The court ruled against Apple’s 'anti-steering' policies, granting developers the right to include external links and calls to action for payment systems outside of Apple’s In-App Purchasing.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": The court ruled against Apple’s 'anti-steering' policies, granting developers the right to include external links and calls to action for payment systems outside of Apple’s In-App Purchasing.

Epic Games failed to prove Apple is a monopolist under the Sherman Act, with the court rejecting nine out of ten counts brought against the platform holder.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": Epic Games failed to prove Apple is a monopolist under the Sherman Act, with the court rejecting nine out of ten counts brought against the platform holder.

Epic Games was found liable for breach of contract and ordered to pay Apple 30% of the $12 million in revenue generated through its unauthorized direct payment system.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": Epic Games was found liable for breach of contract and ordered to pay Apple 30% of the $12 million in revenue generated through its unauthorized direct payment system.

The ruling affirmed Apple’s right to terminate developer agreements with Epic subsidiaries, which creates potential long-term instability for the Unreal Engine on iOS.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": The ruling affirmed Apple’s right to terminate developer agreements with Epic subsidiaries, which creates potential long-term instability for the Unreal Engine on iOS.

The top 1% of iOS gamers spend an average of $2,700 annually, making the ability to bypass Apple’s 30% commission a highly lucrative opportunity for major publishers.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": The top 1% of iOS gamers spend an average of $2,700 annually, making the ability to bypass Apple’s 30% commission a highly lucrative opportunity for major publishers.

While the injunction provides a margin-improving tool for large-scale developers, it does not fulfill Epic’s objective of establishing a competing app store on the iOS platform.

According to "Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?": While the injunction provides a margin-improving tool for large-scale developers, it does not fulfill Epic’s objective of establishing a competing app store on the iOS platform.

Back to report

Key Insights

Epic Vs. Apple: What Does the Verdict Really Mean?

GameDiscoverCo~12 min full read

01
The court ruled against Apple’s 'anti-steering' policies, granting developers the right to include external links and calls to action for payment systems outside of Apple’s In-App Purchasing.
02
Epic Games failed to prove Apple is a monopolist under the Sherman Act, with the court rejecting nine out of ten counts brought against the platform holder.
03
Epic Games was found liable for breach of contract and ordered to pay Apple 30% of the $12 million in revenue generated through its unauthorized direct payment system.
04
The ruling affirmed Apple’s right to terminate developer agreements with Epic subsidiaries, which creates potential long-term instability for the Unreal Engine on iOS.
05
The top 1% of iOS gamers spend an average of $2,700 annually, making the ability to bypass Apple’s 30% commission a highly lucrative opportunity for major publishers.
06
While the injunction provides a margin-improving tool for large-scale developers, it does not fulfill Epic’s objective of establishing a competing app store on the iOS platform.

That's the gist.

Dive into the full report for the data, charts, and sources behind these takeaways.

Read the full report