Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple may still demand 30% app commission, regardless of payment method

Apple could collect its 30% commission no matter the payment method

Last updated

Apple could pursue its 30% commission no matter where or how payments are collected by developers, side-stepping some financial aspects of alternate payment methods altogether.

When developers submit an app to the App Store, any money made from the app via its sale, in-app purchases, or in-app subscription is subject to a 30% fee. The court ruling in the Epic versus Apple case allows developers to point to external payment options, but Apple may still collect its 30%.

According to a report from Bloomberg, the 185-page ruling against Apple doesn't have provisions preventing Apple from collecting its commission on external sales. In fact, the document doesn't have any requirements surrounding the commission, only noting that Apple hasn't shown the 30% rate is "justified."

"Apple has the legal right to do business with anyone they want," Paul Gallant, managing director at Cowen & Company, told Bloomberg. "So Apple could change the terms of the App Store and say to developers, regardless of where you collect your revenue, you owe us 30%, and if developers refuse to pay it, Apple would be free to de-platform them."

Apple's CEO Tim Cook has previously stated that if alternate app stores or payment options were introduced, it would cause difficulties for Apple. Instead of processing payments to developers and collecting its fee, Apple would have to bill developers separately.

Watch the Latest from AppleInsider TV

"We would have to come up with an alternate way of collecting our commission," continued Cook. "We would then have to figure out how to track what's going on and invoice it and then chase the developers; it seems like a process that doesn't need to exist."

Such a move could cause an uproar amongst developers and disgruntled regulators. Apple is already under investigation for monopolistic control over its App Store, and aggressive action for commission collection would reinforce that narrative.

"The more likely path is for Apple to think seriously about reducing its commissions," Cowen's Gallant said. "I think the pending legislation in the U.S. and Europe and Friday's court ruling increase the prospects for Apple to make a move on commissions."

Apple hasn't sought to challenge the ruling yet, though Epic has. Reactions to the Epic versus Apple ruling have been widely varied, with confusion over which company came out on top.

21 Comments

omasou 8 Years · 650 comments

Seems reasonable. eBay still collects its fee regardless of how the auction item is paid.

6 Likes · 0 Dislikes
sbdude 6 Years · 305 comments

omasou said:
Seems reasonable. eBay still collects its fee regardless of how the auction item is paid.

But what we really want is to make ebay allow other auction sites to use its platform. Because ebay has a monopoly on the ebay platform. /s

8 Likes · 0 Dislikes
pumpkin_king 5 Years · 34 comments

I’m not for or against the commission though if there wasn’t value for developers with a 30% commission then developers wouldn’t develop on the platform and it would force Apple to reduce it. Simple economics. Doesn’t it say something that developers still choose in high numbers to develop on iOS?

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes
Hreb 6 Years · 96 comments

They could try, but it would be an enormous red flag for future antitrust cases against Apple.  Antitrust law doesn't look kindly on a private company inserting itself into a transaction between partner companies and their customers.

4 Likes · 0 Dislikes
rob53 14 Years · 3341 comments

Hreb said:
They could try, but it would be an enormous red flag for future antitrust cases against Apple.  Antitrust law doesn't look kindly on a private company inserting itself into a transaction between partner companies and their customers.

What? Apple owns the store, all its apis, everything about the software except the portion where developers use the apis to create an app. Charging for a store front is a price of doing business just like in every store that sells products not made by that store. The non-Apple-supplied payment system is the only thing that came out against Apple and everyone with any understanding of how businesses works knows that you can't market a product and have someone pay someone else for it while getting it at your store. That's stupid. Apple has an absolute right to charge for the process of selling an app on their store. If you don't like this, get a different phone, there's plenty of them out there. Apple is not a monopoly no matter what some people say. They just have a user base that likes their products and are willing to pay for them. Ford sells the most amount of trucks, does that make them a monopoly? No, so how is Apple any different? Could you see someone going to a Ford dealer, picking out a truck, then telling the dealer you're not going to use their payment system and pay John Doe around the corner for the truck? They'd laugh you out of the building. This is why the judge made an improper decision. 

5 Likes · 0 Dislikes