Epic celebrates "the end of the Apple Tax" after court win in iOS payments case

> Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. That should be more than enough to compensate the employees reviewing the apps to make sure outside payment links are not scams

I would think making sure outside payment links aren’t scams will be more expensive than that because checking that once isn’t sufficient. Scammers will update the target of such links, so you can’t just check this at app submission time. You also will have to check from around the world, from different IP address ranges, outside California business hours, etc, because scammer are smart enough to use such info to decide whether to show their scammy page.

Also, even if it becomes ‘only’ hundreds of dollars, I guess only large companies will be able to afford providing an option for outside payments.

> CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees”

He seems to be ignoring the part of the ruling finding that Apple is entitled to "some compensation" for the use of its intellectual property.

> The appeals court recommends that the district court calculate a commission that is based on the costs that are necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, along with "some compensation" for the use of its intellectual property. Costs should not include commission for security and privacy.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/12/11/apple-app-store-fees-ex...

Apple wanted 27% and Epic thinks it should be 0%. The lower court will have to pick a number in between the two.

Maybe next they can decide what Epic’s 12% fee for their own marketplace should be

I get your point, but looking at it at a glance without any other context, 12% feels like a pretty reasonable amount IMHO.

Like, if all major marketplaces only charge 12% from the get-go, we probably would have had much less fuss and lawsuits over this.

This issue was always the disproportionate size of the fee, not the fact that they charge a fee.

If Epic deserves a 12% cut of a Windows game sold through their store (despite not having paid the costs associated with developing and maintaining Windows) how large a cut should you get when you did incur the additional costs of creating and maintaining the platform?