May 1, 2025 | Seattle, WA
Apple vs. Epic Games
A major shift is underway in how digital platforms operate, and the battle between Apple vs. Epic Games might be the inflection point that reshapes the rules of engagement.
On April 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had willfully violated a 2021 injunction that barred it from blocking developers from directing users to alternative payment methods. Instead of complying, Apple imposed a 27% commission on off-platform payments and designed warning screens that discouraged users from following external links.
Epic called it out. The court agreed. And now Apple is not only being forced to comply but may face criminal contempt charges. On the surface, this seems like a win for developers, but there’s more at stake than just payment links.
The Backstory: Platform Access vs. Platform Control
Epic’s 2020 stunt—adding direct payments in Fortnite and bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase system—wasn’t just about saving money. It was a protest against Apple’s dominance over app distribution and monetization. At the heart of it was Apple’s 30% commission, a fee that many consider unjustified in a digital world where delivery costs are near zero.
The initial court ruling in 2021 stopped short of calling Apple a monopoly but did find its practices anti-competitive. The judge allowed Apple to charge a commission but insisted that developers be allowed to communicate with users about alternatives. Apple's response, 27% fees on off-platform payments and aggressive UI barriers, made it clear it wasn’t going to let go of control easily.
Now, the court is pushing back harder. But this story isn’t just about Apple. It’s about the future of how platforms operate—and what they might do next.
Why This Ruling Matters More Than It Seems
Here’s the real risk: if large platforms can no longer enforce steep commissions or control off-platform behavior, they might shift from being marketplaces to becoming direct competitors to their developers.
First-party domination: Imagine Apple prioritizing its apps and services in search results or recommendations. Think Apple Music vs. Spotify, Apple Maps vs. Google Maps. With less revenue coming from third-party apps, the incentive to build in-house and push others out grows stronger.
Platform retaliation: Developers could see less visibility, worse analytics, or even quiet suppression in algorithmic rankings, especially if they challenge the business model.
Walled garden innovation: Apple and others may double down on ecosystem exclusivity, limiting interoperability or cross-platform functionality.
And it’s not just Apple vs. Epic Games. The same model applies to Google Play, Amazon’s Appstore, Steam, and even Shopify’s app ecosystem. The ruling sets a legal and cultural precedent for how all digital gatekeepers may be forced to behave or retaliate.
A Case for Balance, Not Extremes
My view is this: 30% is excessive, but 0% isn't fair either. Apple does provide value—user trust, fraud prevention, install convenience, and infrastructure. But when developers bring their own users, Apple should step back. A hybrid model might look like:
5–10% commission if Apple acquired the user
0% if the user came from outside the ecosystem
No scare-tactic UI or friction designed to punish developers
It’s not about gutting Apple. It’s about fair value exchange in a modern platform economy.
The Door This Opens: Decentralized Payments and Crypto
There’s another dimension to this ruling that could ripple far beyond Apple: it could accelerate crypto adoption.
One of the key obstacles to crypto and decentralized payments has been platform friction. Apple historically banned or restricted wallets, tokens, and Web3 features in apps because it couldn’t monetize them. But if developers can now link directly to their own payment flows, bypassing Apple’s cut, they may also start accepting stablecoins, tokens, or on-chain payment rails.
This ruling won’t make Apple accept crypto overnight, but it loosens the grip. It gives developers space to experiment, integrate, and educate users about better options. And as more payments move off-platform, the economic pressure to support alternatives, crypto included, will only grow.
The Path Forward
This isn’t just a win for Epic or game studios. It’s a test case for the next evolution of commerce, where platforms are forced to choose between control and collaboration.
Developers want access to users, not lock-in. Platforms want sustainable revenue, not backlash. There’s a middle ground, but we won’t get there by pretending the App Store is the only on-ramp to the internet.
As the courts signal that gatekeeping isn’t infinite, now’s the time for platforms to reimagine what fair platform economics looks like and for developers to think bigger than just workarounds.
