Apple’s Radical New App Store Pricing Still Won’t Attract Big-Name Developers

Apple has finally done the thing developers have been begging for: it blew up its old, simple
“30% on everything” App Store model and replaced it with something far more flexible. Fees are
lower in some cases, courts and regulators have pushed Apple to loosen its grip, and new
programs promise kinder treatment for small studios, mini apps, and alternative payment flows.

On paper, this looks like a radical new era for App Store pricing. In practice, most big-name
developers are still crossing their arms and giving Apple a very unimpressed side-eye. They may
grudgingly take the savings, but they’re not suddenly racing to build new iOS exclusives or
praising Apple as the developers’ best friend.

To understand why, you have to look beyond the headline numbers. Yes, commissions have come
down in some places. But for large, high-volume apps, the new App Store pricing often still
feels expensive, confusing, and above all, designed to keep Apple firmly in control.

What Actually Changed in Apple’s New App Store Pricing?

From a simple 30% cut to a maze of tiers and fees

For more than a decade, Apple’s basic formula was easy to describe, even if developers hated it:
the App Store took up to 30% of paid app and in-app purchase revenue. Over the years, Apple
introduced some carve-outs, like the App Store Small Business Program, which lets qualifying
developers who earn up to $1 million per year pay just 15% instead of 30%. That’s legitimately
helpful for many indie creators and small shops.

The “radical” part arrived when regulators, especially in the European Union, demanded real
changes. Under pressure from the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple introduced new fee
structures with lower percentage commissions – commonly in the 10–17% range – but layered on a
Core Technology Fee and optional payment-processing charges. In the EU, for example,
apps that exceed a threshold of one million annual installs per year pay a per-install fee on
top of a reduced commission, and may also pay separate fees if they use Apple’s payment system.
The math can get complicated quickly, especially for big, frequently downloaded apps.

Apple pitches this as more choice: developers can pick between different fee structures,
potentially use alternative payment methods, and even distribute from alternative app
marketplaces. On slides, it looks like freedom. In a spreadsheet, many developers see something
closer to “pick your poison.”

Courts and regulators forced Apple to move

Apple did not wake up one morning and decide, purely out of generosity, to reinvent App Store
pricing. The push came from governments and judges.

In the EU, the DMA explicitly targets “gatekeepers” like Apple and requires them to allow
developers to steer users to cheaper payment options, use alternative app stores, and avoid
anti-competitive rules. Apple has already been fined over its App Store practices in music
streaming and warned again over how it implements the DMA. In response, it has repeatedly
tweaked fees and rules for EU developers.

In the United States, Apple has been locked in a long-running legal battle with Epic Games over
App Store restrictions. A federal court found Apple violated an injunction designed to open up
payment options and slammed the company for imposing aggressive off-App-Store fees. Apple has
been forced to drop some of the most controversial charges and allow more freedom in how
developers communicate with their users about cheaper payment routes outside Apple’s ecosystem.

Bottom line: the new pricing isn’t some visionary act of kindness. It’s Apple figuring out how
to keep as much control and revenue as possible while staying just barely on the right side of
regulators and judges.

Why Big-Name Developers Still Aren’t Impressed

The math still isn’t great for huge, high-volume apps

For big-name developers – think subscription services, blockbuster games, or major media
companies – the key question isn’t “Is 10% nicer than 30%?” Of course it is. The real questions
are:

• What is our total effective cost once all the new fees are included?
• How predictable is that cost as we grow?
• And do we actually gain any meaningful control in exchange?

The Core Technology Fee and similar per-install charges loom large here. A large streaming
app, for example, can rack up millions of installs every year. Once you cross Apple’s generous
“first million” grace limit, every additional install becomes another little toll booth.
Combined with a percentage commission on revenue, the effective rate for a successful,
widely-used app can still end up uncomfortably high.

If you’re a giant platform like Netflix, Spotify, or a major gaming publisher, you already have
your own billing systems, your own marketing machines, and a direct relationship with your
users. Paying Apple a steep, hard-to-predict slice just for distribution is a much tougher sell
than it is for a small, unknown developer hoping Apple’s store will give them visibility.

Big brands want control, not just cheaper tolls

For years, big developers have complained less about the raw percentage and more about the
power imbalance. Apple controls app review, rules about what you can say inside your app, how
you can link out to your website, and how easily users can discover cheaper subscription
options off-platform.

Even with the new pricing structures, a lot of that control is still in Apple’s hands. Some
anti-steering restrictions have been relaxed due to legal pressure, but the fundamental
relationship hasn’t changed: the iOS platform is Apple’s turf, and everyone else plays by
Apple’s rules.

That’s why you’ve seen big companies publicly ridicule Apple’s DMA responses as “a mockery,”
“confusing,” or “unacceptable.” For them, this is not about squeezing out a few extra points of
margin. It’s about whether they’re allowed to run their business strategy without Apple
constantly sitting in the middle.

Complex pricing is a red flag for large organizations

Large companies have entire teams whose job is to run financial scenarios before they commit to
a distribution model. When they look at Apple’s new fee structures – different percentages
depending on region, install-based fees, optional payment processing charges, special EU-only
rules, and so on – what they see is risk.

It’s hard enough to forecast revenue and churn in a subscription business. Now layer on an
intricate fee schedule that can change when regulators complain or Apple updates its rules
again, and you’ve got a CFO’s nightmare. Simplified, predictable pricing is something big
companies prize. Apple’s “radical” new model, with its maze-like fee combinations, doesn’t
deliver that clarity.

Where Apple’s New Pricing Actually Helps

Small developers and niche apps get real relief

To be fair, Apple’s revamped pricing does meaningfully improve life for certain developers.
Small studios that fit within the App Store Small Business Program’s revenue limit can benefit
from a 15% commission rather than the old 30% on many transactions. For a solo developer
charging $4.99 for a productivity app, that difference can pay for marketing, contract design
help, or another few months of runway.

For some EU-based developers, lower headline commissions tied to DMA compliance can also add up
to significant savings, especially if their install volume stays under the Core Technology Fee
threshold. A niche tool with a loyal audience but modest scale might find the new pricing
genuinely attractive.

Mini apps and experiments benefit more than blockbuster hits

Apple is also experimenting with cheaper structures for “mini apps” – small, lightweight
experiences integrated inside host apps or super-apps. In some cases, these mini app
developers can pay notably lower fees than traditional full-blown iOS apps, reflecting the fact
that they’re riding on top of another platform’s infrastructure.

This is clever, and it may help Apple stay competitive in markets where super-apps and mini
programs are popular. But again, this isn’t the sort of thing that moves the needle for
Netflix, Epic, or the next billion-dollar streaming platform. It’s a nice on-ramp for smaller
experiences, not a strategy that suddenly wins over the biggest players in the ecosystem.

The Bigger Picture: App Store Pricing Is Only One Piece

Big developers already have leverage and alternatives

The companies Apple most wants to keep happy – big-name game studios, major streaming services,
social networks, productivity suites – already operate across multiple platforms. They’re on
Android, the web, smart TVs, game consoles, and increasingly, direct-to-consumer websites.

For them, iOS is critical but not irreplaceable. They can:

• Push users toward web-based sign-ups to avoid in-app purchase fees.
• Offer better pricing or bundles outside the app to steer power users off-platform.
• Invest in progressive web apps (PWAs) or desktop experiences where store fees don’t apply.

As long as those options exist, a complicated App Store fee structure that still feels
expensive and restrictive isn’t going to look like a “wow, let’s build more for iOS!” moment.
It’s just one more line item to manage.

Reputation and negotiation power matter

There’s also a political dimension. Many of the largest developers have spent years publicly
criticizing Apple’s App Store model as a “tax” on digital commerce. They’ve testified before
regulators, filed lawsuits, and rallied public opinion. If they suddenly turned around and
said, “You know what, actually this new pricing is great,” they would lose a lot of credibility
in those fights.

By keeping up the pressure, even when Apple offers partial concessions, big developers maintain
leverage. They know that regulators are watching, courts are still issuing rulings, and public
sentiment is shifting. Accepting Apple’s new pricing as a final peace deal would mean walking
away from the chance at deeper structural change – like fully open app stores, truly neutral
rules, and lower, simpler fees across the board.

What Would It Take to Truly Win Over Big-Name Developers?

If Apple genuinely wanted big brands to stop complaining and start cheering, the playbook would
look very different from the current patchwork.

• Transparent, flat pricing without surprise add-ons. A single, clearly stated
  fee that doesn’t depend on how many times users reinstall an app or which region they live in
  would go a long way toward rebuilding trust.
• Real steering freedom. Let developers clearly tell users inside the app,
  without dark patterns or scary warnings, where to subscribe or pay less elsewhere. No tricks,
  no vague “external link” drama.
• Faster, more predictable app review. Big launches getting stuck in review or
  rejected at the last minute is a nightmare for marketing, PR, and revenue forecasting.
• Stable rules with plenty of lead time. Enterprises plan roadmaps years in
  advance. Last-minute policy changes, especially when tied to new fees, scare them away from
  leaning too heavily on any single platform.
• True competition among payment providers. Let Apple compete on service
  quality and fraud protection instead of relying on enforced exclusivity and penalties.

Apple has nudged in some of these directions, but not far enough to make big developers feel
like full partners rather than well-milked tenants.

Experiences from the Trenches: How the New Pricing Feels in Real Life

To see why the new App Store pricing still struggles to win over big-name developers, it helps
to walk through a few realistic scenarios. These composite stories are based on patterns
reported by real teams, with the names filed off to protect the innocent (and the NDA-bound).

The indie productivity app that finally breathes easier

First, the feel-good example: a one-person shop with a $3.99 note-taking app. Under the older,
flat 30% model, every sale meant Apple took more than a dollar. That developer joined the Small
Business Program, dropped to 15%, and suddenly had enough margin to run small ad campaigns,
hire a part-time support rep, and pay for better cloud hosting.

When Apple announced the more flexible pricing in some regions, our indie dev ran the numbers
and found that nothing really got worse. Install volumes were nowhere near the threshold where
per-install fees kicked in. For them, the story is simple: the new mix of programs is a net
positive. They still grumble about some rules, but they’re not losing sleep over it.

The mid-size subscription app stuck in fee limbo

Now jump to a mid-size company running a niche fitness subscription app. They have a few
hundred thousand paying users across iOS, Android, and the web. They used to route most
sign-ups through the web to avoid Apple’s 30% cut, nudging users with email campaigns and
in-app hints to subscribe off-platform.

When Apple rolled out new pricing and more options for external payments, the CFO, product lead,
and legal team sat down with a serious spreadsheet. What they found was… complicated. In some
scenarios, using in-app purchases with lower commissions could make sense for casual users. In
others, the effective rate shot up once per-install fees and other costs were factored in.

In the end, they made only minor changes. They still lean heavily on web sign-ups, still warn
power users to subscribe outside the app, and still view Apple’s pricing as something to manage
around, not embrace. The new options give them a bit more flexibility, but not enough clarity to
say, “Great, let’s go all in on App Store billing.”

The giant streaming service that shrugs and keeps fighting

Finally, picture a household-name streaming service. You probably have their app installed
right now. This company pulled in-app subscriptions from iOS years ago specifically to avoid
Apple’s high commissions. New users sign up on the web; the iOS app is essentially a playback
shell.

When Apple announced lower percentage fees and more latitude for external links, the streaming
team took a look. The product managers liked the idea of a smoother onboarding flow. The growth
team loved any path that reduced friction. But the finance team wasn’t convinced the new model
would actually be cheaper at scale. The legal and policy teams had another concern: switching
back to in-app billing would send exactly the wrong message to regulators they’d spent years
courting.

So they stayed put. They took advantage of any new freedom to mention cheaper options outside
the app, continued to lobby regulators for stronger rules, and publicly criticized Apple’s
proposals as confusing and inadequate. Apple’s radical pricing changes moved some numbers in a
spreadsheet, but not the company’s strategic stance.

Across these examples, a pattern emerges. Small developers and niche products can genuinely win
under Apple’s new mix of programs and lower rates. Mid-size and large companies, especially
those with big install bases or subscription-heavy models, still see too much complexity, too
many fees, and not enough control to declare victory and come running back.

Conclusion: Radical Pricing, Same Old Problem

Apple’s new App Store pricing is undeniably a major shift from the ultra-simple 30% era. Lower
commissions, alternative payment options, per-install fees, and mini app programs show that
Apple is feeling the heat and trying to adapt without losing its grip on the ecosystem.

But for the big-name developers whose apps define the smartphone experience for millions of
people, the core complaints remain:

• The total cost of doing business with Apple still feels high and hard to predict.
• The rules are still complex and subject to change when regulators push back.
• Apple still holds most of the power over distribution, discovery, and user relationships.

That’s why Apple’s radical new pricing – while meaningful and even helpful for many small
developers – is unlikely to suddenly attract big-name developers who have already built their
own ecosystems, alternative billing paths, and regulatory strategies. Until Apple is willing to
trade more control for simpler, genuinely competitive terms, the biggest players will keep
treating the App Store less like a partner and more like a very expensive toll road they’re
trying to route around.