What the EU's DMA Actually Changed for iOS Studios

Android studios have had a couple of years to adjust to third-party app stores becoming a real, sanctioned distribution channel. iOS is a newer and more legally complicated version of the same shift, and it's specific to one region: the EU's Digital Markets Act now legally requires Apple to allow third-party app stores and direct sideloading on iOS within EU member states, replacing the flat 30% commission model with something more layered.

The distribution channel itself

Under the DMA, Apple can no longer restrict iOS app distribution in the EU to its own App Store. Players there can install apps from alternative marketplaces, and developers can distribute directly through sideloading. This isn't a theoretical option nobody's using — Epic Games Store launched on iOS in the EU in August 2024, explicitly citing the DMA as what made the launch possible, and other alternative marketplaces have built meaningful EU user bases since.

There's a real geographic limitation worth understanding before treating this as a global shift: installs from alternative marketplaces are restricted to users physically located in the EU with an EU Apple ID. A player outside the EU, or an EU player traveling with a non-EU account, doesn't get access to this distribution path. This is an EU-specific regulatory outcome, not a change to how iOS distribution works everywhere.

The fee structure is more complicated than "no more 30%"

The headline simplification — Apple's commission drops away entirely for developers who go third-party — isn't quite accurate. The actual structure is layered. Apps using alternative payment systems pay a 17% commission to Apple, still lower than the standard 30% but not zero. On top of that, a new Core Technology Fee of €0.50 applies per annual app install once a developer crosses one million annual installs in the EU, regardless of which payment system or distribution channel is used.

That combination matters for how a studio should actually model the economics of moving to an alternative marketplace or payment system. For a smaller title well under the one-million-annual-install threshold, the fee structure is straightforwardly better than the standard commission. For a title with real scale — the kind most likely to be evaluating this decision seriously in the first place — the Core Technology Fee changes the math in a way that a simple "17% versus 30%" comparison misses. The actual breakeven point depends heavily on install volume and average revenue per install, and it's worth running the numbers specifically for your own title's EU performance rather than assuming the lower headline percentage automatically means lower total cost.

One thing the DMA didn't remove: Apple's notarization requirement. Every iOS app distributed in the EU, including apps distributed exclusively through an alternative marketplace or via direct sideloading, still has to be notarized by Apple. Notarization is a baseline security and integrity check, separate from App Store review and separate from the commission structure — it's Apple's mechanism for confirming an app hasn't been tampered with and meets basic security requirements, without going through full App Store editorial review.

For a studio evaluating an alternative distribution path, this means the operational overhead of iOS distribution doesn't disappear even when the commission structure improves. There's still a submission and review step to plan for, even if it's a narrower one than full App Store review.

Who this actually matters to right now

This is a genuinely narrower decision than the Android third-party store shift, for two reasons. First, the geographic restriction means it only affects EU distribution specifically — a studio's US, UK, or rest-of-world App Store economics are completely unchanged by any of this. Second, the fee structure's real benefit depends on install scale in a way that makes it most relevant to studios with meaningful EU install volume already, rather than a universal win worth pursuing regardless of scale.

For a studio with substantial EU revenue and install volume well above the Core Technology Fee threshold, this is worth a genuine cost model — not because 17% is automatically better than 30%, but because it might be, depending on your specific numbers. For a smaller studio or one without significant EU distribution, this is worth knowing about and revisiting if EU scale grows, but it's not an urgent decision point today.

What hasn't changed, said plainly

Outside the EU, none of this applies. Apple's standard App Store terms, the standard commission structure, and the single-storefront distribution model remain exactly as they were everywhere else in the world. A US-based studio watching this development doesn't need to plan around it unless EU expansion is specifically on the roadmap. This is a regional regulatory carve-out with real teeth inside its jurisdiction and zero effect outside it — worth understanding precisely rather than assuming it signals a broader global shift in how Apple runs the App Store.

The practical next step

If your studio has meaningful EU install volume, the actual useful exercise here is modeling both scenarios against your real numbers: current App Store commission and reach versus alternative-marketplace commission, the Core Technology Fee at your actual install volume, and the operational cost of maintaining a second distribution and support path. That comparison will tell you more than any general commentary on the DMA can, because the breakeven point is genuinely specific to each title's scale and revenue mix.

This is one more piece of a distribution landscape that's gotten more fragmented, not simpler, across both major platforms in the last two years. Talk to us about how gamemantra's platform stays consistent across distribution channels as more of these regional variations become part of normal operating reality rather than edge cases.