Apple Faces Backlash Over Controversial 27% App Store Tax

Apple's recent changes to its App Store policies, introducing a 27% tax on alternative payment methods, have sparked discontent among its major critics. In a statement, Spotify spokesperson Jeanne Moran accuses Apple of prioritizing profits over fair practices, emphasizing the company's relentless pursuit of revenue from developers and consumers.

This alteration is a response to a court order from the Epic v. Apple case, allowing US developers to link to alternative payment methods but imposing a hefty 27% commission on each transaction conducted outside the App Store.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney denounces Apple's move as "anti-competitive" and claims it undermines the court order, asserting that the new policy stifles price competition by preventing developers from offering lower-priced in-app purchases.

Spotify's Moran expresses outrage, branding Apple's decision as contrary to the court's intent to foster competition and user choice. She argues that the 27% tax essentially replicates Apple's existing fees, urging the European Commission to prevent such policy changes within the EU.

The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), a group challenging Apple and Google's dominance in the mobile app industry, also criticizes the change. Rick VanMeter, CAF's executive director, asserts that Apple's compliance with the court's decision fails to benefit developers and consumers, offering no improvement in choice or competition within Apple's ecosystem.

Apple has previously implemented comparable policies, facing regulatory challenges. In the Netherlands, Apple permitted dating app developers to use alternative payment options with a 27% tax, resulting in a $55 million fine for non-compliance. A similar policy in South Korea, where new laws prevent mandatory use of first-party payment processors, has drawn warnings of potential fines for Apple and Google.

The controversy surrounding Apple's App Store tax highlights ongoing tensions between the tech giant and its critics, as regulatory bodies and industry players scrutinize the implications of these changes on competition and consumer choice.