."

They ignored the ruling, made god knows how much money by doing so and... shall face no consequences for it. Sure is weird how they keep putting everything off for as long as possible and get around it in every possible way, almost like they got hundreds of millions of incentive to keep doing so.

Companies get away with way too much BS in court. These things should be handled way faster and malicious compliance should be met with massive fines. imo have them open up their bookkeeping and whatever they made pulling this off - straight into the state treasury or something.

 

[Loadedaxe]

"The company did allow developers to include external payment links, but added new restrictions and demanded a 27% commission on purchases made through those links within seven days.

Epic argued that this was not compliance. Rogers agreed, finding in April 2025 that Apple had willfully violated her order and telling the company to stop charging fees on outside purchases."

They ignored the ruling, made god knows how much money by doing so and... shall face no consequences for it. Sure is weird how they keep putting everything off for as long as possible and get around it in every possible way, almost like they got hundreds of millions of incentive to keep doing so.

Companies get away with way too much BS in court. These things should be handled way faster and malicious compliance should be met with massive fines. imo have them open up their bookkeeping and whatever they made pulling this off - straight into the state treasury or something.

I don't disagree that companies shouldn't be allowed to drag out litigation or engage in "malicious compliance," but that's exactly why we have an appeals process. Apple argues the injunction was interpreted too broadly, while Epic argues Apple deliberately violated it. That's ultimately for the courts to decide, not public opinion.

As for seizing "whatever they made" and handing it to the state, that's a dangerous precedent. Courts don't typically confiscate revenue simply because one side is accused of violating an order. If Apple is ultimately found to have willfully violated the injunction after all appeals are exhausted, then impose the appropriate sanctions, fines, or other remedies under the law. But those penalties should follow due process, not frustration with a company.

The bigger issue here isn't just Apple...it's making sure the same legal standards apply to every company, whether it's Apple, Google, Epic, Microsoft, or anyone else.

Contrary to popular belief, Tim Sweeney and Epic aren't angels in this fight either. Epic isn't doing this out of charity for developers or consumers...they're fighting for a larger share of the revenue and greater control over their own interest. Apple is protecting its business model, and Epic is trying to expand theirs. Both companies are acting in their own financial interests.

 

[Sean T]

Contrary to popular belief, Tim Sweeney and Epic aren't angels in this fight either. Epic isn't doing this out of charity for developers or consumers...they're fighting for a larger share of the revenue and greater control over their own interest. Apple is protecting its business model, and Epic is trying to expand theirs. Both companies are acting in their own financial interests.

Totally agree. You won't see any massive 27% cut in in-app prices with the change. It just puts more money into whomever is handling the in-app purchases. I can understand why Apple is fighting for this. What happens to an app store if every single developer provides a link to bypass Apple's payment system? How does Apple get the revenue to fund the app store? I imagine the servers, the oversight, app review, network connections, support, etc. have substantial costs. Seems that apps should have to pay something to get and maintain access to this service from Apple. Perhaps they are charging to much, that I can side with, but to say they can have no way to enforce revenue seems extreme. Thoughts?

 

[Axeia]

Totally agree. You won't see any massive 27% cut in in-app prices with the change.

I'd rather have the money go to Epic when I purchase something in Epics game where Epic has handled the transaction and Apple did nothing besides sell me the device. Them inserting themselves in the pay chain whilst having absolutely nothing to do with it - no thanks.
(PS: Pure fiction, I don't own a single Apple device nor do I currently play any games from Epic).

I can understand why Apple is fighting for this.

Me too, every day they stall this easily covers the fees of the lawyers.

What happens to an app store if every single developer provides a link to bypass Apple's payment system?

Then the majority still uses Apple pay because it's their 'most trusted', most convenient, not plastered in warnings option that they already have set up.
The path of least resistance.

How does Apple get the revenue to fund the app store? I imagine the servers, the oversight, app review, network connections, support, etc. have substantial costs.

The sale of Apps themselves where they actually have costs.
The money they make by charging developers for the developer account.
The money from the majority of people no doubt still using the easiest option.
The money they make from the ads in the app store.

An app store doesn't cost -that- much to run, look at the Linux community that somehow has repositories (not unlike App stores) accessible free of charge, without ads, without making money from app sales, without charging developers to put their stuff on it, without charging for apps. Not to mention they don't sell you the device with a fat profit margin on it. An App store isn't much different from running a curated download regular website, storage space and bandwidth really aren't all that expensive.
With the change Apple would still make an incredible amount of money, just not quite as much as they currently do.

Seems that apps should have to pay something to get and maintain access to this service from Apple. Perhaps they are charging to much, that I can side with, but to say they can have no way to enforce revenue seems extreme. Thoughts?

They only have costs because they made themselves the single source of everything and literally straight up ban you from that single source for users if you try to get around it in anyway. You're not even allowed to mention that a subscription on your website might be cheaper (unless you're a megacorp yourself like Netflix/Spotify) in the app - your app will get refused from the App store.

Want to make sure Apple doesn't incur any costs? Third party App store (only supported in Europe/Brazil/Japan), the App isn't by Apple, the payment is through a payment provider that doesn't interact with Apple whatsoever. Guess what, Apple wants 27%.
Any payment provider wants 2-3% so total costs are about 30%.
So running a third party app store where the third party has to pay for the infrastructure/bandwidth literally can't undercut Apples prices thanks to Apple wanting a 27% cut still - despite not having to do anything with it.

It's the same with their repair program where technically they allow third party repairs but structured it in such a way where the third party literally can't compete on price with Apple let alone make any profit.

 

[LordVile95]

I really don’t see how you can expect to use another companies hardware platform and marketplace for free. Epic have tried their own store to get around it and it just didn’t work as no one migrated so they now want to use apples and not pay for it

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

I really don’t see how you can expect to use another companies hardware platform and marketplace for free. Epic have tried their own store to get around it and it just didn’t work as no one migrated so they now want to use apples and not pay for it

First off, once Apple sells a phone or tablet, it is no longer their hardware platform. It is whoever purchased the device's platform. The 2nd problem is that Apple is actively blocking other companies from setting up stores that work on Apple hardware; even in places where Apple has been forced to allow third party stores, Apple has still been trying to get a cut of the sales.

The simple solution to this would be to say that Apple can set up any fees or policies on its own app store, but can't stop third parties from setting up their app stores that work on Apple manufactured hardware, and can't charge fees on apps that are not on their store. The idea that a device maker can restrict how their customers interact with 3rd parties after the sale is both hostile to fair competition, and hostile to customers.

Let Apple restrict what owners can do with their own hardware and before you know it we will have ag equipment companies blocking farmers from fixing their own tractors, or train companies bricking locomotives for using the wrong service centers.

 

[LordVile95]

First off, once Apple sells a phone or tablet, it is no longer their hardware platform. It is whoever purchased the device's platform. The 2nd problem is that Apple is actively blocking other companies from setting up stores that work on Apple hardware; even in places where Apple has been forced to allow third party stores, Apple is still demanding a 27% cut of sales that aren't even going through their store.

Not really as that’s clearly the terms that you agree to when you buy it and develop for it.

The app goes through their store but the payment is going through a third party. So the dev is using the App Store for distribution but then using another method for payment.

The simple solution to this would be to say that Apple can set up any fees or policies on its own app store, but can't stop third parties from setting up their app stores that work on Apple manufactured hardware, and can't charge fees on apps that are not on their store. The idea that a device maker can restrict how their customers interact with 3rd parties after the sale is both hostile to fair competition, and hostile to customers.

Nope as it’s clearly how it operates and is in the terms agreed upon when you set up the device. If you don’t like it then don’t get an iPhone

Let Apple restrict what owners can do with their own hardware and before you know it we will have ag equipment companies blocking farmers from fixing their own tractors, or train companies bricking locomotives for using the wrong service centers.

Yes and if we let the women have the vote then society will collapse. Slippery slope arguments don’t work and are often silly. If you don’t like how iPhones work then don’t use them or develop for them.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Not really as that’s clearly the terms that you agree to when you buy it and develop for it.

The app goes through their store but the payment is going through a third party. So the dev is using the App Store for distribution but then using another method for payment.

Nope as it’s clearly how it operates and is in the terms agreed upon when you set up the device. If you don’t like it then don’t get an iPhone

Yes and if we let the women have the vote then society will collapse. Slippery slope arguments don’t work and are often silly. If you don’t like how iPhones work then don’t use them or develop for them.

Just because a company writes something into its terms of service does not necessarily mean it is legally binding; plenty of TOS stuff is simply invalid. The legal system has decided there are plenty of things that are unenforceable in a contract. Apple has enough market-share that this sort does fall under anti-trust laws (see lawsuit going on); anti-trust laws certainly can allow the courts to strike down contract/TOS provisions a company may have.

Though personally I would prefer a specific law address the situation (I.e. device makers may not artificially restrict the actual owners from installing third-party software, using third party replacement parts, or third party repair services), it is not strictly needed in this case.

And I specifically chose example that were not "slippery slope" arguments. If you haven't been paying attention, John Deere has been using software to block farmers from fixing their own tractors; and a Polish train company did brick some locomotives after it detected them going to third-party repair centers. That's the sort of thing that is happening when companies can use software to control what the owners of an item do with it after sale.

Edit - to also add to it, it is not uncommon for minors to purchase iDevices; are you saying that the TOS/contract terms should be binding on minors? Most contracts aren't, and require a parent's signature to be legally valid. Do you think Apple stores should have to ID card buyers, and the setup of iDevices include age verification? And then there is the used market; if I go buy a used iPad from a pawn shop, and it is already logged in with some else's account, well I never agreed to any TOS. Why would Apple's TOS be binding on me?

 

[LordVile95]

Just because a company writes something into its terms of service does not necessarily mean it is legally binding; plenty of TOS stuff is simply invalid. The legal system has decided there are plenty of things that are unenforceable in a contract. Apple has enough market-share that this sort does fall under anti-trust laws (see lawsuit going on); anti-trust laws certainly can allow the courts to strike down contract/TOS provisions a company may have.

No they don’t and you’re aware that the only store is the App Store when you buy it.

Though personally I would prefer a specific law address the situation (I.e. device makers may not artificially restrict the actual owners from installing third-party software, using third party replacement parts, or third party repair services), it is not strictly needed in this case.

Which is never going to happen because most hardware would either increase in price 2x or just not be made.

And I specifically chose example that were not "slippery slope" arguments. If you haven't been paying attention, John Deere has been using software to block farmers from fixing their own tractors; and a Polish train company did brick some locomotives after it detected them going to third-party repair centers. That's the sort of thing that is happening when companies can use software to control what the owners of an item do with it after sale.

Maybe they should get less technologically advanced tractors then? As hardware and equipment gets more and more advanced the more socialism is required in repair and maintenance. In my field you could not just rock up and repair the equipment without adequate training, you’d break it.

Edit - to also add to it, it is not uncommon for minors to purchase iDevices; are you saying that the TOS/contract terms should be binding on minors? Most contracts aren't, and require a parent's signature to be legally valid. Do you think Apple stores should have to ID card buyers, and the setup of iDevices include age verification? And then there is the used market; if I go buy a used iPad from a pawn shop, and it is already logged in with some else's account, well I never agreed to any TOS. Why would Apple's TOS be binding on me?

It’s very uncommon for minors to purchase devices in general. For a start they’d need a bank account which requires parents to set up, deposit money into and manage. It’s up to the parents to agree to the child’s purchases and set up the account for them.

Using another persons account would be identity theft and fraud which are a little more serious.

 

[m3diapers]

Is that why I cannot download fornite on my mac mini?

 

[LordVile95]

Is that why I cannot download fornite on my mac mini?

No

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

No they don’t and you’re aware that the only store is the App Store when you buy it.

Which is never going to happen because most hardware would either increase in price 2x or just not be made.

Maybe they should get less technologically advanced tractors then? As hardware and equipment gets more and more advanced the more socialism is required in repair and maintenance. In my field you could not just rock up and repair the equipment without adequate training, you’d break it.

It’s very uncommon for minors to purchase devices in general. For a start they’d need a bank account which requires parents to set up, deposit money into and manage. It’s up to the parents to agree to the child’s purchases and set up the account for them.

Using another persons account would be identity theft and fraud which are a little more serious.

Buddy, this very article is about Apple being forced to change the terms of their contracts, and whether or not they are complying with those changes, due to anti-trust related lawsuits. So of course the courts can force Apple to change things due to anti-trust laws. And maybe someone is not aware of how restrictive Apple is on their devices before they purchase one. Apple just lets you buy one off the shelf, they don't make you sit down and agree to a contract before purchase.

And for the vast majority of hardware sold throughout the vast majority of history, the manufacturer has had no way to control or restrict how the owner used the device with 3rd party stuff; that has only become technically possible in the last few decades. And most hardware today is open; there are a few locking stuff down like Apple, but most are much more open. The idea that such a law would force companies to stop selling stuff is just silly, when most aren't abusing the ability to lock stuff down (yet).

And its perfectly common for minors to have enough birthday/Christmas cash to buy an iPad. Right now they can just walk into an Apple Store, slap down some cash for an iPad, and start setting it up, and Apple has no way of knowing what age they actually are. If Apple wants to restrict what people can do after sale perhaps they should only sell to adults and require that contracts be signed prior. And even then, society and the legal system may decide certain terms are not legal in said contracts. If Apple offered a warranty plan that violated the Magnusson-Moss Warranty act, well, it wouldn't matter if people signed the agreement, Apple would still be breaking the law. New laws, or anti-trust based restrictions still apply to Apple.

 

[LordVile95]

Buddy, this very article is about Apple being forced to change the terms of their contracts, and whether or not they are complying with those changes, due to anti-trust related lawsuits. So of course the courts can force Apple to change things due to anti-trust laws. And maybe someone is not aware of how restrictive Apple is on their devices before they purchase one. Apple just lets you buy one off the shelf, they don't make you sit down and agree to a contract before purchase.

If you fail to educate yourself on a purchase that’s your fault and there’s literally return periods for this.

And for the vast majority of hardware sold throughout the vast majority of history, the manufacturer has had no way to control or restrict how the owner used the device with 3rd party stuff; that has only become technically possible in the last few decades. And most hardware today is open; there are a few locking stuff down like Apple, but most are much more open. The idea that such a law would force companies to stop selling stuff is just silly, when most aren't abusing the ability to lock stuff down (yet).

No there definitely has been it’s just been more difficult to do. It’s also easier to launch nonsense lawsuits and more responsibility on the manufacturer means they’re going to want to lock down things harder. Also again there are safety implications here as to why untrained people or those who are not SQEP should not be messing with equipment.

And its perfectly common for minors to have enough birthday/Christmas cash to buy an iPad. Right now they can just walk into an Apple Store, slap down some cash for an iPad, and start setting it up, and Apple has no way of knowing what age they actually are.

And again responsibility lies with the parents which is why parental management tools are a thing. However how often does a child have unfettered access to hundreds in cash?

If Apple wants to restrict what people can do after sale perhaps they should only sell to adults and require that contracts be signed prior. And even then, society and the legal system may decide certain terms are not legal in said contracts. If Apple offered a warranty plan that violated the Magnusson-Moss Warranty act, well, it wouldn't matter if people signed the agreement, Apple would still be breaking the law. New laws, or anti-trust based restrictions still apply to Apple.

If they want to do that then why not I’d support it. Children shouldn’t have access to smart phones or tablets anyway it has been proven to be extremely bad for their overall health.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Buddy, this very article is about Apple being forced to change the terms of their contracts, and whether or not they are complying with those changes, due to anti-trust related lawsuits. So of course the courts can force Apple to change things due to anti-trust laws. And maybe someone is not aware of how restrictive Apple is on their devices before they purchase one. Apple just lets you buy one off the shelf, they don't make you sit down and agree to a contract before purchase.

And for the vast majority of hardware sold throughout the vast majority of history, the manufacturer has had no way to control or restrict how the owner used the device with 3rd party stuff; that has only become technically possible in the last few decades. And most hardware today is open; there are a few locking stuff down like Apple, but most are much more open. The idea that such a law would force companies to stop selling stuff is just silly, when most aren't abusing the ability to lock stuff down (yet).

And its perfectly common for minors to have enough birthday/Christmas cash to buy an iPad. Right now they can just walk into an Apple Store, slap down some cash for an iPad, and start setting it up, and Apple has no way of knowing what age they actually are. If Apple wants to restrict what people can do after sale perhaps they should only sell to adults and require that contracts be signed prior. And even then, society and the legal system may decide certain terms are not legal in said contracts. If Apple offered a warranty plan that violated the Magnusson-Moss Warranty act, well, it wouldn't matter if people signed the agreement, Apple would still be breaking the law. New laws, or anti-trust based restrictions still apply to Apple.

You're mixing together device ownership with platform governance. Owning an iPhone or iPad doesn't automatically entitle someone to use Apple's payment platform or App Store under whatever terms they choose. Those are separate issues. The hardware belongs to the customer, but the App Store is Apple's service, and the dispute is over what restrictions are lawful for that service...not whether someone owns the phone.

As for contracts, you don't have to sign paperwork in an Apple Store. Software licenses and service agreements are routinely accepted during device setup or before using services. Whether every term is enforceable is a legal question, which is exactly why we're in court.

And I agree that if Apple violated a court order, there should be consequences. What I don't agree with is the idea that we should skip the legal process or start confiscating revenue because people are frustrated with Apple. That's not how the rule of law works, and it shouldn't depend on whether the company is Apple, Epic, Google, or anyone else.

One last thing, as has been stated before, contrary to what many people seem to believe, Epic isn't some consumer advocacy group. Tim Sweeney is fighting for Epic's business interests just as Apple is fighting for Apple's. It's a dispute between two multibillion dollar companies over control of a digital marketplace...not good guys versus bad guys.

Epic wants access to Apple's platform while paying less and operating under different rules than Apple has traditionally required. That's a legitimate business objective, but let's not pretend this is purely about protecting consumers. Epic stands to make billions if it succeeds, just as Apple stands to lose billions if it doesn't. Both companies are pursuing what they believe is best for their own business. So ... I assume you think that if Epic was the one controlling the platform, and we all know that did not work well for Epic, then you would side with Apple on this?

I didn't think so....

 

[Loadedaxe]

I'd rather have the money go to Epic when I purchase something in Epics game where Epic has handled the transaction and Apple did nothing besides sell me the device. Them inserting themselves in the pay chain whilst having absolutely nothing to do with it - no thanks.
(PS: Pure fiction, I don't own a single Apple device nor do I currently play any games from Epic).


Me too, every day they stall this easily covers the fees of the lawyers.


Then the majority still uses Apple pay because it's their 'most trusted', most convenient, not plastered in warnings option that they already have set up.
The path of least resistance.


The sale of Apps themselves where they actually have costs.
The money they make by charging developers for the developer account.
The money from the majority of people no doubt still using the easiest option.
The money they make from the ads in the app store.

An app store doesn't cost -that- much to run, look at the Linux community that somehow has repositories (not unlike App stores) accessible free of charge, without ads, without making money from app sales, without charging developers to put their stuff on it, without charging for apps. Not to mention they don't sell you the device with a fat profit margin on it. An App store isn't much different from running a curated download regular website, storage space and bandwidth really aren't all that expensive.
With the change Apple would still make an incredible amount of money, just not quite as much as they currently do.


They only have costs because they made themselves the single source of everything and literally straight up ban you from that single source for users if you try to get around it in anyway. You're not even allowed to mention that a subscription on your website might be cheaper (unless you're a megacorp yourself like Netflix/Spotify) in the app - your app will get refused from the App store.

Want to make sure Apple doesn't incur any costs? Third party App store (only supported in Europe/Brazil/Japan), the App isn't by Apple, the payment is through a payment provider that doesn't interact with Apple whatsoever. Guess what, Apple wants 27%.
Any payment provider wants 2-3% so total costs are about 30%.
So running a third party app store where the third party has to pay for the infrastructure/bandwidth literally can't undercut Apples prices thanks to Apple wanting a 27% cut still - despite not having to do anything with it.

It's the same with their repair program where technically they allow third party repairs but structured it in such a way where the third party literally can't compete on price with Apple let alone make any profit.

Apple didn't just manufacture the hardware. They built iOS, the App Store, Xcode, the SDKs, APIs, security model, code signing, app review process, fraud detection, payment infrastructure, developer tools, global distribution network, and the ecosystem that gives developers access to hundreds of millions of users. Whether all of that justifies a 30% fee, 27%, or something lower is a fair debate...but saying Apple contributes "nothing" simply isn't accurate.

The Linux repository comparison also doesn't really fit. Linux repositories are largely community driven software distribution systems. They aren't global commercial marketplaces processing billions of dollars in transactions, handling refunds, developer payouts, tax compliance, fraud prevention, customer support, and legal obligations across dozens of countries.

Now, if you think Apple charges too much, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. If you think Apple has structured its rules to protect its business model, that's also a reasonable criticism. But let's not pretend Epic is taking the moral high ground here.

Epic isn't trying to become a charity. Tim Sweeney wants Epic to keep more of every transaction while still benefiting from Apple's ecosystem. Apple wants to protect the revenue generated by the ecosystem it built. Both companies are acting in their own financial interests, and the courts are deciding where the legal line should be.

 

[Axeia]

I really don’t see how you can expect to use another companies hardware platform and marketplace for free. Epic have tried their own store to get around it and it just didn’t work as no one migrated so they now want to use apples and not pay for it

That's bending the truth to the extreme.

Apple added additional conditions and costs to third party stores to the point where they can't succeed.

1) It only works in a small subset of countries, namely European countries + Brazil + Japan (note the distinct lack of the US/China for example)
2) Apple wants 27% of sales (and payment providers will want 2-3%).
3) A user has to click through so many scary warnings accompanied by scary texts it makes installing a virus whilst setting off your anti-virus look mild by comparison.
4) Epic never stated they don't want to pay, they only stated 30% is too much. Considering they charge 12% to third parties themselves in the Epic Games Store they may have a point.

If you'd like a different example.
The Microsoft Store charges 15% for Apps installed through their store, 12% for games doing it and a mere 5% if the install is done directly through an URL provided by you in a different way (inside an app or your website for example). And doesn't further restrict inside the app itself how payments are handled (unlike Apple)

'just didn't work' makes it sound like they stopped doing so. It's still available just fine:
https://store.epicgames.com/mobile/ios

 

[LordVile95]

That's bending the truth to the extreme.

Apple added additional conditions and costs to third party stores to the point where they can't succeed.

1) It only works in a small subset of countries, namely European countries + Brazil + Japan (note the distinct lack of the US/China for example)
2) Apple wants 27% of sales (and payment providers will want 2-3%).
3) A user has to click through so many scary warnings accompanied by scary texts it makes installing a virus whilst setting off your anti-virus look mild by comparison.
4) Epic never stated they don't want to pay, they only stated 30% is too much. Considering they charge 12% to third parties themselves in the Epic Games Store they may have a point.

If you'd like a different example.
The Microsoft Store charges 15% for Apps installed through their store, 12% for games doing it and a mere 5% if the install is done directly through an URL provided by you in a different way (inside an app or your website for example). And doesn't further restrict inside the app itself how payments are handled (unlike Apple)

'just didn't work' makes it sound like they stopped doing so. It's still available just fine:
https://store.epicgames.com/mobile/ios

All of which is hypocritical considering they’re happy to pay the 30% to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

 

[Axeia]

Apple didn't just manufacture the hardware. They built iOS, the App Store, Xcode, the SDKs, APIs, security model, code signing, app review process, fraud detection, payment infrastructure, developer tools, global distribution network, and the ecosystem that gives developers access to hundreds of millions of users. Whether all of that justifies a 30% fee, 27%, or something lower is a fair debate...but saying Apple contributes "nothing" simply isn't accurate.

Fair enough although imo with some asterisks next to some of those.

The Linux repository comparison also doesn't really fit. Linux repositories are largely community driven software distribution systems. They aren't global commercial marketplaces processing billions of dollars in transactions, handling refunds, developer payouts, tax compliance, fraud prevention, customer support, and legal obligations across dozens of countries.

Apple inserted themselves into that position to reap the profits, those costs on Apples scale are also pretty darn low.
The point was that the costs of doing so wasn't very high, take the MS store as a more apt example if you'd prefer that - it handles all the same things, charges far less (5-15%) and doesn't come with caveats of not allowing in App purchases through third party providers or even mentioning purchases elsewhere). Oh and typically they don't make profit off the hardware with the exception of MS Surface devices.

Now, if you think Apple charges too much, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. If you think Apple has structured its rules to protect its business model, that's also a reasonable criticism. But let's not pretend Epic is taking the moral high ground here.

Epic isn't trying to become a charity. Tim Sweeney wants Epic to keep more of every transaction while still benefiting from Apple's ecosystem. Apple wants to protect the revenue generated by the ecosystem it built. Both companies are acting in their own financial interests, and the courts are deciding where the legal line should be.

Epic just happens to align with the best interests of consumers in this case, as a consumer that has me siding with them on this one.

I take issue with:
Apples not allowing you to mention that subscriptions on your own site are cheaper because they want to handle the payment and their cut.
Apple wanting a 27% cut off sales where they don't handle the sale.
Apple trying to force them to be the only payment option.
Apple being the sole entity deciding what apps are allowed on your phone.

On consoles sold at break even or even at a loss these types of practices are understandable and you know you buy a device for a single purpose.
On a smartphone sold at (a for the industry) fat margin which is a general purpose device these are limitations that are imo just straight up abuse of power.

 

[Axeia]

All of which is hypocritical considering they’re happy to pay the 30% to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

Single purpose device (it games) sold at close to break even (perhaps not so much the case for Nintendo since the Switch era).
vs
Generic purpose device sold at a (very) healthy profit margin.

On PC they weren't happy with paying Steam 30% either and did their own thing.
Now Valve allegedly trying to be scumbags and trying to dictate prices on other platforms I'm just as much against, a very Apple-like move of them to pull.

Gabe Newell says Steam doesn't pressure developers on pricing, emails suggest otherwise

According to transcripts recently obtained by Bloomberg, Valve CEO Gabe Newell told lawyers in 2023 that the company does not pressure developers to synchronize prices on Steam...

www.techspot.com

 

[LordVile95]

Single purpose device (it games) sold at close to break even (perhaps not so much the case for Nintendo since the Switch era).
vs
Generic purpose device sold at a (very) healthy profit margin.

The PS5 is sold at a profit and they are just PCs with a locked down OS. There’s no difference from a hardware perspective between a XSX or PS5 and a PC. Also I could use a XSX for general compute if I wanted to.

On PC they weren't happy with paying Steam 30% either and did their own thing.

And steam isn’t a platform it’s a store.

Now Valve allegedly trying to be scumbags and trying to dictate prices on other platforms I'm just as much against, a very Apple-like move of them to pull.

Gabe Newell says Steam doesn't pressure developers on pricing, emails suggest otherwise

According to transcripts recently obtained by Bloomberg, Valve CEO Gabe Newell told lawyers in 2023 that the company does not pressure developers to synchronize prices on Steam...

www.techspot.com

Actually it’s not because Apple don’t dictate what other platforms can charge. They don’t say that an app cannot be priced on the play store for example for less than the App Store. What epic is trying to do here would be the same as listing a game on steam and linking to an external payment site to buy the game where steam doesn’t get a cut but it’s still in your steam library.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Fair enough although imo with some asterisks next to some of those.


Apple inserted themselves into that position to reap the profits, those costs on Apples scale are also pretty darn low.
The point was that the costs of doing so wasn't very high, take the MS store as a more apt example if you'd prefer that - it handles all the same things, charges far less (5-15%) and doesn't come with caveats of not allowing in App purchases through third party providers or even mentioning purchases elsewhere). Oh and typically they don't make profit off the hardware with the exception of MS Surface devices.


Epic just happens to align with the best interests of consumers in this case, as a consumer that has me siding with them on this one.

I take issue with:
Apples not allowing you to mention that subscriptions on your own site are cheaper because they want to handle the payment and their cut.
Apple wanting a 27% cut off sales where they don't handle the sale.
Apple trying to force them to be the only payment option.
Apple being the sole entity deciding what apps are allowed on your phone.

On consoles sold at break even or even at a loss these types of practices are understandable and you know you buy a device for a single purpose.
On a smartphone sold at (a for the industry) fat margin which is a general purpose device these are limitations that are imo just straight up abuse of power.

Epic's interests may align with consumers in this particular case, but that doesn't mean Epic is acting out of consumer advocacy. Tim Sweeney isn't spending hundreds of millions fighting Apple because he suddenly became passionate about consumer rights. He's doing it because Epic stands to keep billions more in revenue if Apple's rules change. That's a business objective, just like Apple's objective is to protect the ecosystem it built.

As for Microsoft, it's not really an apples to apples comparison. Windows has been an open platform for decades where users can install software from virtually anywhere. Apple built iOS around a curated ecosystem from the beginning. Whether that model should be loosened is a perfectly valid debate, but it's also why regulators are involved.

If Apple ultimately has to allow outside payment systems without charging 27%, then so be it...that's what the courts are for. But I don't think we should rewrite history and pretend Epic is fighting this out of generosity. Both companies are trying to maximize their own profits. The only real question is where the law draws the line.

Here's where I think we fundamentally disagree.
At the end of the day, it's Apple's platform. Apple spent decades and billions of dollars building iOS, the App Store, the developer tools, and the ecosystem. In a free market, I generally believe a private company should be allowed to decide what it charges for access to its own platform. Developers are free to decide whether those terms make business sense for them.

Now, antitrust law can absolutely limit that freedom if a court finds a company has crossed the legal line. That's why this case exists. But that's a legal question...not a moral one.

My issue is that people frame this as Apple being greedy while Epic is somehow fighting for consumers. Epic isn't asking Apple to open the platform out of generosity. Epic wants access to Apple's users while paying less to Apple. That's a perfectly rational business goal, but let's call it what it is...two multibillion dollar companies fighting over who gets a bigger slice of the same pie.