Product5 distinct publishers3 min readPublished Updated
The proposal landed the same day Apple asked a judge to order settlement talks Epic had already refused, and the same day the Supreme Court refused to pause the case. Any app with a web checkout now has a number.
The Product Desk · Product desk
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Apple told a federal judge in Northern California on Thursday what it wants to charge on purchases made through links out of iOS apps: 15 percent from standard apps, 10 percent from apps in its Video Partner, News Partner and Mini Apps programs and on subscription renewals, and 5 percent from developers in its Small Business Program [3]. It filed that number the same day it asked the same court to order both sides into court-supervised settlement talks, an offer Epic's attorneys had already rejected earlier in the week, according to 9to5Mac [1][2].
The filing was not voluntary. Apple had argued the lower court should wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether it was in contempt for imposing a 27 percent commission on external-link purchases and restricting how developers could present those links; the Supreme Court refused to pause the case on Thursday, forcing the disclosure [6][7].
Two baselines matter for anyone building a web checkout. The first is what Apple may collect today, which is nothing: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in April 2025 that Apple willfully failed to comply with her 2021 injunction, and Apple currently cannot take a commission on external purchases [8]. Measured against that, the proposal is a 15-point ask on standard apps [15]. The second is the 27 percent that produced the contempt fight, against which 15 percent is 12 points lower [14].
The awkward part sits in Apple's own filing. A Ninth Circuit panel said Apple could charge a commission based on "necessary costs" [9], and Apple concedes that its necessary costs under that definition "would be essentially zero" [10]. It is asking instead for "at least some compensation" for the tools, technology and services it provides [4], and cites expert analysis that at these rates "large numbers of U.S. developers collectively accounting for the lion's share of App Store revenue will be able to link out profitably" [11]. The benchmark it offers is Google Play, which charges 20 percent on link-outs for standard apps, 15 percent for special programs and 10 percent on subscription renewals, rates Apple notes Epic accepted [12]. On that comparison Apple undercuts Google by 5 points at the top two tiers and matches it exactly on renewals [13].
Epic's response, posted on X, is that the fees are "far outside of the bounds of the Ninth Circuit's guidance on permissible fees," and that it has roughly 60 days to file an opposition backed by expert witnesses [5]. Apple, Epic and Google did not immediately respond to Gizmodo's requests for comment [20].
Read together, the settlement motion and the fee schedule are an attempt to set the reference point before a judge sets it instead. The Google side of the same week shows what court-set compliance looks like: Aptoide became the first rival store downloadable through Google Play in the US, and at Thursday's hearing Judge James Donato told Google to fix search results that returned no third-party stores for "store for apps," giving it a week [18]. Google and Epic withdrew their own proposed settlement last month after Donato said it did not go far enough [19].
What to watch: Epic's expert-backed opposition inside the roughly 60-day window [5], whether Gonzalez Rogers grants the settlement conference at all [1], the Supreme Court's contempt argument [6], and Google's one-week deadline as a preview of how literally these courts read compliance [18].
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple proposed commissions on purchases made via external links of 15% for standard apps, 10% for apps in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program and Mini Apps Partner Program as well as for subscription renewals, and 5% for apps in the Small Business Program.
Apple says the proposed rates would let it recoup 'at least some compensation' for the tools, technologies and services it provides to developers.
Epic wrote on X: 'Epic believes these fees are far outside of the bounds of the Ninth Circuit's guidance on permissible fees, and we have roughly 60 days to file our opposition supported by expert witnesses.'
Apple argued the lower court proceedings should wait until the Supreme Court ruled on whether Apple was in contempt of a court order; the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Apple's bid to pause further action in the lower court case, forcing the company to reveal its planned commission structure.
Apple filed a motion Thursday in federal California court asking a judge to order Apple and Epic into court-supervised settlement talks.
9to5Mac reported that Apple first approached Epic's attorneys about settlement talks this week, but Epic rejected the offer.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Court filings and quoted statements, consistently reported
The core facts are drawn from a docketed federal filing and directly quoted party statements, and three independent publishers report the same tier structure without contradiction. Procedural context (the Supreme Court's refusal to pause, the April 2025 willful-noncompliance ruling, the Ninth Circuit 'necessary costs' standard) is specific and attributable. Evidence is strong on what was filed and said; it is necessarily silent on what the court will approve.
No developer uptake to measure yet
The rates are a proposal awaiting court approval and an Epic opposition; the sources report no developer link-out volumes, no enrollment figures, and no Apple usage disclosure at these tiers. The only deployment fact in the cluster (Aptoide on Google Play) concerns Google's compliance, not adoption of Apple's proposed link-out pricing, so there is nothing to score without inferring.
Slightly overstated: a bid framed as a price
Coverage is factually careful, but headlines and framing treat the tiers as settled reality ('Apple proposes to take a 15% cut', 'any app with a web checkout now has a number') when Apple currently may collect zero, Epic has roughly 60 days to oppose with expert witnesses, and Apple's own filing says cost-based fees would be essentially zero. Gizmodo's 'wants to settle' framing similarly reads intent into a procedural motion filed after Epic had refused talks. The overstatement is modest and one publisher supplies the counterweight.
Both principals are adversarial litigants speaking for the record
Every substantive number and characterization originates from a party with a direct financial stake: Apple proposes the rate it would collect, justifies it with its own commissioned expert analysis, and benchmarks against Google Play rates Epic accepted; Epic's rebuttal is a litigation posture published on X ahead of its own filing. Neither side's framing is independently verified in the sources, and all three companies declined immediate comment to Gizmodo.
High confidence on the filing, low on the outcome
Three independent publishers corroborate the filing's contents, the procedural sequence, and the parties' statements, so the factual base is solid. Confidence is capped because the operative question — what commission Apple will actually be permitted to charge — remains open before the district court, the Ninth Circuit standard, and a pending Supreme Court contempt matter, and because adoption cannot yet be measured.
product
Donato puts a number on Play compliance: 70 percent of phrasings must find rival stores4 distinct publishers
product
Former CMA official asks a London tribunal to price Apple's tracking prompt at £2bn1 distinct publisher
invest
Meta's ad trial lands with the judge who rewrote Apple's App Store pricing1 distinct publisher
product
Epic declines to endorse settlement talks, leaving Apple's 15% external-purchase rate unsettled1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
9to5mac.com
2 articles · August 13, 2026
gizmodo.com
1 article · August 14, 2026
macrumors.com
1 article · August 13, 2026
techcrunch.com
1 article · August 14, 2026
theverge.com
1 article · August 13, 2026