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.

I'm by no means defending the percentage they take, but I would suggest that it's a percentage because it's simple:

Pick 3 imaginary games for sale priced at $1, $10 and $100. Any one of those games could be a million download a month success, and any one of them could be a complete dud.

What flat rate would you suggest to:

* Pay the developer for their work (ongoing per sale)

* Review each game and ensure it meets store guidelines (once per update)

* Host said game regardless of how popular it is (ongoing)

* Process transactions for the game (ongoing)

The alternative would be pricing based on revenue tiers (similar to what Unreal Engine does now), which aren't known in advance and don't take global variance into account (USD$200 in Eastern Europe might be a month's salary).

Percentage is just simpler. It also means that they'd be taking a loss on every free app or in the case of Free-to-Download In-App purchase apps - until users start transacting.