Apple Fellow Phil Schiller testified on February 24, 2025, that he initially raised “great concerns” about charging developers a commission on purchases completed on their own websites after users followed links from iOS apps. His objections were not limited to the commission’s percentage. He questioned how Apple would audit web sales, pursue unpaid fees, and manage the developer disputes that could turn the App Store into what he described as a “collection agency.”
Apple ultimately adopted a 27% fee for certain linked-out purchases, along with rules governing links, warnings, reporting, and attribution. The policy became the focus of contempt proceedings in Epic Games v. Apple.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
$500 Apple Gift Card—Email Delivery | $500.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
$100 Apple Gift Card—Email Delivery | $100.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
$15 Apple Gift Card—Email Delivery | $15.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Apple Physical Gift Card | $100.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
$500 Apple Gift Card—Email Delivery - Season's greetings | $500.00 | Buy on Amazon |
What Schiller actually objected to
Schiller did not testify that he opposed every App Store commission. His reported concerns focused on a different transaction: one completed on a developer’s website rather than through Apple’s in-app payment system.
Under that arrangement, Apple would not process the payment in its own checkout system, yet it would still seek a percentage of the sale if the customer reached the external site through an iOS app link. Schiller testified that this raised several practical and strategic problems:
#1 Best Overall
- For all things Apple - products, accessories, apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, iCloud+, and more.
- Perfect for App Store purchases and subscriptions—get apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, and more.
- The perfect gift to say happy birthday, thank you, congratulations, and more.
- Available in $15 - 500, Card delivered via email or SMS
- Use it for purchases at any Apple Store location, on the Apple Store app, apple.com, the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple News+, Apple Books, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Fitness+, Apple One, and other Apple properties in US only
- Apple would need a way to collect money from developers for transactions it did not process.
- Apple would have to establish rules for nonpayment and disputes.
- It might need to audit developers’ web transactions.
- The App Store could take on the role of a “collection agency.”
- Charging for web sales could damage Apple’s relationship with developers.
- The policy could create additional compliance risk under the court’s injunction.
That distinction matters. The testimony was not simply about whether Apple’s ordinary commission was too high. It concerned whether Apple should continue claiming a share of a payment after the transaction had moved outside Apple’s payment environment.
TechCrunch’s account of the testimony reported that Schiller’s concerns included audits, unpaid fees, collection responsibilities, and the effect on developer relations. The Associated Press also covered his testimony during the contempt proceedings.
Why the testimony happened
The testimony arose from Apple’s response to a 2021 court order in the long-running dispute with Epic Games.
- August 2020: Epic added its own payment option to Fortnite, prompting Apple to remove the game from the App Store and leading to litigation. The AP provides background on the dispute in its case timeline and coverage.
- September 10, 2021: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a permanent injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action directing users to alternative purchasing mechanisms. The injunction text did not broadly require Apple to permit alternative app stores or remove all App Store rules.
- January 2024: The Supreme Court declined to hear the parties’ appeals, leaving the injunction in effect.
- 2024: Apple introduced an external-link framework that included a reduced commission, design limits, warning screens, and other conditions.
- February 24, 2025: Schiller testified about Apple’s internal discussions and his initial concerns.
- April 30, 2025: The district court found Apple in civil contempt over its implementation of the injunction.
- December 11, 2025: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the core contempt finding while clarifying that the injunction did not categorically prohibit every possible fee on linked-out purchases.
- May 26, 2026: Apple filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the contempt dispute.
How Apple’s policy differed from Schiller’s concerns
Apple’s internal process considered different approaches, including whether to charge no fee, charge a reduced fee, or use different attribution periods and rules for different developer programs. A committee involving Schiller, CEO Tim Cook, former CFO Luca Maestri, and Apple’s legal team ultimately approved a fee structure.
The resulting framework generally included:
- a 27% commission on qualifying linked-out purchases;
- a reported reduction from 15% to 12% for qualifying developers in Apple’s Small Business Program;
- rules controlling where external links could appear;
- limits on link formatting, wording, and prominence;
- warnings telling users they were leaving Apple’s transaction environment;
- reporting and potential audit obligations; and
- a reported seven-day attribution period for purchases after a user clicked an external link.
Apple had reportedly considered a 72-hour attribution period before adopting the seven-day period described in court coverage. Attribution was important because a purchase made on a website is not automatically connected to an app link. Apple needed a rule for deciding which web sales were covered and how developers would report them.
Rank #2
- For all things Apple - products, accessories, apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, iCloud+, and more.
- Perfect for App Store purchases and subscriptions—get apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, and more.
- The perfect gift to say happy birthday, thank you, congratulations, and more.
- Available in $15 - 500, Card delivered via email or SMS
- Use it for purchases at any Apple Store location, on the Apple Store app, apple.com, the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple News+, Apple Books, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Fitness+, Apple One, and other Apple properties in US only
The available reporting establishes that Schiller raised concerns and that Apple later adopted a fee. It does not establish, by itself, that Tim Cook formally overruled him or that Schiller’s objections were rejected in a specific recorded vote.
Why a 27% fee mattered
Apple’s standard App Store commission has commonly been described as 30%, although the actual rate can vary by program and transaction type. A 27% charge on a linked-out purchase therefore looked economically close to the ordinary commission for many developers.
For developers, the difference is significant. A web transaction can require the developer to pay its own payment processor, operate checkout and fraud systems, handle customer support, and bear other costs. A fee approaching Apple’s ordinary rate can reduce the financial benefit of moving the payment outside the App Store.
Recommended Free Tools
The dispute was therefore about more than arithmetic. Apple’s position was that the iOS platform still contributed value even when the final payment took place on the web. Epic’s opposing argument was that a near-equivalent charge on an off-platform transaction preserved Apple’s control without Apple processing the payment.
A simple $100 sale illustrates the issue, but it does not produce a universal take-home amount. The result depends on the developer’s program eligibility, the applicable Apple rules, taxes, payment-processing costs, refunds, and other operating expenses. The 27% figure should not be treated as a charge that automatically applied to every web purchase or every developer.
Rank #3
- For all things Apple - products, accessories, apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, iCloud+, and more.
- Perfect for App Store purchases and subscriptions—get apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, and more.
- The perfect gift to say happy birthday, thank you, congratulations, and more.
- Available in $15 - 500, Card delivered via email or SMS
- Use it for purchases at any Apple Store location, on the Apple Store app, apple.com, the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple News+, Apple Books, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Fitness+, Apple One, and other Apple properties in US only
Fee, anti-steering rule, and purchase friction are different issues
Coverage of the case can become confusing because several separate policy elements are often described as one “external payment” rule.
- Commission: the percentage Apple seeks from an eligible external purchase.
- Anti-steering restrictions: rules about whether and how an app can direct users to another purchasing mechanism.
- Purchase-flow friction: warnings, extra screens, language, and interface requirements that may make an external purchase less seamless.
- Reporting and audits: processes Apple can use to determine whether a purchase followed an in-app link and whether the developer owes a fee.
Epic argued that the combination of these measures amounted to “malicious compliance”—a characterization that should be attributed to Epic, not treated as a neutral legal finding. The central legal question was whether Apple merely allowed links in a formal sense or imposed conditions that made them commercially ineffective.
What Apple’s internal analysis revealed
According to court coverage, Apple modeled whether a less seamless external checkout would cause customers to abandon purchases. It also examined whether restrictions on link placement and design would reduce developers’ willingness to use external links.
Those analyses are relevant because they address the practical effect of the policy. A link may technically exist while being difficult for customers to find, surrounded by warnings, or less effective at converting sales.
However, internal modeling alone does not prove that Apple intended to violate the injunction. The intent question must be understood alongside the court’s review of documents, witness testimony, interface choices, and the actual implementation.
Rank #4
- For all things Apple - products, accessories, apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, iCloud+, and more.
- Perfect for App Store purchases and subscriptions—get apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, and more.
- The perfect gift to say happy birthday, thank you, congratulations, and more.
- Available in $100 and $200, Card delivered via mail.
- Use it for purchases at any Apple Store location, on the Apple Store app, apple.com, the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple News+, Apple Books, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Fitness+, Apple One, and other Apple properties in US only
What the courts decided
The 2021 injunction required Apple to permit links and calls to action leading to alternative purchasing mechanisms. It did not automatically ban every fee associated with an external purchase.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt over its implementation, including the 27% fee and restrictions placed on external links. The Ninth Circuit’s December 2025 opinion affirmed the core contempt finding.
At the same time, the Ninth Circuit clarified an important limit: Apple was not categorically barred from imposing a commission or fee on linked-out purchases. A fee could be permissible if allowed under the injunction and if it did not operate as a prohibited barrier to external purchasing. The court’s ruling therefore did not establish that 27% was the final legally permissible rate. It addressed Apple’s challenged implementation while leaving a narrower path for a properly structured fee.
That distinction prevents two common errors: saying the injunction allowed Apple to do whatever it wanted with external links, or saying the injunction permanently prohibited Apple from charging any fee on external sales.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the case means for developers and users
The dispute affects more than Epic. The injunction addressed Apple’s rules for developers generally, so the principles surrounding links, fees, warnings, attribution, and reporting have broader implications for iOS developers.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
- For all things Apple - products, accessories, apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, iCloud+, and more.
- Perfect for App Store purchases and subscriptions—get apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, and more.
- The perfect gift to say happy birthday, thank you, congratulations, and more.
- Available in $15 - 500, Card delivered via email or SMS
- Use it for purchases at any Apple Store location, on the Apple Store app, apple.com, the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple News+, Apple Books, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Fitness+, Apple One, and other Apple properties in US only
For developers, the practical questions are:
- Can customers find and use the external purchasing link?
- Does the link provide a meaningful alternative to Apple’s checkout?
- Which purchases count as linked-out transactions?
- What documentation and reporting does Apple require?
- Does the applicable developer program change the rate?
- Do Apple’s warnings or design restrictions reduce conversion enough to erase the benefit of using the web?
For users, the issue is who controls the customer relationship and payment flow. A purchase outside Apple’s system may offer developers a different economic model, but it can also change refund procedures, subscription management, privacy disclosures, and customer support responsibilities. The legal dispute does not by itself establish that one checkout environment is safer or better for every purchase.
Current Supreme Court posture
As of August 18, 2026, Apple had filed a Supreme Court petition seeking review of the contempt dispute. Filing a petition does not mean the Supreme Court accepted the case, ruled for Apple, or changed the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
The latest verified appellate development in the supplied record is the Ninth Circuit’s December 11, 2025 ruling: the core contempt finding remained in place, but the court rejected the idea that every possible linked-out fee was automatically forbidden.
The broader significance
Schiller’s testimony exposed the tension inside Apple’s policy decision. Apple wanted to preserve a financial claim connected to its platform while avoiding the administrative burden and relationship costs of collecting money from transactions it did not process. The eventual framework attempted to do both.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →That is why the story is not simply “Apple wanted 27%.” It is about whether a platform fee reflects continuing platform value or recreates the same economic restraint that a court order was intended to remove. It is also about whether legal compliance should be measured by the existence of a link or by whether customers and developers can use that link as a genuinely practical alternative.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
