Brazil just delivered another blow to Apple’s walled garden. A federal judge ruled that Apple has 90 days to allow sideloading on iPhones in Brazil—or else it’ll face daily fines of more than $40,000. The court’s reasoning? Apple has already allowed competing app stores in the EU under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the company hasn’t exactly collapsed as a result.
This ruling stems from an antitrust investigation sparked by Latin American e-commerce giant Mercado Libre, which accused Apple of stifling competition by forcing developers to use only the App Store. Other companies, including Match Group (Tinder’s parent company) and Epic Games, also filed complaints against Apple with Brazil’s Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), the country’s antitrust watchdog.
The fight isn’t just about sideloading. It’s about Apple’s mandatory 30% cut on all digital purchases made through its App Store. Brazil’s regulators already ruled back in November that Apple cannot prevent developers from distributing apps outside the App Store or force them to use its payment system. But Apple, being Apple, dragged its feet, appealed, and bought itself some extra time.
Not anymore. Judge Pablo Zuniga has called Apple’s bluff, saying the company “has already complied with similar obligations in other countries without demonstrating significant impact or irreparable damage to its business model.” In other words: Cut the crap, Apple—you’re just protecting your cash cow.
Apple, of course, is appealing. The company argues (again) that these changes will “harm the privacy and security” of iOS users.
I ran Apple’s arguments through Google Translate, and what came out was:
“We need to keep this unwarranted gravy train running for as long as possible.”
Much more accurate.
The Take: Why This Matters for Streaming
Why do we keep talking about this on The Streaming Wars?
Because this fight isn’t just about app developers—it’s about who controls streaming distribution, customer data, and, most importantly, money.
Apple’s 15-30% Cut Is a Platform Tax on Streaming
Apple doesn’t just take a 15-30% cut of in-app purchases—it also forces streaming services to use its billing system. And here’s the problem:
Every streaming service already has to build its own billing and subscription infrastructure to work across platforms. Apple Pay isn’t running on a Chrome browser, an LG TV, or a Roku, so streaming companies already have their own systems in place. Yet Apple demands that they also use its redundant in-app purchase system just to be on iOS—and then forks over a third of the revenue to itself.
And when regulators call this out? Apple offers a fake compromise:
- Streaming services can now link to their own payment platforms—
- However, Apple still collects a 27% “bounty” on every transaction.
That’s not a solution. That’s just theft with extra steps.
Streaming Services Are Fighting Back
Apple’s control over payments is already being challenged:
- Philo just introduced a $4 surcharge for Apple-billed customers. The base price is $28, but if you subscribe through Apple’s in-app payments, it’s $32. That’s Philo telling Apple customers, “Hey, we’re not eating that tax—you are.”
- Netflix and Spotify stopped offering in-app billing years ago. They realized that giving up a chunk of revenue wasn’t worth the friction.
- Disney+ and Hulu dropped Apple billing for new subscribers. If you want to sign up, you have to do it directly through Disney.
- Patreon just did the same thing. Now, creators can pass Apple’s fee onto users, effectively making Apple’s tax a consumer burden.
This is the real streaming war—not just between Disney, Netflix, and Warner Bros. Discovery but between content companies and the platforms that control distribution.
If Apple Cracks, Who Got Next?
If Apple is forced to open up iOS, the ripple effect will be felt across the entire streaming ecosystem. Every other gatekeeper—whether it’s Roku, Amazon, Samsung, LG, or Google—operates under the same playbook: control access, take a cut, and make it as difficult as possible for streaming services to own their customer relationships.
If Apple’s walled garden starts to crumble, expect the rest of them to fight tooth and nail to keep their own toll booths intact.
The Real Battle Is Over Customer Data
Apple (and every other CTV and mobile platform) doesn’t just want a cut of streaming revenue—it wants control of the customer relationship.
Right now, if you subscribe to Netflix through Apple, Apple owns that transaction. Apple processes the payment, Apple holds the billing data, and Netflix has no idea who you are.
That’s a nightmare for streaming services. They want to know:
- Who their subscribers are (so they can market directly to them)
- How long they stay subscribed (to predict churn)
- What other services they use (to cross-promote and bundle)
The more streaming services fight to control their own customer data, the more platforms like Apple, Roku, and Amazon fight to keep it locked away.
And that’s why the streaming wars are just getting started.
The Bottom Line
Apple will fight this ruling with everything it has, but cracks are starting to form. Brazil is just the latest domino to fall after the EU’s Digital Markets Act, and the U.S. could be next.
We’re confident that in our lifetime, there will be a serious re-evaluation of platform fees. The only question is: Will the media industry be around to see it?
The Streaming Wars is intentionally ad-free
We don’t run display ads. Not because we can’t, but because we don’t believe in them.
They interrupt the reading experience. They cheapen the work. And they burn advertisers’ money on impressions nobody actually wants.
So we chose a different model.
We say the things people in this industry are already thinking but don’t say out loud. We connect the dots beyond the headline and focus on explaining why things matter to the people working in this business.
If you believe industry coverage can exist without clutter and interruption, you can support it here → SUPPORT TSW.
Support is optional. But it directly funds research and continued coverage — and helps prove this model can work.
Support TSW →
