At the core of Apple’s compliance strategy are new developer fees and service terms. These include an “initial acquisition fee,” a “store services fee,” and a “Core Technology Fee” (CTF). The CTF applies to apps with over one million annual installs. For those using external purchase links under Apple’s new StoreKit Addendum, the CTF is replaced by a “Core Technology Commission” (CTC), which charges a 5 percent rate on revenue. This commission applies to all digital goods or services sold within a 12-month period after installation. This revised model marks a significant shift in Apple’s relationship with developers and attempts to meet the EU’s new legal requirements.

Read More : Sony Bravia 5 Series 4K TVs Launched

Two-Tiered System Differentiates Store Services and Fees

Apple’s new structure introduces two distinct tiers based on how developers use App Store services. Tier 1 is for apps that rely on mandatory services such as in-app purchases and core distribution tools. Tier 2 applies to apps that opt in to additional services voluntarily.

Both tiers include a 2 percent initial acquisition fee. However, developers enrolled in the Apple Small Business Program or offering recurring subscriptions beyond the first year are exempt. The Tier 1 store services fee is set at 5 percent, while Tier 2 developers face a 13 percent fee. That rate drops to 10 percent for those in the Small Business Program. These fee adjustments aim to offer more flexibility while maintaining Apple’s infrastructure standards. However, the structure remains complex and will likely require developers to analyze their monetization models more closely.

New Commission Models Offer Flexibility Based on Developer Choices

Apple’s updated Core Technology Commission model is key to its new approach. Developers who accept the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum pay a flat 5 percent CTC. This model applies to digital transactions within one year of the app’s installation, including updates and reinstalls.

By contrast, those who opt not to join the addendum face the traditional Core Technology Fee based on installation volume. This difference in approach gives developers a choice between usage-based or revenue-based fees. However, understanding the long-term financial impact will require careful planning. Starting January 1, 2026, Apple plans to unify its fee structure under the Core Technology Commission model for all EU developers. This will eventually eliminate the current tiered system.

Apple Relaxes Rules on External Promotions and User Links

Alongside the new fee structure, Apple has eased its restrictions on how developers promote offers to EU users. Developers may now guide users to alternative marketplaces, websites, or other apps. These destinations can be accessed either within the app via a web view or externally.

Apple also revised its warning screens, often referred to as “scare sheets,” shown when users leave the App Store. These screens will now carry less alarming language, aligning with the EU’s demand for fair user choice. This update enhances transparency and supports third-party payment methods and app discovery. These promotional freedoms signal a major shift in Apple’s traditionally closed ecosystem, especially in Europe.

What Lies Ahead for Developers and Apple in the EU

With its new fee structure and relaxed promotion rules, Apple has taken a major step toward DMA compliance. However, the European Commission’s scrutiny continues. Apple still has the option to appeal the ruling by July 7. If it does not, it must fully adhere to the DMA or face penalties.

The company’s plans to transition fully to a unified Core Technology Commission model in 2026 could simplify compliance for developers. Until then, developers will need to navigate the two-tier system and assess the financial implications of the various fee options. Apple’s evolving stance may influence global policy discussions around digital marketplaces. For now, developers operating in the EU must closely monitor these changes to stay competitive and compliant.

The post Apple Reveals EU App Store Fee Changes appeared first on Plow United.

However, that might be starting to change. Two major HSR lines are currently under construction, marking a potential turning point for US rail transport. These developments have sparked new interest in the question: is the US finally catching up?

Rick Harnish from the High Speed Rail Alliance says it’s encouraging to see real progress. The first project is the California High-Speed Rail, connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. The second is Brightline West, which will link Las Vegas to Los Angeles. While California’s mountainous terrain poses engineering challenges, the relatively flat route between Las Vegas and LA offers fewer obstacles.

More High-Speed Rail Plans Are on the Table, but Face Delays

In addition to California and Nevada, several other regions have plans for HSR lines. One proposed route would connect Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. Another aims to link Dallas and Houston. However, both face major hurdles.

Planning for the Pacific Northwest route is moving slowly. Meanwhile, the Texas line suffered a major setback when the Trump administration canceled a $63.9 million grant. These obstacles highlight the uncertainty surrounding HSR expansion in the US, where projects often struggle with long delays, funding issues, and political opposition.

This is in stark contrast to China, which is expected to have more than 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail by the end of the year. In Europe, countries like Spain and France have built strong HSR networks. Even the UK, despite funding issues, continues work on High Speed 2.

Read More : VisionOS 3 to Add Eye-Scrolling Feature to Apple Vision Pro

Cultural and Political Barriers Slow Down US Progress

Experts say America’s slow progress on HSR is tied to its strong car culture and limited public transport investment. Journalist Will Doig explains that many Americans don’t see the need for high-speed rail, especially in rural or suburban areas where car travel dominates.

The US government has also often deprioritized rail investment. Amtrak, the country’s main passenger rail service, doesn’t operate any HSR lines. While it plans to introduce 160 mph Acela trains in the Northeast Corridor, only a small section of track allows speeds above 150 mph.

Politics further complicates progress. Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner recently resigned under reported pressure from the White House, adding more uncertainty. The government also declined support for the Dallas-Houston line, calling it a poor use of taxpayer money.

High-Speed Rail Needs Strong Federal Support to Succeed

Building effective HSR requires more than just tracks and trains. It also needs government support, long-term planning, and public buy-in. Rick Harnish emphasizes that without federal leadership, progress will remain limited.

The two ongoing projects—California High-Speed Rail and Brightline West—highlight the divide. The former is government-led, expected to finish by 2033. The latter is a private initiative aiming to open in 2028. While both are major steps forward, the US still lacks a national strategy for HSR expansion.

Future lines would need sealed, straight corridors without road crossings, making construction more difficult in urban areas. Cities like Houston and Dallas are densely built, making it harder to integrate new rail infrastructure. Scott Sherin from French train manufacturer Alstom notes that without public investment and planning, expansion into city centers will be especially difficult.

Learning From Global Examples and Looking Ahead

China’s approach offers a stark comparison. It not only builds HSR lines quickly but also uses them to boost its economy and extend geopolitical influence. Chinese cities with new HSR links see economic growth of over 14%, according to Denmark-based think tank 21st Europe.

China also exports its HSR expertise to countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Will Doig, author of High-Speed Empire, explains that this expansion strengthens China’s influence. However, such partnerships are unlikely in the US due to political tensions.

Europe, on the other hand, continues to expand its HSR network with strong public investment. EU think tanks now call for even broader connections between capitals and major cities. Kaave Pour from 21st Europe says the US must decide if it wants a future with strong public transit or continued car dependence.

Without a shift in national priorities and cultural mindset, America’s high-speed rail dreams may remain just that—dreams. But with two projects underway and more on the horizon, there are signs that the US might finally be on the right track.

The post Is the US Finally Getting High-Speed Trains? appeared first on Plow United.