Apple and Google's EU App Store Fee Overhaul Under the DMA: What It Means for Creator Subscription and Tipping Apps

The short answer

From 1 October 2026, Apple is rolling out a new, EU-specific fee structure for any app distributed in the EU: the standard rate for purchases through Apple's own payment system drops from 30% to 26%, with lower options — down to 15% or 10% — available if the app uses an alternative payment processor or links out to the web instead. Google introduced its own, differently structured EEA model earlier, on 30 June 2026: 10% on subscriptions and on a developer's first $1M in annual earnings, otherwise 20-25%, plus a separate 5% fee when the transaction runs through Google's own billing system. Denmark is covered by both changes because it's both an EU and an EEA member — but neither company has promised that a lower fee to them automatically means a cheaper price for the Danish subscriber.

Why this is happening: the DMA in brief

The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) classifies both Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store as “gatekeeper” platforms and requires them to open up to alternative payment methods, alternative app marketplaces, and links out to web-based checkout — all of which both companies have historically restricted or made expensive to use. Both changes described in this article are direct responses to ongoing DMA enforcement, not voluntary initiatives. That makes this relevant to anyone running or evaluating a creator subscription or tipping product — for example Instagram Subscriptions or Patreon — since both products are in practice distributed as apps through Apple and Google, and are therefore subject to the fees described here.

Apple's new EU fees from 1 October 2026

Apple's own announcement (apple.com/newsroom, 18 August 2026) describes a four-part structure replacing the previous flat 30% rate (15% for smaller developers) for apps distributed in the EU. The terms follow what Apple itself calls “close collaboration” with the European Commission:

Payment path	Standard rate	Reduced rate
Purchase via Apple's own in-app purchase (IAP) system, App Store	26%	15% — for participants in the Small Business Program, Mini Apps Partner Program or Video Partner Program, or for a subscription from month 13 onward
Alternative payment processor inside the app	20%	10% for the same program participants
Link-out to web-based checkout	15%	10% for the same program participants
App distributed via an alternative marketplace or the open web (bypassing the App Store entirely)	Flat 5% “Core Technology Commission” on digital transactions

The new 5% rate replaces the old Core Technology Fee, which was charged per install regardless of whether the install ever generated revenue — making the new model far more predictable for a developer with a lot of free installs. Apple is also removing the separate “initial acquisition fee” and “store services fee” for apps distributed outside the App Store. A developer must commit to its chosen combination of payment paths for at least 12 months at a time, which limits how quickly a strategy can be reversed if the economics don't work out.

Apple's own wording is that the terms apply to “developers that distribute apps in the EU,” without spelling out whether that's determined by the user's country or the developer's own registration. Because Denmark is an EU member state, a Danish App Store user is covered by the new EU model either way, regardless of where the app's developer happens to be based.

Google's EEA changes from 30 June 2026

Google moved earlier — and structured its model differently from Apple's. Per Google's own developer blog (android-developers.googleblog.com, June 2026), the following applies to the US, UK and EEA (which includes Denmark) from 30 June 2026:

Transaction type	Service fee	Note
All auto-renewing subscriptions	10%	Applies regardless of the developer's annual earnings — no tiering
Any transaction type, up to a developer's first $1M in annual earnings	10%	The rate rises above this threshold for non-recurring purchases (see next row)
Non-recurring (one-time) purchases beyond the $1M threshold	20% (new installs from 30 June 2026) / 25% (installs from before that date)	The highest rate in the model
+ Billing fee, only when Google's own billing system is used	+5%	Doesn't apply at all with alternative billing or a link out to the web

Google confirms the separate 5% billing fee is specific to the US, UK and EEA, and that rates for other markets will be “announced soon.” The change lands while Google is under significant regulatory pressure: the European Commission fined Google €890 million on 23 July 2026 for DMA breaches (ec.europa.eu, the Commission's own press release) — €430 million of it specifically for restricting app developers from steering users toward cheaper purchase options on Google Play (“anti-steering”). The two aren't formally linked, but the fine makes clear why Google revised its model.

Two different dates — and two different models

Worth keeping the timeline straight, because the two changes don't move together: Google's model has already been live since 30 June 2026, while Apple's doesn't take effect until 1 October 2026. The two models are also structurally different — Apple runs four payment paths each with its own rate, while Google runs one continuous service-fee logic plus a separate billing fee. An app that exists on both iOS and Android is therefore dealing with two different rule sets, not one shared EU fee.

Is this settled? The European Commission and Epic Games disagree

The European Commission has formally welcomed Apple's changes: a spokesperson stated (quoted by MacRumors, 19 August 2026) that “the Commission welcomes Apple's changes to their business terms, which follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” and will monitor implementation from 1 October 2026. Epic Games strongly disagrees, calling the new fees “junk fees” that it argues still undermine the DMA's purpose — pointing directly at the fact that 20% for alternative payment and 15% for linking out are, in Epic's view, still high enough to discourage developers from actually using them. The takeaway for a Danish reader: the structure is Commission-approved right now, but it isn't uncontested — and could in principle still be challenged further.

What this actually changes for Instagram Subscriptions, Patreon and similar products

Three examples show how differently the change lands depending on how the product actually takes payment:

• Instagram Subscriptions. As covered in the Academy's own Instagram Subscriptions article, Meta itself takes 0% of subscription revenue — it's Apple and Google's own store fees that actually reduce what a creator ends up receiving. That article's figures (roughly 30% in the first year, roughly 15% after) are Apple's global standard rate, which still applies outside the EU. For a Danish Instagram subscriber paying through the app from 1 October 2026, the relevant rate instead becomes the EU table above (26% as the default) — if Meta routes the Danish purchase flow through Apple's new EU terms rather than keeping it on the global terms. This research couldn't confirm whether Meta has already made that choice for Instagram Subscriptions specifically — treat it as an open but concretely possible change, not a confirmed new price.
• Patreon on iOS. Independent sources (MacRumors, 28 January 2026; Patreon's own Help Center documentation, summarized via secondary sources since Patreon's own pages blocked direct fetch) confirm that from 1 November 2026, Patreon requires new or renewed memberships purchased through the iOS app for international (non-US) patrons to go through Apple's in-app purchase system — with no option to pay via the web instead, unlike US patrons, who can use mobile web checkout following a US court ruling. A Danish patron is therefore subject to Apple's rate, not a Patreon-specific one. Because Apple's new EU terms take effect a month before Patreon's own deadline (1 October vs. 1 November 2026), it's possible a Danish patron would from the start fall under the lower EU rate (26% via IAP, or as low as 15-20% if Patreon instead routes EU users through the link-out or alternative-payment paths) rather than the older global 30%/15% rate — but that depends on Patreon actively opting into Apple's EU terms for its iOS app. None of the sources checked for this research confirm that Patreon has made that choice yet.
• Whop. As covered in the Academy's own Whop article, a purchase on Whop runs through ordinary card processing on the web (2.7% + $0.30), not through Apple or Google's built-in purchase system. As far as this research could determine, Whop's checkout flow is web-based and therefore isn't directly touched by either company's changes at all — a real difference from both Instagram Subscriptions and Patreon's iOS app, both of which are dependent on exactly the system these changes target.

Make Influence's assessment

Neither company has promised that a lower platform fee automatically gets passed on as a lower price to the end user — and this research found no documentation that it happens automatically. The following is Make Influence's own operational assessment, not a restatement of a documented rule:

• A lower fee to Apple or Google is, first and foremost, an option for the platform (Instagram, Patreon, etc.), not an automatic win for the creator or the end user. Whether the saving gets passed on depends on whether the platform actually chooses the new lower-fee paths for EU users, and whether it then chooses to lower the price, raise the creator payout, or simply keep the difference itself.
• A brand considering a subscription or tipping-based product for the Danish market should model all four payment paths, not just IAP. The gap between 26% and 10% (link-out, reduced rate) is large enough to decide whether a low-margin product is viable at all.
• It's still too early to treat these figures as a fixed line item in a budget. Both because Apple's change doesn't take effect until 1 October 2026, and because Epic Games' continued objection shows the structure isn't necessarily the last word.

Decision framework

IF you run or advise on a subscription or tipping product that already takes payment through Apple or Google's purchase system in the EU → check whether, from 30 June and 1 October 2026 respectively, the product can move to a cheaper payment path (alternative processing or link-out), and what that actually saves once the extra technical and support overhead is accounted for.

IF you're assessing a creator's annual income from a subscription product as part of a briefing → ask specifically which payment path the creator uses before assuming a net figure — the difference can be more than 10 percentage points.

IF you expect purchases through Whop or a similar web-first platform to be affected by these changes → per this research, they aren't, because the purchase doesn't go through Apple or Google's purchase system to begin with.

Worked example (hypothetical)

The figures below are hypothetical and illustrate only how the fee models mechanically affect a hypothetical monthly income — they are not a documented creator income figure and not a real Make Influence customer case. An illustrative rate of 6.90 DKK/USD is used.

A Danish creator runs a subscription product generating $2,000/month in gross revenue through purchases on iOS, equivalent to 2,000 × 6.90 = 13,800 kr./month.

• Under the older, global Apple rate (30%): 13,800 × 0.30 = 4,140 kr. in fees → net income 13,800 − 4,140 = 9,660 kr.
• Under Apple's new EU standard rate via IAP (26%): 13,800 × 0.26 = 3,588 kr. in fees → net income 13,800 − 3,588 = 10,212 kr. (552 kr. more than the older rate)
• Under Apple's new EU rate via link-out to the web (15%, standard rate): 13,800 × 0.15 = 2,070 kr. in fees → net income 13,800 − 2,070 = 11,730 kr. (2,070 kr. more than the older rate, a ~21% increase)

The gap between the worst-case and best-case payment path under the new EU terms is therefore 2,070 kr./month in this example — a difference driven entirely by the payment path, not by the subscription price or the number of subscribers.

Common mistakes

• Assuming Apple's and Google's changes take effect at the same time. Google's model has been live since 30 June 2026; Apple's not until 1 October 2026.
• Assuming a lower platform fee automatically means a cheaper price for the end user. None of the sources checked for this research confirm that — it's an option for the platform, not a guarantee for the consumer.
• Using the global 30%/15% figures when modelling a Danish user after 1 October 2026. The relevant rate for a Danish App Store user is the EU table, not the older global rate.
• Assuming every app-based creator product automatically switches to the new, lower rates. The switch depends on the individual platform (Meta, Patreon, etc.) actively choosing one of the new payment paths for EU users — not confirmed for either Instagram Subscriptions or Patreon in this research.
• Treating this as fully settled. Epic Games' continued objection shows the structure is still contested, even though the European Commission has welcomed it.

FAQ

Do the new EU fees apply to Danish creators and brands?

Yes. Denmark is both an EU and an EEA member, so a Danish App Store or Play Store user is covered by Apple's EU terms and Google's EEA terms respectively, regardless of where the app's developer is based.

When do the changes take effect?

Google's model has been live since 30 June 2026. Apple's new EU fees take effect on 1 October 2026.

Does this mean subscriptions get cheaper for the consumer?

Not necessarily. The change affects what Apple and Google charge the app developer — not directly what the developer then charges the consumer. This research found no documentation that a lower platform fee automatically leads to a lower price.

Do Instagram and Patreon now have to use the new, lower EU rates?

Not automatically. Apple's new structure gives an app the option to choose a cheaper payment path for EU users — it's up to each individual platform (Meta, Patreon, etc.) to make that choice. This research couldn't confirm whether either has done so yet.

Does this affect Whop or similar web-based creator platforms?

As far as this research could determine, no — a purchase on Whop runs through ordinary card processing on the web, not through Apple or Google's own purchase system, so it isn't directly affected by either change.

Is this fully settled, or could the rules change again?

Not necessarily final. The European Commission has formally welcomed Apple's changes and will monitor implementation from 1 October 2026, but Epic Games calls the fees “junk fees” and continues to argue they undermine the DMA's purpose — an unresolved dispute, not a closed case.