The settlement between Google and Epic that aimed to put to rest the companies’ long-running antitrust battle is being withdrawn, and that means third-party app stores are coming to the Play Store.
[…]
While Apple suffered little penalty in its Epic case, Google was tripped up by its anti-competitive management of the supposedly open Android ecosystem. Google used its market position to discourage device makers from promoting or pre-loading non-Google app stores and attempted to hide that conduct. The remedies set by Judge James Donato included lower fees, mirroring Google Play apps in other stores, and most vitally, placement of alternative app stores in Google Play.
[…]
Google and Epic were set to return to court on July 16 to argue in favor of the settlement. However, the writing may have been on the wall. In a recent expert analysis provided to the court, MIT economics professor Nancy Rose noted that the settlement was “unlikely to enable Google Play’s potential competitors to overcome their long-standing network-effect disadvantage in a timely manner.”
[…]
Under the terms of Judge Donato’s original injunction, these stores will have access to the full catalog of Google Play apps by default. […] Google will also require approved stores to block malware, respect intellectual property, and include mechanisms to update and uninstall apps.
These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. They also reduce complexity by moving every developer that distributes apps in the EU to a single set of business terms.
[…]
The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
[…]
Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU.
[…]
Apple is also expanding who is eligible to operate an alternative app marketplace or distribute apps via the web in the EU.
[…]
Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization[…]
Apple will charge a 26% fee for apps distributed through the App Store that use in-app purchase.
[…]
Apps in the App Store that use in-app alternative payment processing will pay 20%.
[…]
Apps that link to a website purchase option will pay 15%.
Apps using Web Distribution or App Marketplaces would pay the 5% CTC (and report transactions). I like that the new terms are simpler and that the fees are slightly lower, but it seems like the EU got tricked or surrendered here.
This is bonkers, I can’t believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers’ dealings with users.
The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple.
All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
However, while Apple hopes it will be allowed to charge these lower commissions, it has admitted in a new regulatory filing that it may not be allowed to charge any commission at all on purchases made through third-party app stores and other external platforms.
The commission Apple earns from the App Store is shrinking in markets where it has been forced to relax its grip on in-app purchases, based on new analytics data.
Notably, this isn’t a proposal, it’s the announcement of actual changes that Apple will implement (starting October 1) after “close collaboration” with the EC. And lest we think Apple is overplaying that last aspect, that group gave a statement to Bloomberg backing up the assertion[…]
[…]
This feels like mainly a way to keep the all-important big gaming fees – which make up most of in-app payments, and as such, most App Store fees – mostly intact.
[…]
It sure looks like Apple knew this EU deal was coming down the pike and that the bloc agreeing to their terms would bolster the case that these are “fair”. The US judge still gets to decide that, and Epic has already pushed back as Apple seeks to negotiate directly. One big reason for pushing? Epic wants to ensure any changes Apple tries to negotiate be put in place for all developers.
The European Commission has since confirmed that it approves of Apple’s changes to its App Store policies, giving a statement to the Irish Independent[…]
Epic Games, a longstanding critic of Apple’s App Store practices, called the scheme “junk fees,” adding that the plan did “nothing to open up the mobile app ecosystem to competition, as required by Digital Markets Act.”
“The law makes it clear that Apple must allow developers to offer link outs to the web for purchases ‘free of charge’ and has to allow ‘effective use’ of competing stores,” the company wrote.
I hope this isn’t the end of DMA. Apple taking a cut of out-of-store apps revenue makes as much sense as app developers taking a cut of iPhone revenue.
[…]
And also I still want to live in a world where anyone can write a program and run it on the devices they own and send it to friends, without having to pay $100/year of developer account and do the whole notarization thing (which considering the amount of scam in the app store we know is pretty useless in terms of security). Not everybody is a professional programmer, some people are just doing programming as a hobby, some are also young people that don’t even own a credit card yet.
I have refused to sign any of Apple’s EU DMA agreements thus far, because I think they are illegal, and they have been optional.
I still think their new terms are illegal — they don’t meet the minimum requirements of the DMA, and will not be approved by stakeholders — but they are no longer optional, so the choice now becomes accept the updated developer agreement or stop being a developer.
Thanks to the DMA’s sprawling scope, complexity, and overreach, Apple came out of this conceding only 4 percent of the App Store’s 30 percent commission, and no reduction at all to the 15 percent for subscriptions after the first year.
The CTC is preferable to the CTF in much the same way that a fire burning down your kitchen is preferable to a fire burning down your entire house.
[…]
The Digital Markets Act was introduced to ensure that sideloading would be an available alternative, to essentially force open platforms that have been closed. Debates about the wisdom of this notwithstanding, in the biggest case, and up until recent developments in Android app marketplace governance also only case, it has failed to deliver the promises that were the entire point of the law.
I’m sure some of you think I’m all wet in my argument that the point of the DMA was merely to impose ongoing bureaucratic complexity. But my view jibes with the reality of how it’s worked out.
In other words, maybe we who had high hopes were the ones who got tricked, not the EU Commission.
I don’t recall seeing POSIWID before, but I love the concept. A friend sent this to me, with the quip that I forgot to include a link to it in my “What Is the Point of the DMA?” piece this week. Indeed, it encapsulates my arguments about the DMA specifically and the European Commission generally. The purpose of the DMA is what it does, not what you imagine it is intended to do.
I admit to being primed by seeing Jeff Johnson’s post, but I’m certain that my mind would anyway have immediately gone to our favorite scam promoting toll booth, the place that “gives people around the world a safe and trusted place to discover apps that meet [Apple’s] high standards for privacy, security, and content.”
Also consider which apps have to pay the toll and which ones show their own ads for free.
Apple has again failed to earn a stay for fee calculations in its ongoing legal fight with Epic Games. Apple's case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the term that begins in October, and Apple asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to pause proceedings until then, but the court said no [PDF].
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan today granted Apple a one-day stay in its legal fight with Epic Games, giving Apple more time to outline the fees it wants to charge developers for linking out to purchase options on the web.
Apple tried to freeze the entire thing while they appealed to the Supreme Court – and the Supreme Court denied the freeze. But they didn’t deny hearing the case – yet. That’s why they’re pausing the proceedings for now (after Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied the same request), while they weigh Apple’s appeal. But before they do that, they’re basically likely to decide today – again, it was just a 24-hour delay – whether they should grant a longer stay. Presumably if the court thinks they’re unlikely to hear Apple’s appeal, they may not grant that longer stay. Or if they think Apple filing their number won’t harm their business, they’ll let it proceed. But Apple will argue that if the longer stay isn’t granted, it will cause major harm to their business because again, it will effectively end the App Store cut as we know it.
Apple today submitted a court-ordered proposal outlining the commission it believes is reasonable to collect from U.S. apps that link to purchase options outside of the App Store.
Apple is asking for half of its commission on standard apps, so apps that would pay 30 percent for an in-app purchase would pay 15 percent when linking to a web purchase option. Small Business Program participants that would normally pay 15 percent would pay 5 percent.
[…]
The appeals court suggested the commission could be limited to the direct costs of facilitating link-outs, and under that approach, the fee would be zero. Apple says a zero commission would not reflect the value that it provides developers, and its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform.
[…]
The district court will now evaluate Apple’s fee proposal and hear a response from Epic Games , and Apple will need to implement the fee the court sets.
Unlike cost-only based commissions, Apple’s revenue-based commissions incentivize
continued investment. Apple charges developers a $99 annual fee for the Apple Developer
Program. May 17, 2021 Trial Tr. at 2762:21–2763:13. This modest fee—designed to prevent fraud
and expressly not intended to compensate Apple for the use of its IP-protected tools, technologies,
and services (id.)—allows developers to build apps using Apple’s offerings and deliver experiences
to iOS and iPadOS users worldwide.
The annual developer fee is nominal. Apple relies on percentage-based commissions to
recoup and profit from its investments. See id. ¶¶ 87–93. Apple is incentivized to invest in IP-
protected tools, technologies, and services that generate revenue for developers (and benefit users).
[…]
Dr. Carlton explains that “reduc[ing] Apple’s incentive to invest and provide the technology and services that benefit users and developers” would harm users and developers, as well as Apple.
I like the part where Apple’s expert argues that its normal commission rates are so high that it would still be profitable for developers to pay the proposed linking commissions on top of what they would pay to Stripe or Paddle. In other words, paying Apple for “IP” almost twice what it admits the other companies charge for “full-service, turnkey payment processing.”
If the point [of the $99] is just to prevent fraud, why do we need to keep paying $99 yearly FOREVER? Is 10 years not enough to prove I’m not a fraud?!?
If the fee doesn’t help pay for Apple IP, then it’s even more blatantly unfair that a minority of apps have to pay for ALL apps to access Apple IP. Free apps, no matter how big or how much $ they make via ads, get access to Apple IP from OUR REVENUE CUT, and not even their $99 counts.
That’s what that enormous hardware margin from customers is already supposed to be paying for — Apple IP! In the early 00’s, I gladly paid the “Apple tax” (PowerBook G4) to get access to the Mac OS X software/ecosystem, including all the Unix and dev tools. I’m not sure why anyone thinks that double-dipping is fine on all the non-Mac platforms, App Store or not.
Schiller’s [previous] testimony about the previous program is extremely misleading, because the new program began in 2008 at the same time as the App Store, so there was no previous iOS developer program, and Mac Developer ID did not begin until 2012, so Apple Developer Program membership was not actually required to distribute Mac apps!
I want to quote another remarkable passage from Schiller’s testimony, again with questions from Apple’s own lawyer.
Q. And Mr. Jobs says, “And also just to make it a little
clearer, we don’t intend to make money off the App Store. I
mean, we don’t make a lot of money off iTunes, and the split
with the music companies is about the same, so in the case of
the iTunes Music Store, we give all the money to the content
owners, and we are basically giving all the money to the
developers here. And if that 30 percent of it pays for
running the store, well, that will be great, but we just want
to create a very efficient channel for these developers to
reach every single iPhone user.”
Is that a statement that Mr. Jobs made back in March 2008?
A. He did.
[…]
I won’t quote the following passage in which Schiller testifies about his internal email suggesting that Apple limit itself to $1 billion per year in profit from the App Store, hand-waving away the suggestion as merely “spurring conversation.” Of course the email also seems to contradict Schiller’s (absurd) testimony that Apple does not specifically calculate profit from the App Store, only company-wide profit. Apple’s public financial statements also appear to contradict Schiller’s claims.
On the same day, Apple submitted another motion, asking Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties to attend a settlement conference.
[…]
Epic has now responded to Apple’s motion, stating that although the company “has been, and remains today, willing to entertain any direct approach from Apple with a serious settlement proposal that would introduce competition and benefit all developers,” it “does not believe the prospects of such settlement would be meaningfully advanced through referral to a settlement conference at this juncture.”
In addition to the proposal itself, Apple submitted supporting expert reports, alongside a request to seal portions of those filings containing financial data, link-out adoption estimates, developer survey results, and other information Apple considers commercially sensitive.
Epic has now filed an opposition to Apple’s request, arguing “Apple again seeks to conceal information from the public and unnecessarily hamper proceedings.”
Google began offering third-party app store downloads in the Play Store earlier this week, but US District Judge James Donato says the company isn't doing enough. After reviewing the process for accessing the first non-Google store, Donato ruled that Google has added unnecessary "anticompetitive friction," ordering the company to rectify the issues.
While Epic and Google are patching things up with a global partnership agreement, the two are still on opposite sides of the antitrust case in the US. Google lost the case in 2023, and the intervening years have been about determining how to implement remedies to address Google's anticompetitive behavior. One of the court's key elements is the requirement that Google include third-party app stores in the Play Store, giving users an easy way to get apps from non-Google sources. Aptoide Games became the first such app store recently.
However, Google worked hard to avoid this outcome, attempting to settle with Epic to keep third-party app stores out. When it was forced to admit the Aptoide store under the terms of the ruling, Google didn't exactly put up a banner welcoming third-party app stores. In fact, Judge Donato found in a Thursday hearing that Google's implementation was not good enough, according to The Verge.
Após a Apple garantir, ontem, uma suspensão temporária do processo de cálculo de taxas para compras a partir de links externos em sua disputa judicial contra a Epic Games, a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos negou o pedido da companhia para estender essa suspensão até a análise de um outro recurso da Maçã relacionado a uma decisão de desacato no caso.
Com isso, conforme divulgado pela Bloomberg, a empresa deverá seguir as determinações da ação que corre na instância inferior referente à taxa que cobra de desenvolvedores por vendas realizadas fora da App Store.
De fato, a Apple apresentou hoje mesmo uma proposta detalhando a comissão que considera razoável cobrar de aplicativos que incluam links para opções de compra fora da App Store — apenas nos EUA. Vale notar que, até agora, a empresa vinha sendo proibida de cobrar qualquer taxa.
Como detalhado pelo MacRumors, a Apple propõe cobrar metade da comissão normalmente aplicada; assim, aplicativos que pagariam uma taxa de 30% por uma compra/assinatura interna serão cobrados 15% ao direcionar o usuário para uma opção de compra na web — a proposta original era de uma taxa de 27%. Já os participantes do programa para pequenas empresas (Small Business Program), que pagariam 15%, serão cobrados 5%.
Aplicativos padrão: 15%.
Aplicativos integrantes dos programas de parceria para Notícias, Vídeos e Miniaplicativos, bem como renovações de assinaturas: 10%.
Aplicativos elegíveis para o programa de pequenas empresas (Small Business Program): 5%.
Essas taxas propostas deverão ser pagas pelos desenvolvedores quando um usuário tocar em um link contido em um app e realizar uma compra pela web. Por exemplo, se um usuário do Spotify clicar em um link no app para acessar o site do serviço e assinar o plano, os serviços de streaming têm de pagar à Apple uma taxa de 15%.
A Epic usou suas redes sociais para comentar a proposta da Apple. Segundo a desenvolvedora, os valores “estão muito além dos limites estabelecidos” e a empresa aponta que apresentará sua contestação dentro de 60 dias.
Apple's filing is in, and Apple admitted that under the Ninth Circuit's definition of "necessary costs" they would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web.
Apple proposed linkout fees of 15% for standard apps and 5% for Small Business Program apps. Epic believes…
A Apple apresentou sua petição e admitiu que, segundo a definição de “custos necessários” do Nono Circuito, cobraria 0% sobre compras realizadas por meio de links externos para a web.
A Apple propôs taxas de 15% para aplicativos padrão e de 5% para aplicativos do programa Small Business Program sobre essas transações via link externo. A Epic considera que tais taxas estão muito além dos limites estabelecidos pelas diretrizes do Nono Circuito quanto a taxas permitidas, e temos cerca de 60 dias para apresentar nossa contestação, fundamentada em depoimentos de especialistas.
Já a Apple afirma que os valores foram calculados com base em análises de especialistas e são inferiores às taxas de direcionamento externo que o Google está cobrando no seu processo judicial contra a Epic. A Maçã também protocolou uma petição solicitando o encaminhamento para uma conferência de conciliação — a qual poderá ajudar ambas as partes a chegar a um acordo e a restringir ou resolver as questões pendentes.
A Apple enviou a proposta ao Tribunal do Distrito Norte da Califórnia, onde a juíza Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agora avaliará a proposta e ouvirá a resposta da Epic, de modo que a empresa terá de implementar a taxa definida pelo tribunal.
A Apple novamente não conseguiu obter a suspensão do processo de cálculo de taxas para compras a partir de links externos em sua disputa judicial contra a Epic Games. O caso, como já informamos, será analisado pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos em algum momento a partir de outubro — e a Maçã havia solicitado ao Tribunal Distrital Norte da Califórnia que suspendesse os trâmites até lá, mas o tribunal negou o pedido.
As informações foram divulgadas no X por Tim Sweeney, fundador e CEO 1Chief executive officer, ou diretor executivo. da Epic.
Apple's stay was denied! Now they have 24 hours to file their proposed menu of junk fees with The Court, and Epic will have 60 days to file our legal analysis in advance of a court hearing on the topic.
O pedido de suspensão da Apple foi negado! Agora, a empresa tem 24 horas para apresentar ao tribunal sua proposta de lista de taxas abusivas, e a Epic terá 60 dias para protocolar sua análise jurídica antes da audiência sobre o assunto.
Como também apontado por Sweeney, a Apple tem agora 24 horas para apresentar ao tribunal um esboço das taxas que pretende cobrar dos desenvolvedores pelo uso de opções de pagamento alternativas e por links externos para compras realizadas na web. A Epic poderá, dentro de 60 dias, apresentar uma análise da proposta de taxas da Maçã — e o tribunal decidirá o que deverá valer.
Sweeney fez uma segunda publicação sobre o imbróglio, questionando se a Apple vai “documentar honestamente seus custos com o tempo de revisores humanos e tentar recuperá-los?”. Alternativamente, ele sugere que a Apple pode “inventar noções novas e absurdas de custo, até então desconhecidas pela humanidade”.
Will Apple honestly document their costs for human reviewer time and seek to recoup them? Or fabricate outlandish new notions of cost previously unknown to mankind? Tune in 24 hours from now to find out.
Será que a Apple documentará honestamente os custos com o tempo de revisores humanos e tentará recuperá-los? Ou inventará noções de custo absurdas e inéditas para a humanidade? Fique ligado: a resposta virá daqui a 24 horas.
A Apple recorreu à Suprema Corte contra a referida decisão, que concordou em analisar o caso. A Maçã, em seguida, solicitou à magistrada a suspensão do processo na instância inferior, argumentando que a (futura) decisão da Suprema Corte poderá afetar qualquer trabalho realizado nesse meio-tempo.
A new day has dawned in the Play Store, and it's one that Google tried very hard to avoid. The first third-party app store has arrived in Google Play as a result of the long-running antitrust lawsuit with Epic. Those in the US can now head into Google Play and download Aptoide, a game-focused store that has been available as a sideloaded client since the early days of Android.
Forcing Google to distribute third-party app stores in Google Play was one of several remedies imposed by Judge James Donato after Epic emerged victorious in 2023. The remedies also included lowering developer fees, mirroring Google Play apps in other app stores, and allowing developers to use alternative payment systems. But it was the app store stipulation that seemed to irk Google the most.
Google almost avoided this outcome when it agreed to a settlement with Epic, which was announced early this year. Under the terms, Google would certify third-party app stores to allow users to install and use them with less friction, but it would not host them in Google Play. However, Google and Epic withdrew the settlement when it appeared the court would not approve it. This Registered App Store program is still slated to launch internationally, but in the US, Google is only doing what it must to comply with the judge's orders.
A new day has dawned in the Play Store, and it's one that Google tried very hard to avoid. The first third-party app store has arrived in Google Play as a result of the long-running antitrust lawsuit with Epic. Those in the US can now head into Google Play and download Aptoide, a game-focused store that has been available as a sideloaded client since the early days of Android.
Forcing Google to distribute third-party app stores in Google Play was one of several remedies imposed by Judge James Donato after Epic emerged victorious in 2023. The remedies also included lowering developer fees, mirroring Google Play apps in other app stores, and allowing developers to use alternative payment systems. But it was the app store stipulation that seemed to irk Google the most.
Google almost avoided this outcome when it agreed to a settlement with Epic, which was announced early this year. Under the terms, Google would certify third-party app stores to allow users to install and use them with less friction, but it would not host them in Google Play. However, Google and Epic withdrew the settlement when it appeared the court would not approve it. This Registered App Store program is still slated to launch internationally, but in the US, Google is only doing what it must to comply with the judge's orders.
Usuários do Telegram notaram ontem que o aplicativo do mensageiro para iOS ficou indisponível na App Store por um breve período, o que deixou muita gente confusa.
Contatada pela Reuters, a Apple explicou que tirou o mensageiro do ar após um usuário ter reportado a presença de “material de abuso sexual infantil” na plataforma, o que obviamente vai contra as regras da sua loja.
Ainda segundo a gigante de Cupertino, a página do Telegram foi restaurada depois que a equipe do mensageiro removeu o conteúdo supracitado e baniu o usuário responsável pela publicação.
Em resposta, o mensageiro disse que possui uma política de “tolerância zero” contra esse tipo de conteúdo, além de ter bloqueado mais de 338.000 grupos e canais com material ilegal ao longo do último ano.
Ainda assim, a equipe do app ironizou a decisão da Apple nas redes sociais, dando a entender que a companhia não aplica o mesmo tratamento a outros apps. Ela também aproveitou a situação para divulgar uma página com dados sobre a moderação de conteúdo na plataforma:
I'm sure this stance will be applied equally to all other apps in the store, in the future right? @Apple
Outra pessoa a ir às redes sociais para comentar esse pequeno imbróglio foi o CEO 1Chief executive officer, ou diretor executivo. da Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, que criticou a falta de transparência na tomada de decisão da Apple, além de classificá-la como “arbitrária”. Em guerra com a fabricante do iPhone há alguns anos por conta das regras da App Store, ele aproveitou a situação para dizer que a loja da Maçã “precisa desesperadamente de concorrência”:
Such arbitrary policy enforcement, by a monopoly gatekeeper, creates a perfect storm of fear and acquiescence by developers who are victims of Apple’s monopoly. Speak up and criticize their gatekeeping and maybe they’ll enforce the rules one way rather than the other way.
A App Store da Apple precisa desesperadamente de concorrência global. A Apple remove arbitrariamente uma ferramenta vital de comunicação e privacidade, tornando-a inacessível a bilhões de usuários, e infelizmente isso é considerado normal.
A Apple declarou que removeu o aplicativo para um bilhão de pessoas porque um usuário do Telegram publicou algo horrível e ilegal. A empresa não explicou como, se esse é o padrão para remoção de aplicativos, qualquer aplicativo de comunicação, incluindo o iMessage, poderia operar em larga escala.
Essa aplicação arbitrária de políticas, por parte de um monopólio, cria a tempestade perfeita de medo e aquiescência por parte dos desenvolvedores, que são vítimas do monopólio da Apple. Manifeste-se e critique essa postura de controle, e talvez eles passem a aplicar as regras de uma forma, em vez de outra.
Questionada sobre os comentários de Sweeney, a Apple preferiu não emitir uma resposta.
Segundo ele, todo esse imbróglio foi provocado por um único usuário mal intencionado, que plantou conteúdo impróprio modificado por inteligência artificial (IA) em um grupo público na plataforma. Para tal, essa pessoa editou uma mensagem antiga na conversa, o que acabou fazendo com que ela passasse despercebida pelos administradores do grupo.
Ainda de acordo com Durov, esse usuário era um extorsionista — ou seja, uma pessoa que usa “contas automatizadas para plantar conteúdo ilegal em grupos públicos e depois denunciá-lo diretamente à Apple, tentando provocar a remoção de comunidades legítimas” cujos donos se recusaram a pagar o resgate.
O executivo também garantiu que a presença de conteúdo desse tipo na plataforma não representa um problema sistêmico e que sua equipe de moderação é efetiva, além de ter criticado a Apple por ter removido o app de sua loja sem contatar o Telegram primeiro. “Se um aplicativo usado por mais de 1 bilhão de pessoas pode ser removido da App Store sem aviso prévio, qualquer aplicativo pode ser”, comentou.
App Store regulatory changes are beginning to affect Apple Services growth as developers gain more ways to avoid Apple’s payment system or pay lower commissions in major markets.
Apple finance chief Kevan Parekh told investors that changes to the App Store business model in some countries had affected its performance during the June quarter. Softer spending on mobile games created additional pressure.
The acknowledgement is significant because regulatory risk has appeared in Apple filings for years without producing a clearly identified effect on Services performance. Apple is now confirming that rule changes have advanced far enough to influence reported results.
The impact does not mean the App Store has stopped growing. Apple described the store as reaching another June-quarter revenue record, while Services expanded by approximately 12% from the previous year.
The emerging issue is the rate of growth. A purchase can still occur inside an iPhone app while generating less revenue for Apple when the customer pays through a developer’s website or uses terms carrying a reduced fee.
App Store Regulatory Changes Affect Several Markets
Apple did not identify one country or policy as solely responsible for the effect.
The company is adapting to a collection of court orders, competition laws and regulatory agreements that differ substantially among the United States, European Union, China, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and other markets.
Some rules concentrate on payment choice. They allow developers to place links or buttons inside apps leading customers to external checkout pages.
Other changes permit alternative app marketplaces or direct distribution outside the App Store. Several regulators are also examining whether Apple can charge developers for transactions completed through another payment provider.
The financial result depends on the model adopted in each country. Apple may receive no commission, a reduced commission or another fee connected with platform technology and distribution.
This creates a more fragmented App Store business. A subscription sold through the same application can produce different revenue for Apple according to the customer’s country, payment route and the developer terms governing that version of the app.
Image Credit: Apple Inc.
The United States Changed External Payment Links
The most direct change in the United States came from the long-running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games.
A federal court previously ordered Apple to stop preventing developers from directing customers toward outside purchasing options. Apple responded by allowing certain external links while seeking commissions of between 12% and 27% on purchases completed through them.
The company also introduced design restrictions, an approval process and a warning screen displayed when customers left the App Store environment.
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply fully with the anti-steering injunction. The ruling prohibited the company from collecting a commission on purchases made through external links and removed several restrictions governing their appearance.
Apple updated its App Review Guidelines in May 2025. Apps distributed through the United States storefront can include buttons, external links and other calls to action leading customers toward another payment method.
The rules no longer require a special external-link entitlement for the U.S. storefront.
That change gives developers a straightforward financial reason to move some transactions to the web. A company can process a payment through another provider instead of giving Apple a percentage of the digital sale.
The customer can return to the iPhone app and use the purchased subscription or content. The app remains distributed through Apple, but the associated transaction no longer produces the same App Store commission.
Enough developers adopting that route can slow Apple Services growth even if total spending on iPhone applications continues increasing.
The European Union Introduced Alternative Distribution
The European Union’s Digital Markets Act requires Apple to permit alternative app marketplaces, outside payment systems and other changes intended to reduce its control over iOS distribution.
Developers can remain under Apple’s conventional App Store terms or adopt business terms designed for the European market.
The alternative structure separates several services that were previously combined inside one commission. Developers can choose different levels of App Store support, use Apple’s payment system, provide another payment option or distribute software through a competing marketplace.
Apple introduced reduced commissions and technology-related fees to preserve compensation for the tools, security systems, distribution infrastructure and platform access it provides.
Those terms have changed several times following regulatory objections. Beginning in 2026, Apple started moving from its earlier Core Technology Fee toward a Core Technology Commission applied to eligible digital transactions under particular conditions.
The structure means outside payments do not always eliminate Apple fees in Europe. They can still reduce the amount Apple collects or shift revenue among different fee categories.
Regulators continue examining whether the terms provide meaningful choice or discourage developers from leaving the standard model.
Apple argues that alternative stores and payment systems create additional privacy, security and fraud risks. The European Commission has focused on whether Apple’s warnings, technical requirements and fees make those options unnecessarily difficult to use.
European developers must calculate more than one commission. They need to consider payment-processing costs, marketplace charges, customer acquisition, reporting obligations and the Apple terms attached to each distribution method.
The result may be lower App Store revenue without an equally large shift toward independent marketplaces. External website payments can change Apple’s economics more quickly because they do not require customers to install another store.
Apple lowered several commission rates in the China mainland storefront beginning March 15, 2026.
Qualifying transactions under the App Store Small Business Program and Mini Apps Partner Program now carry a 12% commission. The same rate applies to eligible auto-renewing subscriptions after the subscriber’s first year.
These transactions previously qualified for a higher 15% rate.
A three-percentage-point reduction may appear small beside demands for completely independent payments. At the scale of China’s app economy, it can remove a meaningful amount of revenue while improving the share retained by developers.
The Mini Apps Partner Program is particularly important in China because large platforms can contain many smaller services inside one host application.
Reducing the commission can encourage those ecosystems to continue using Apple In-App Purchase. It also demonstrates how Apple may respond to pressure by offering more favorable terms before regulators require a more disruptive change.
Lower commissions can support transaction growth over time, but the immediate calculation is straightforward: Apple receives less from each qualifying purchase.
Image Credit: Apple Inc.
Brazil Opens iOS to Outside Stores and Payments
Apple introduced alternative app distribution and payment options in Brazil through an agreement with the country’s competition regulator, CADE.
Beginning with iOS 26.5, developers can distribute apps through alternative marketplaces, operate those marketplaces and process digital payments outside Apple In-App Purchase.
Apps can also present links leading users to an external website where the transaction is completed.
Apple continues applying notarization and other technical requirements to software distributed outside the App Store.
The company maintains that these protections reduce risks but cannot provide the complete safeguards associated with App Review.
Brazil is a major smartphone and digital-services market. Its effect on Apple Services will depend on whether large developers adopt the new options and whether customers are willing to leave the familiar App Store purchasing flow.
An external option existing in software does not guarantee that people will use it. The developer must usually offer a meaningful advantage, such as a lower price, a different subscription package or payment methods better suited to local customers.
Adoption can increase gradually as existing apps release updates. The financial impact may therefore become more visible over several quarters rather than appearing immediately after the regulatory agreement takes effect.
Why Outside Payments Reduce Apple Services Revenue
Apple receives a commission when an eligible digital purchase uses its in-app payment system.
The fee compensates Apple for distribution, payment processing, fraud management, developer tools, customer support and access to the iOS platform, according to the company.
The standard percentage varies. Small developers and long-running subscriptions can qualify for reduced rates, while other eligible digital transactions may carry higher commissions.
When payment moves to a developer’s website, an independent processor handles the financial transaction. The developer pays that provider, manages more of the customer relationship and retains the amount that would otherwise become an App Store fee.
Apple may still provide the operating system, APIs, development tools and App Store distribution without receiving the conventional payment commission.
This separation explains why App Store activity and App Store revenue can move differently. People may download more applications and spend more on digital services while Apple captures a smaller percentage of the commerce.
The same customer could maintain several subscriptions used exclusively on an iPhone without any of their monthly payments passing through Apple.
Apple can collect other revenue from that user through hardware, advertising, iCloud or its own subscriptions. The external transaction nevertheless removes one part of the Services model.
Most App Store Commerce Never Paid Apple a Commission
The size of the App Store economy should not be confused with Apple’s commissionable revenue.
Apple says the global App Store ecosystem facilitated more than $1.4 trillion in developer billings and sales during 2025. More than 90% of that commerce did not produce a commission for the company.
The largest categories involve physical goods and services such as retail purchases, travel, grocery delivery, restaurant orders and transportation.
Apple does not collect a percentage when someone uses an Amazon app to order furniture, books a hotel or pays for a meal delivered through an iPhone.
App Store commissions generally concentrate on digital goods, application features, virtual items and subscriptions sold through Apple In-App Purchase.
Regulatory changes target this smaller but financially important part of the ecosystem.
Digital transactions require no physical inventory or delivery network, allowing payment commissions to carry attractive margins. Losing part of that revenue can therefore affect profitability more than the dollar amount alone suggests.
Apple does not disclose App Store revenue or profit separately. The category remains combined with cloud services, advertising, media subscriptions, AppleCare, payments and other operations inside Services.
Mobile Gaming Weakness Adds Another Pressure
Regulation was not the only factor Apple identified.
Parekh said softer mobile gaming activity also affected the App Store. Games represent an important source of digital transactions because players purchase virtual currency, characters, cosmetic items, subscriptions and access to additional content.
A decline in game spending directly affects the commission Apple receives through In-App Purchase.
Gaming is also one category where developers have pushed aggressively for alternative stores and payments. Epic Games began its legal confrontation with Apple after introducing another payment method inside Fortnite and attempting to bypass App Store commissions.
The simultaneous effects are difficult to separate. A game can generate lower revenue because players are spending less, because payments moved outside Apple’s system or because both changes occurred together.
Apple does not provide enough category detail to calculate the contribution from each factor.
The distinction matters for the outlook. Gaming demand can recover with successful releases and stronger consumer spending. A permanent regulatory change does not reverse when one popular game reaches the top of the charts.
Image Credit: Apple Inc.
Developers Gain Revenue but Assume More Work
Outside payments can improve the amount a developer retains from each purchase.
A company moving from a conventional App Store commission to a lower-cost web payment processor may use the difference to reduce prices, fund development or improve profitability.
The developer also assumes responsibilities previously handled through Apple.
Independent billing requires payment processing, tax management, fraud protection, refunds, account recovery and customer support. Subscription status must synchronize correctly between the website and the iPhone app.
Customers changing devices or reinstalling an app expect their purchases to remain available. The developer needs its own account system capable of verifying ownership without relying entirely on Apple’s purchase history.
Small developers may decide that Apple In-App Purchase remains worth its fee because it removes operational complexity and gives customers a familiar checkout experience.
Large subscription businesses have stronger incentives to build their own systems. They already maintain accounts and payments across websites, televisions, Android devices and other platforms.
The regulatory effect will therefore vary by developer size and business model. One company may remove Apple billing completely, while another continues using it because external infrastructure would cost more than the commission saved.
Customers May Receive Lower Prices
External payments create the possibility of lower subscription prices because developers no longer need to incorporate the complete App Store fee into the amount charged.
Some services already cost more when purchased through an iPhone app than through their websites. The higher price allows the developer to preserve similar revenue after Apple receives its share.
A visible external link makes comparing those prices easier. Customers can leave the app, complete the transaction on the web and return with an active account.
Savings are not guaranteed. A developer can retain the entire difference rather than passing it to subscribers.
Independent billing can also make subscription management less consistent.
Purchases completed through Apple appear in one location:
Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions
A subscription purchased directly must be canceled through the developer’s website or account system. Customers using many external services may need to remember several billing portals and renewal policies.
Refunds and purchase disputes also move away from Apple. The developer or its payment processor becomes responsible for resolving the transaction.
Choice can reduce prices while increasing complexity. The practical outcome depends on whether developers make external checkout clearly cheaper and easy to manage.
Apple Is Expanding Other App Store Tools
Apple is responding to the changing environment by adding business models and marketing systems that can keep developers using its commerce platform.
Monthly subscriptions with a 12-month commitment allow participating apps to offer lower recurring payments while securing a complete year of revenue.
The Advanced Commerce API supports more complex content catalogs, optional add-ons and subscription structures that were previously difficult to manage through standard In-App Purchase products.
Apple has also expanded tools for custom product pages, promotional offers, application analytics and international distribution.
These additions increase the value attached to App Store billing. A developer may tolerate a commission when Apple provides conversion tools, subscription management and access to promotional placement that would be expensive to reproduce independently.
The company can also adjust rates for particular categories. The Small Business Program, Mini Apps Partner Program and reduced commission for longer-running subscriptions already demonstrate differentiated pricing.
A more competitive payment market may push Apple toward additional service tiers rather than one universal commission.
The UK Could Create the Next Material Change
The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority is consulting on rules that would allow developers to direct customers outside Apple and Google’s payment systems.
The regulator expects any fee charged for steering to be fair, reasonable and lower than current app-store commissions. It wants the resulting savings passed to customers or reinvested in developer businesses.
The UK proposal is not yet a final requirement. Its eventual structure could determine whether developers receive the broad freedom available in the United States or a fee-based model closer to some European arrangements.
Regulators are also considering app-review fairness, interoperability and access to mobile-platform capabilities.
The outcome will matter beyond British customers. Each major jurisdiction creates another model that regulators elsewhere can examine when designing their own rules.
Apple must decide whether to continue maintaining different commercial systems by country or move toward broader global terms that reduce operational complexity.
Developers face the same choice. Supporting a separate payment route, marketplace package and reporting process for every region can become expensive enough to cancel some of the benefits regulation intended to create.
The next evidence will come from behavior rather than another policy announcement: how many major apps add external payment links, whether they offer lower prices and how quickly customers move away from Apple’s checkout.
Players in Brazil can finally jump back into Fortnite on their mobile devices today. This highly anticipated return happened following the launch of the brand new mobile storefront from Epic Games in the region. Gamers can now download Rocket League Sideswipe alongside the popular battle royale game. They also get twenty percent back in rewards […]
“Fim do monopólio da Apple.” “iPhone liberado no Brasil.” “Mudança histórica.” As manchetes das últimas semanas não economizaram no tamanho. Do outro lado, o que o usuário recebeu de fato foi uma opção nova e discreta nos Ajustes do iPhone — e, se você não for atrás dela, sua vida com o aparelho seguirá exatamente igual. Aposto que vai seguir…
Recapitulando rapidamente: em 18 de junho, com o iOS 26.5, a Apple oficializou a abertura do iOS no Brasil, cumprindo o acordo assinado com o Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) em dezembro de 2025 — desfecho de uma investigação que começou lá em 2022, com uma denúncia do Mercado Livre. Lojas alternativas de apps agora são permitidas — a AltStore PAL chegou no mesmo dia —, desenvolvedores podem usar meios de pagamento próprios e incluir links para compras fora do app. O acordo vale por três anos, sob supervisão do Cade, com multas de até R$150 milhões se a Apple descumprir. Nós mostramos como tudo funciona em um vídeo.
Até aqui, a notícia. Agora, a leitura que ninguém fez direito. Passei mais de 20 anos construindo aplicativos que viveram sob as regras da App Store (apps de banco, varejo, montadora, etc.) e, quando li os termos do acordo com olhos de gerente de produto, a conclusão foi rápida: a Apple não abriu a porta. Ela redesenhou o funil.
Siga o dinheiro: ele continua indo para Cupertino
O detalhe que as manchetes de “fim do monopólio” esquecem de contar: a Apple criou uma estrutura de taxas em que ela recebe em praticamente qualquer caminho que o desenvolvedor escolher. Vale comparar os cenários:
Onde o app vive e como cobra
Como cobra
Quanto a Apple leva
App Store
Pagamento pelo sistema da Apple
De 10% a 21% + 5% de processamento
App Store
Pagamento por sistema próprio dentro do app
De 10% a 21%
App Store
Link para compra externa
15% (10% para quem se qualifica)
Loja alternativa
Pagamento próprio
5% sobre bens digitais
Olhe a última linha com calma. Um app que sair da App Store, for distribuído por uma loja concorrente e processar o pagamento por conta própria (ou seja, um cenário em que nenhuma infraestrutura de venda da Apple aparece) ainda deve 5% de cada transação de bens digitais para a Apple. É a chamada “comissão de tecnologia essencial”, e ela viaja junto com o app para onde ele for.
Agora, pense com a cabeça de um desenvolvedor. Os apps gratuitos (WhatsApp, Nubank, iFood e a imensa maioria dos que você usa) não pagam nada de comissão hoje. Se migrarem para uma loja alternativa, passam a pagar 5% sobre qualquer venda digital que façam. Migrar significa criar um custo que não existia. E são justamente esses apps gigantes que dariam tração a uma loja concorrente. Ou seja: o desenho das taxas torna a mudança irracional exatamente para quem faria a diferença. Isso não é acaso; é arquitetura de incentivos, e das bem-feitas.
A porta existe, mas tem um cadeado de US$1 milhão
Tem mais um filtro, ainda menos comentado. Para operar uma loja alternativa no Brasil, a empresa precisa apresentar uma carta de crédito de US$1 milhão emitida por uma instituição financeira com nota BBB ou superior — ou, alternativamente, ter dois anos contínuos no programa de desenvolvedores da Apple com mais de 1 milhão de instalações anuais no mundo. Na prática, isso deixa de fora todo mundo, menos gigantes bem capitalizadas: a Epic Games (que já prometeu trazer sua loja “nos próximos meses”), talvez o próprio Mercado Livre (que, ironicamente, foi quem começou essa briga) e pouquíssimos outros.
Sem várias lojas competindo de verdade, não há pressão de preço. E sem pressão de preço, o usuário não tem motivo para mudar de comportamento. O ciclo se fecha sozinho.
A Europa já fez esse filme, e o final não anima
Nada disso é especulação minha; é o roteiro que a União Europeia vem rodando desde março de 2024, quando a Lei dos Mercados Digitais (Digital Markets Act, ou DMA), obrigou a Apple a uma abertura muito parecida — e que serviu de modelo para o acordo brasileiro. Dois anos depois, o balanço europeu é magro: as lojas alternativas seguem como nicho, a Setapp Mobile (da MacPaw, empresa séria, com catálogo bom) fechou as portas em fevereiro citando “a complexidade excessiva dos termos comerciais da Apple” e a Comissão Europeia precisou multar a Apple em 500€ milhões por continuar dificultando que desenvolvedores direcionassem usuários para compras mais baratas. A Apple recorre da multa até hoje.
O Cade, vale dizer, aprendeu algo com isso: o acordo brasileiro exige que os avisos da Apple sobre lojas e pagamentos de terceiros sejam “neutros e objetivos”, sem telas de fricção empurrando o usuário de volta para o caminho de Cupertino. É um detalhe regulatório esperto. Mas o incentivo econômico de fundo (a taxa que persegue o desenvolvedor aonde quer que ele vá) é o mesmo da Europa. E foi ele que esvaziou a festa por lá.
Onde as coisas podem mudar de verdade
Para ser justo, nem tudo é fumaça. Duas frentes me parecem promissoras — e nenhuma delas envolve você trocar de loja.
A primeira são as assinaturas. Um serviço que lhe leva para pagar no site, na faixa de 10% a 15% de comissão em vez dos até 26% de antes, tem margem real para repassar desconto — se quiser.
A segunda é o pagamento dentro do próprio app: agora, nada impede um jogo ou serviço de oferecer checkout com Pix, com taxas de processamento muito menores que as do cartão internacional embutido no sistema da Apple.
Repare, porém, no que essas duas frentes têm em comum: dependem de o desenvolvedor escolher repassar a economia. A Apple, aliás, avisou que não cuida de reembolso nem de gestão de assinatura de nada comprado fora do sistema dela — mais um empurrãozinho para que tudo fique como está.
O jardim ganhou um portão; o pedágio continua o mesmo
No fim das contas, o acordo com o Cade é real, tem dentes (R$150 milhões deles) e coloca o Brasil num clube seleto — só União Europeia, Japão e Coreia do Sul forçaram abertura parecida. Como precedente regulatório, é enorme. Como mudança no seu dia a dia, é quase nada: o botão novo nos Ajustes vai continuar intocado na imensa maioria dos iPhones brasileiros, os apps vão continuar vindo da App Store e os preços vão continuar os mesmos.
A Apple declarou que, com as novas regras, desenvolvedores pagarão “o mesmo ou menos” do que antes. Curiosamente, é a frase mais honesta de toda essa história — porque o objetivo do desenho inteiro é exatamente esse: que tudo mude o suficiente para satisfazer o regulador, e pouco o bastante para não mudar nada.
A Google e a Epic Games retiraram esta semana o acordo que tinham alcançado para alterar uma decisão judicial nos Estados Unidos. A gigante tecnológica terá agora de abrir a Play Store a lojas de aplicações de terceiros a partir de 22 de julho.
Login
