Despite the earlier ruling by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals,The lower court's order to "permanently prohibit Apple from charging any commissions" was overturned.This seemingly gave Apple a victory, but Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney clearly has no intention of backing down. In an earlier interview with The Verge...Exclusive interviewTim Sweeney stated firmly that even if the court ruled that Apple was entitled to charge "reasonable fees," he would still absolutely disagree with Apple taking a percentage of the revenue from transactions outside the App Store.
Willing to pay the review fee, but refusing to pay "tolls".
Regarding the appeals court ruling that Apple must allow iOS apps to provide links to external purchases, but is still entitled to collect a commission, Tim Sweeney stated that Apple does incur operating costs when reviewing these external payment links.
Therefore, Epic Games is willing to accept a "fixed fee" that is directly related to the payment and review process and is charged based on the number of submissions. However, Tim Sweeney stated that he strongly opposes Apple continuing to use the current model, which is to continue to take a percentage (such as the previously controversial 27%) of revenue generated from channels outside the App Store, arguing that this commission model is unreasonable.
Considered the end of "garbage fees"
However, Tim Sweeney offers a different interpretation of this seemingly unfavorable ruling. He believes that the court's decision is actually a clear rejection of Apple's long-standing commission model in the App Store.
He described the ruling as "essentially ending Apple's right to charge 'junk fees' on any app." Tim Sweeney believes that since the US court requires the fees to be "reasonable," Apple's current high commission rates are clearly untenable, and this will also have an impact on overseas regulatory agencies. After all, if even the US courts find it unreasonable, other countries are even less likely to pay for it.
Apple is not allowed to charge fees until the rate is determined.
The case has now been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for retrial, with the focus on defining what constitutes "reasonable expenses".
While the appeals court considered the lower court's direct "ban on all commissions" to be too harsh, it also set up a firewall: Apple will not be able to charge any commission on in-app purchases linked from external links until the local court formally approves the specific rate standards.
Analysis: What constitutes "reasonableness" will become a new battleground.
In my opinion, although this landmark lawsuit has progressed from "whether external links can be opened" to "how much should be charged after opening them," the core contradiction remains unresolved.
For Apple, platform maintenance and IP value are the foundation of its revenue generation. Losing the "right" to take a percentage of the revenue would cause the App Store's business model to collapse. From Epic Games' perspective, as long as Apple's commission remains linked to app revenue, it constitutes another form of monopoly tax.
The focus of the upcoming legal battle will shift from "anti-monopoly" to "pricing power." Is 27%, 12%, or Tim Sweeney's "cost of materials" of a few dollars reasonable? This will likely continue to be debated in court for some time.
