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.

I don't think a percentage makes any sense at all. Is it proportionately more expensive to host a $50 game than a $25 game? It's only a percentage Because They Can.

>It's only a percentage Because They Can.

Do you object to other sorts of royalty-based compensation, like for Unity engine or Unreal engine?

Yes. No to rent seeking.

There should be caps overall and under the caps there should be the option to choose between lump sum and royalties.

Nobody should be collecting unlimited revenue for a brilliant idea at the start and benefit from cheap or free scaling.

This entire model is ripping apart the fabric of modern society.

And yes, I known this is blasphemy on this website.