Apple may say it has opened iOS to competing app stores, but Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney argues the reality is very different. While iPhones now allow alternative app marketplaces in certain cases, iPads are still left out, and Epic believes Apple’s rules are designed to discourage true competition rather than enable it.
Sweeney’s biggest criticism focuses on what he describes as “junk fees” tied to payments outside Apple’s system. According to him, Apple charges a 21% fee on third-party in-app payments and 15% on purchases made on the web. Epic’s position is that these charges don’t create a healthier app economy—they punish developers for offering alternative payment options and make it harder for competitors to survive.
Epic also points to legal history that backs up its frustration. Sweeney notes that similar conduct has already been found illegal in a contempt of court proceeding Apple lost, with the decision later upheld by the 9th Circuit Court. From Epic’s perspective, that makes Apple’s current approach feel less like compliance and more like a reshuffling of restrictions under new labels.
Beyond payment fees, Epic argues Apple is also taking a cut directly from rival marketplaces. Sweeney claims Apple collects an additional 5% on apps sold through competing stores. That, he says, puts competitors in a tough spot: even if a developer tries to move away from Apple’s storefront, a slice of revenue still flows back to Apple.
Another major point of contention is oversight. Epic says developers are expected to use a mandatory reporting API that tracks transactions and reports them back to Apple. Critics see this as a way for Apple to maintain control and visibility over the very commerce it claims to be opening up—raising concerns about whether third-party stores can ever truly operate independently.
Epic also takes issue with the user experience Apple reportedly applies to alternative app stores. Sweeney argues that users are confronted with cautionary warnings meant to make them nervous about privacy and security when trying non-Apple marketplaces. In his view, these messages are designed to discourage consumers from exploring competitors, even when those competitors are legitimate.
Sweeney says Epic plans to bring its complaints to Japan’s Fair Trade Commission, framing the situation as bigger than one company or one game. His argument is that consumers won’t see real choice or better pricing as long as Apple sits between users and competitors while also setting the terms of engagement. As he put it, “Obviously, real competition won’t happen, and consumers won’t benefit, when Apple abuses its position between users and competitors to obstruct honest dealing between them.”
Apple’s response is that these policies exist for user protection. The company positions its fees and requirements as safeguards for privacy and child safety, while also stating that the charges help cover the costs of payment processing technology. In other words, Apple claims the system is designed to reduce risk and maintain a secure environment—even as critics argue those protections are being used to justify rules that keep Apple firmly in control.
For now, the standoff continues, and it helps explain why Fortnite remains absent from iOS in many places. The bigger story isn’t just about one game returning to the App Store—it’s about whether iPhone app distribution, alternative app stores, and third-party payments can ever function as real competition under Apple’s current terms.
