Apple(US:AAPL) Sou Hu Cai Jing·2025-05-04 09:14Core Viewpoint - A landmark ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers requires Apple Inc. to immediately cease charging commissions on in-app purchases made outside the App Store and prohibits any intimidation of users opting for external payment methods, marking a significant shift in the relationship between software developers and platform providers [1][9]. Group 1: Legal Background - The case originated from Epic Games' lawsuit against Apple in 2020, accusing Apple of enforcing a 30% commission on in-app purchases for Fortnite, which is referred to as the "Apple tax," and restricting developers from directing users to alternative payment methods [3]. - In a 2021 ruling, although the court did not find Apple guilty of monopolistic practices, it mandated that Apple allow developers to use third-party payment methods [3]. Group 2: Recent Developments - Epic Games accused Apple in 2023 of not complying with the previous ruling, claiming that Apple still extracts a 27% commission on external payments and employs intimidation tactics to deter users from using alternative payment methods [5][6]. - The ruling highlights that Apple must not charge any commission on external payments, use intimidating warnings, or prohibit developers from providing external payment links [9]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The ruling could significantly impact Apple's revenue model, as the App Store's commission structure has been a major cost for developers, potentially leading to increased profits for developers if they can avoid platform fees [9][14]. - For example, a developer previously earning $100,000 monthly through in-app purchases faced a $30,000 fee due to the "Apple tax," which could be reduced significantly under the new ruling [6]. Group 4: Industry Impact - The ruling is seen as a major challenge to the existing "closed ecosystem" model of the tech industry, which could prompt similar legal actions against other platforms like Google Play [9][10]. - The decision may lead to a shift in how software developers approach payment systems, potentially increasing competition and reducing costs for consumers [14]. Group 5: Apple's Response - Apple expressed strong disagreement with the ruling but committed to complying with the court's order while indicating intentions to appeal [10]. - Internal discussions at Apple revealed that there were considerations to eliminate external payment commissions, but these were ultimately rejected by the company's leadership [12].