Apple is proposing a new commission structure for purchases made through external links inside iPhone and iPad applications, potentially marking a significant adjustment to its long-running App Store business model. The company has asked a U.S. court to allow a standard 15% commission, while offering lower rates to certain developer categories. The proposal comes amid continuing legal pressure over Apple’s treatment of alternative payment systems and could reshape the economics of its digital-services ecosystem.

Apple Moves Toward a Lower External-Payment Fee

Apple’s latest court filing proposes a 15% commission for standard applications when users make purchases through external links within iOS apps. The proposal represents a notable reduction from the 27% commission Apple had previously imposed on purchases made through external links, a policy that became central to its legal dispute with Epic Games.

The company is also proposing differentiated rates for specific developer groups. Small business developers would pay a 5% commission, while developers participating in Apple’s Video Partner Program, News Partner Program and Mini Apps Partner Program would face a 10% rate. Subscription renewals would likewise carry a 10% commission.

The structure indicates that Apple is attempting to preserve a revenue stream from transactions occurring outside the traditional App Store payment mechanism while reducing the level of fees that have attracted regulatory and legal scrutiny.

Epic Dispute Continues to Shape Apple’s Strategy

The proposed changes are part of a broader legal battle that has lasted for years, with Epic Games challenging Apple’s App Store policies on competition and commissions. Apple had attempted to delay proceedings concerning the new commission structure while awaiting action from the Supreme Court.

That strategy suffered a setback when the Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to pause further proceedings in the lower court. Apple was consequently required to present its proposed framework, putting the company’s approach to external purchases under greater public and judicial scrutiny.

The dispute is important beyond Apple and Epic because the outcome could influence how developers monetize applications and how technology platforms charge for digital transactions. Lower commissions could potentially improve the economics for developers, while Apple faces the challenge of maintaining the financial returns generated by its massive software ecosystem.

Apple Defends Its Right to Monetize the Ecosystem

Apple maintains that commissions on purchases made through its devices are justified by the investments required to operate the App Store and support the underlying software, technology and services. From Apple’s perspective, the proposed fees represent compensation for maintaining the infrastructure through which developers reach customers.

The company has also pointed to Google’s approach as a comparison. Apple noted that Google Play charges a 20% link-out rate for standard applications, 15% for certain special programs and 10% for subscription renewals, while Epic Games has agreed to those rates.

The comparison could become an important element of Apple’s legal argument, although the economic and regulatory treatment of the two platforms may not necessarily be identical.

Market Outlook

Apple’s proposed commission structure could represent a compromise between protecting its services revenue and responding to increasing pressure over App Store restrictions. The immediate financial impact will depend on how extensively developers and consumers shift toward external payment options and whether the proposed rates receive court approval. Investors will also be watching for further legal developments, as a materially lower commission framework could pressure Apple’s high-margin services economics over time while potentially reducing regulatory risk. The balance between maintaining App Store monetization and satisfying competition concerns is likely to remain an important issue for Apple’s long-term services strategy.