Apple Tweaks EU Core Technology Fee to Avoid Bankrupting Unexpectedly Viral Apps - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Apple Tweaks EU Core Technology Fee to Avoid Bankrupting Unexpectedly Viral Apps

Apple today announced that it is tweaking the terms of the 0.50 euro Core Technology Fee (CTF) that apps distributed using the new EU business terms must pay, introducing a solution that would keep small apps that go viral from being charged unreasonable fees.

App Store vs EU Feature 2
First, independent and small developers who earn no revenue at all will not have to pay the CTF. Students, hobbyists, and freeware app developers who distribute free apps and earn no money will not be charged the fee. Developers will need to declare their non-commercial status on an annual basis, and to maintain this status, developers must have no revenue in or out of the App Store for their app product.

Second, to address fears of the CTF causing outrageous fees for an app that suddenly goes viral, Apple has implemented a three year on-ramping process for small developers. The three year period begins when a developer agrees to the new ‌App Store‌ business terms, and during this time, if an app goes viral and exceeds the one million annual install threshold that triggers the CTF, the CTF won't be charged if the developer earns less than 10 million euros in global business revenue, and the fee is reduced after that.

  • Under 10 million euros: No CTF during the three year period.
  • Between 10 million and 50 million euros: CTF must be paid, but it is capped at one million euros per year for the three year period.
  • Beyond 50 million euros: Benefit is no longer available, and the full CTF has to be paid.
  • After three years: Developers will pay for each first annual install after the initial one million first annual installs per year.

Note that this ramp up period is only available to small developers who have not previously exceeded one million first annual installs, and it is calculated based on global business revenue rather than just ‌App Store‌ revenue.

Apple says that 99 percent of developers will not be subject to the CTF to begin with, but the new ramp up period will go further to make sure that small developers who get a breakout hit will have time to scale their businesses before having to pay fees.

Back in March, developer Riley Testut spoke with Apple officials at a workshop on the Digital Markets Act, and he asked what would happen if a young developer had an app go viral and unwittingly racked up millions in fees. Testut asked the question because when he was a high school student, he released GBA4iOS outside of the ‌App Store‌. It was unexpectedly downloaded more than 10 million times, and that would have bankrupted him had he been subject to the Core Technology Fee.

In response, Apple VP of regulatory law Kyle Andeers said that Apple was working on a solution because the company is not trying to stifle innovation. Apple believes that a free app going viral and being subject to exorbitant fees will be a rare occurrence, but the changes will keep that from happening. The CTF update will also be a welcome change for those who want to release entirely free apps outside of the ‌App Store‌.

The CTF is only applicable to apps that have opted in to the new ‌App Store‌ business terms in the European Union. Apps in the EU are now able to be distributed through alternative app stores and developer websites without having to rely on the ‌App Store‌.

Apple has more information about the new changes to the CTF on its updated CTF support page.

Popular Stories

Liquid Glass App Store Feature

Apple Pulled Cal AI for Deceptive Billing Design, Not External Payments

Tuesday April 21, 2026 12:54 pm PDT by
Apple recently cracked down on Cal AI, an app owned by MyFitnessPal that tried to skirt Apple's in-app purchase rules. Apple told TechCrunch that it briefly pulled the calorie-counting app last week for violating purchasing guidelines and using a deceptive billing design. When the app was pulled last week, there was speculation that it was removed for implementing web-based payments,...
app store monthly sub commitment

Apple Introduces App Store Monthly Subscriptions With 12-Month Commitment

Monday April 27, 2026 12:52 pm PDT by
Apple today announced the launch of a new subscription option for App Store developers: monthly subscriptions with a 12-month commitment. The new option allows developers to offer subscribers discounted pricing typically associated with an annual subscription but paid on a monthly basis to keep payments more affordable. This new payment option allows you to offer subscribers more affordable...
app store blue banner epic 1

Epic Games Wins Reversal of Stay in App Store Fee Legal Battle

Wednesday April 29, 2026 5:05 am PDT by
Apple will not be able to delay a district court battle over fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its long-running dispute with Epic Games. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision letting Apple keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to...

Top Rated Comments

Onexy Avatar
27 months ago
Imagine you’d have to pay Apple money to install an app on your Mac from some website.
Score: 40 Votes (Like | Disagree)
klasma Avatar
27 months ago
Well, that’s an improvement. But the fact that they didn’t include this from the beginning shows that Apple is either stupefyingly myopic and disconnected from their developer base, or that they just try and see if they get a pass.
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
27 months ago
Apple today announced that it is tweaking the terms of the 0.50 euro Core Technology Fee (CTF) that apps distributed using the new EU business terms must pay, introducing a solution that would keep small apps that go viral from being bankrupt.
My guess is this is Apple trying to get ahead of this problem before the EU steps in and decides the CTF is a load of crap and forces Apple to remove it. But will these changes be enough to placate the EU?
Score: 22 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
27 months ago

Apple VP of regulatory law Kyle Andeers said that Apple was working on a solution because the company is not trying to stifle innovation.
…unless it means competition.


But the fact that they didn’t include this from the beginning shows that Apple is either stupefyingly myopic and disconnected from their developer base, or that they just try and see if they get a pass.
The latter, They’re making things up as they go along - but only as little as they have to.
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
27 months ago

Apple VP of regulatory law Kyle Andeers said that Apple was working on a solution because the company is not trying to stifle innovation.
Restricting a user’s ability to use his device as he sees fit inherently stifles innovation. Not allowing developers to distribute software outside the app store, on their own dime, stifles innovation.

If everything has to be blessed by Apple, anything that threatens their bottom line is subject to rejection.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
27 months ago

As a consumer, you are not directly paying Apple to install apps on your iOS devices. Instead, developers are paying Apple to engage in commercial business on their platform.
While the app buyer isn't paying Apple directly, they do pay Apple indirectly as the app developer will likely pass the CTF onto the consumer.


A more analogues set of rhetorical questions are: what if sellers had to pay Amazon to sell products on Amazon.com, or if labels had to pay to distribute their songs on Spotify? These analogies help illustrate the relationship between Apple and app developers.
Those are not good analogies though.

The website(s) the iOS apps are purchased and downloaded from are not operated by Apple, so your analogy of sellers having to pay Amazon to sell on Amazon.com doesn't work.

As for Spotify, the music labels don't pay Spotify for their music; Spotify pays the labels a royalty per stream who in turn pay the artists. So this analogy doesn't work either.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)