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

What the ruling actually does

• Commenters note both Ars and Reuters describe the same 9th Circuit order.
• Key changes vs earlier orders:
  • Apple may charge a “reasonable” fee for external payment links, tied to actual coordination costs and some IP compensation, but not to security/privacy costs.
  • External-payment buttons must be allowed but can’t be made more prominent than Apple IAP; Apple can no longer force them to be less prominent.
  • “Scare screens” about external payments are banned, but some exit screens are allowed.
  • Apple can again exclude certain categories (e.g. news/video partners) from using external links.
• Some see Epic’s spin (“end of the Apple tax”) as misleading, calling this a mixed or even mostly Apple‑favorable outcome.

Debate over “reasonable” fees

• Many expect Apple to push for a revenue percentage (though lower than 27%); others think a pure revenue cut conflicts with the “cost-based” language.
• Some argue Sweeney’s idea of “tens or hundreds of dollars per update” is unrealistic and would still exclude small developers if per-update.
• Several emphasize the court’s language that security/privacy costs can’t be used to justify the fee.

Walled garden vs user freedom

• One side: Apple’s lock‑down is harmful, especially on expensive iPads that can’t run third-party browsers or full dev tools; app review quality has degraded while scams and gambling apps proliferate.
• The other side: users knowingly choose the walled garden; it benefits non‑technical users and families, and Android or other devices remain alternatives.
• Disagreement over whether “you chose the garden” is meaningful when iOS/Android form a de facto duopoly and phones are societally mandatory.

Consoles, Google, and other platforms

• Some question why consoles (Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo) aren’t held to similar standards; replies argue:
  • Consoles are bought primarily as gaming devices, not general‑purpose tools.
  • They don’t have the same societal centrality as phones.
• Others note Epic has sued Google and Apple elsewhere; Epic’s console relationships and negotiated deals may be more favorable.
• Multiple comments flag Google’s upcoming Android “user choice billing” policies as mimicking Apple’s earlier 27% approach, with US carve‑outs due to prior litigation.

Developers, small vs large

• Some argue this primarily benefits large firms (Epic, Netflix, Spotify); many small developers may stick with in‑app purchase due to:
  • Comparable or higher all‑in costs for Stripe/Paddle plus tax compliance.
  • Lower conversion rates on external payment flows.
• Others counter that any ability to bypass 15–30% is especially important for small SaaS and game studios; more margin → more competition.

Security, fraud, and review

• Disagreement on how much Apple actually does to prevent scams:
  • Anecdotes of fraudulent apps (including password managers, gambling, “AI” clones) passing review, and superficial testing.
  • Others argue verification and ongoing fraud monitoring are non‑trivial and justify some cost.
• Some suggest simpler models (chargebacks, banning offenders) over pre‑emptive heavy control.

App stores, ownership, and reprogramming

• Several contributors want the right to install any software on owned devices, likening Apple’s control to a grocery chain selling a fridge that only accepts its own products.
• Others reply that manufacturers can define product constraints; if buyers accept them, that’s market choice, not coercion.
• Wider philosophical thread: programmable devices (phones, consoles, cars, radios, medical devices) should be user‑reprogrammable vs. safety/regulatory arguments for locking down certain categories.