It is no exaggeration to say that the upcoming Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit is one of the most important in the technology field for some time. At its core, it is a dispute between companies such as Apple, Google, and Sony over the ability to make profits from in-app purchases and app sales on their platforms. Epic's argument in this lawsuit, one of several the company has filed around the world, is that Apple has no right to profit from the labor of Epic and its employees.

If Epic prevails in this lawsuit, the impact on the industry will be substantial. Once a precedent is established, any company will be able to argue the same thing, and all app store operators will be in a position to comply with such a ruling.

For consumers, the outcome is uncertain; Tom's Guide is not a legal source, and we are not lawyers, so we must accept that our interpretation may not match the final outcome. However, we can explain what can happen, and we will attempt to do so here.

First, Apple currently prohibits companies from advertising external ways to purchase in-app products. For example, Spotify cannot send you to their website to subscribe via a link. Nor can it offer subscriptions on Apple's platform at a higher price than on its own website. Logically, this is one thing that could change. Apple may be forced to allow companies to send their customers elsewhere. This outcome would not hurt Apple much and would appease many of the disgruntled developers.

In the EU, Apple has been told that this practice is anti-competitive and faces fines and regulations on how this aspect of its store is managed. However, Apple would first be allowed to argue against the regulator.

The second possibility is to convince the courts that this model is unfair and that Epic will win the case in its entirety. If that happens, the industry could be thrown into moderate turmoil. Developers with deep pockets might try to negotiate better deals, and regulators might set limits on what companies can charge. [In particular, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said last year that "walled gardens have existed for decades," citing other gaming companies such as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. She added, "It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, because it's not just about the game, it's about the economics of the industry.

There is also a possibility that Apple will settle directly with Epic during the trial. This seems highly unlikely, as it may have already taken place. If so, one might conclude that Epic will make a special deal similar to the deal Apple appears to have made with Amazon to secure the Prime Video Store on iOS devices. While this could put an end to this chapter, Epic may end up going to court with Google, and if so, it would set a precedent that would affect Apple.

And when all this is over, Apple may rethink the whole system anyway. Its all-inclusive model might be scrapped, and it might instead charge developers to host paid apps or charge merchant fees for payment services. Apple is more than capable of devising other ways to monetize the sale of apps and services through its platform. This would change things, but it would neither line consumers' pockets nor increase developers' revenues.

Apple currently charges developers $99 per year to provide their apps, with the first purchase, and 30% of in-app item sales. For developers with less than $1 million in sales, the fee is reduced to 15%.

One might get excited about the possibility of cheaper in-app purchases. Indeed, Epic broke Apple's rules and reduced the cost of virtual currency by 20% when it linked from its app to its own store. But for purely virtual items, the price was not reduced by 30%. For most things, customers will not see much benefit. Spotify won't go from $10 to $8, nor will the app suddenly drop 30% in price.

Whatever happens between Epic and Apple, Fortnite's future is perfectly safe; The Verge reported that the gaming company makes more money on PlayStation than on iOS devices.

Still, it's hard to imagine Epic wanting to say goodbye to that additional revenue. The problem is that it cannot back down now without some sort of public deal with Apple. If the fee is reduced to 15%, Apple will demand the same deal from every large developer in the world. Since the loss of Fortnite will not significantly impact the company's bottom line, Apple will likely simply maintain its position.

No matter what Epic says, this fight is about money and nothing more; Epic does not own the platform that distributes games like Fortnite. It is not spending the billions of dollars needed to build an entire platform, nor is it spending billions more each year to promote its products around the world. Instead, Epic uses the work of others to reach a large audience. There is nothing wrong with this model. It is like the capitalist model.

Apple would not want to lose revenue from the App Store, but it should not forget that it represents about 25% of the company's revenue. Apple's future as a service provider is somewhat assured. It offers music, TV, and fitness apps. Cloud storage as a business will grow over time, and even if it reduces its share of App Store revenue, there is still plenty of potential for the Cupertino-based company to retail a $2 trillion valuation.