European Commission reaction

• The changes followed the Commission’s Digital Markets Act enforcement against Apple’s anti-steering and fee arrangements. Reuters reported that the redesign was intended to resolve the Commission dispute, while the Commission would assess whether Apple’s revised terms meet DMA requirements.
• In practical terms, the Commission did not declare that App Store fees themselves must disappear; its concern was whether Apple’s conditions made developers’ use of alternative distribution, payment, and steering options commercially unviable.

Germany: App Tracking Transparency

Separately, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office closed its long-running ATT investigation after Apple made binding commitments to change consent treatment for third-party apps. The authority’s central concern was that Apple used different consent requests for its own services and for third parties, potentially favouring Apple in personalised advertising.

The reported package comprises eight implementation commitments aimed at neutralising the third-party tracking prompt and putting developers on more equal footing. Its substantive effects include:

• removing potentially discouraging wording and visual elements from the third-party consent flow;
• giving developers more ability to explain the role of personalised advertising in their app and business model;
• providing greater freedom to combine or sequence developer information with Apple’s consent request; and
• aligning the presentation and design logic of the consent experience so that Apple’s own services do not receive a preferential prompt.

The official materials available here substantiate those principles, but do not enumerate all eight commitments in sufficient detail to reliably reproduce each technical change.

Broader regulatory pattern

• Japan: Apple has been preparing for Japan’s mobile-software competition regime by allowing alternative app marketplaces and alternative payment routes, while preserving commission schedules based on whether the sale uses Apple IAP, an in-app alternative processor, or an external link.
• Brazil: Under Apple’s agreement with competition authority CADE, developers can distribute iOS apps via alternative marketplaces and process digital-goods payments outside Apple’s system; Apple says it continues to charge commissions on digital goods and services under the Brazilian terms.
• United States: Court-ordered anti-steering changes have weakened Apple’s ability to control in-app purchase routing. Developers can direct U.S. users to external payment mechanisms, reducing Apple’s traditional commission capture on those sales. This is distinct from the EU’s DMA-based marketplace regime.

Financial implications

• Third-party estimates reported by the Financial Times and cited elsewhere put Apple’s U.S. App Store commission revenue down 18% since the start of 2026; this is not an Apple-reported financial line item, so it should be treated as an analytics estimate.
• Sensor Tower data cited in the same reporting indicated U.S. App Store consumer spending fell 6% year over year in the second quarter, versus 9% growth a year earlier.
• Apple reported June-quarter services revenue of about $30.74 billion, below the $31.22 billion analyst estimate. Apple attributed pressure in part to softer mobile gaming and regulatory/court-driven App Store business-model changes.

The common thread is that Apple is moving from a globally uniform, platform-controlled model toward country-specific access and fee regimes—while the economic value of App Store commissions is beginning to show measurable pressure.

European Commission reaction

• The changes followed the Commission’s Digital Markets Act enforcement against Apple’s anti-steering and fee arrangements. Reuters reported that the redesign was intended to resolve the Commission dispute, while the Commission would assess whether Apple’s revised terms meet DMA requirements.
• In practical terms, the Commission did not declare that App Store fees themselves must disappear; its concern was whether Apple’s conditions made developers’ use of alternative distribution, payment, and steering options commercially unviable.

Germany: App Tracking Transparency

Separately, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office closed its long-running ATT investigation after Apple made binding commitments to change consent treatment for third-party apps. The authority’s central concern was that Apple used different consent requests for its own services and for third parties, potentially favouring Apple in personalised advertising.

The reported package comprises eight implementation commitments aimed at neutralising the third-party tracking prompt and putting developers on more equal footing. Its substantive effects include:

• removing potentially discouraging wording and visual elements from the third-party consent flow;
• giving developers more ability to explain the role of personalised advertising in their app and business model;
• providing greater freedom to combine or sequence developer information with Apple’s consent request; and
• aligning the presentation and design logic of the consent experience so that Apple’s own services do not receive a preferential prompt.

The official materials available here substantiate those principles, but do not enumerate all eight commitments in sufficient detail to reliably reproduce each technical change.

Broader regulatory pattern

• Japan: Apple has been preparing for Japan’s mobile-software competition regime by allowing alternative app marketplaces and alternative payment routes, while preserving commission schedules based on whether the sale uses Apple IAP, an in-app alternative processor, or an external link.
• Brazil: Under Apple’s agreement with competition authority CADE, developers can distribute iOS apps via alternative marketplaces and process digital-goods payments outside Apple’s system; Apple says it continues to charge commissions on digital goods and services under the Brazilian terms.
• United States: Court-ordered anti-steering changes have weakened Apple’s ability to control in-app purchase routing. Developers can direct U.S. users to external payment mechanisms, reducing Apple’s traditional commission capture on those sales. This is distinct from the EU’s DMA-based marketplace regime.

Financial implications

• Third-party estimates reported by the Financial Times and cited elsewhere put Apple’s U.S. App Store commission revenue down 18% since the start of 2026; this is not an Apple-reported financial line item, so it should be treated as an analytics estimate.
• Sensor Tower data cited in the same reporting indicated U.S. App Store consumer spending fell 6% year over year in the second quarter, versus 9% growth a year earlier.
• Apple reported June-quarter services revenue of about $30.74 billion, below the $31.22 billion analyst estimate. Apple attributed pressure in part to softer mobile gaming and regulatory/court-driven App Store business-model changes.

The common thread is that Apple is moving from a globally uniform, platform-controlled model toward country-specific access and fee regimes—while the economic value of App Store commissions is beginning to show measurable pressure.