Apple’s App Store just reported its quietest quarter in years — and the most revealing one. On Monday’s earnings call, CFO Kevan Parekh confirmed that App Store activity was roughly flat year over year, that U.S. commission revenue has reportedly fallen by double digits, and that services growth is expected to slow to 8-9%. Then, almost in passing, he pointed at something new: “opportunities across third-party apps” — with AI in the same breath.
Reuters reports that investors read that hint one way: Apple may want to distribute third-party AI agents through the App Store and take a cut of the money they make. This piece unpacks what Apple actually said, why its App Store economics need rescuing, how a cut of the agents could work, and why the plan could collapse on the same regulators that forced Apple’s payment doors open in the first place.
- What Apple’s CFO Actually Said
- The AI Agents Investors Think Apple Wants A Cut Of
- The App Store Commission Squeeze, Market By Market
- Epic, Europe And The Rulings That Broke The Till
- Record Subscriptions, Quiet Erosion
- The Earnings Call, Translated
- How An App Store Cut Of AI Agents Could Work
- What Apple Gains, And What It Risks
- References
What Apple's CFO Actually Said
The Quote, In Full
Apple’s services business is at record levels, yet the company is clearly worried about it. The Financial Times has chronicled the mounting pressure, and Apple itself admitted in July that a gaming slowdown and App Store rule changes were hurting services growth. So when Chief Financial Officer Kevan Parekh addressed how AI might “contribute to revenue growth over time” on Monday’s earnings call, investors leaned in.
His exact words deserve close reading: “On the product side, you know, we feel AI offers a compelling reason for customers to upgrade and switch in order to get the latest capabilities, and we also feel there’s opportunities across third-party apps and partnerships as well as first-party opportunities.” That is three revenue doors in one sentence — hardware upgrades, third-party apps, and Apple’s own software.
Three Doors, One Locked
The hardware door is familiar: AI features sell iPhones, and Apple has been explicit about shipping AI only when it clears its usefulness bar, even if that means arriving late. The first-party door is also legible — smarter Siri, smarter productivity apps, all feeding subscriptions.
The middle door is the strange one, and it is the App Store door. Parekh did not elaborate on what “opportunities across third-party apps” means, and Apple has not answered TechCrunch’s request for clarification. That vacuum is where the speculation lives — and speculation, for a company with 2.5 billion devices and a payments empire, immediately becomes a thesis about money. Wall Street walked straight through that door before Parekh had finished walking near it.
The AI Agents Investors Think Apple Wants A Cut Of
What Reuters Said — And Why It Matters
On Monday, the same day as the call, Reuters reported that investors are asking whether Apple could profit by distributing third-party AI agents through the App Store and taking a cut of the revenue they generate. Note what that theory contains: distribution (the store), identity (the Apple account), payments (the billing relationship) — all three are assets only Apple has at this scale.
An AI agent, in this context, is software that acts for you: it books the restaurant, buys the replacement part, files the expense, argues the refund. We have watched this category sprint all year — text-messaging agents that reserve tables on their own, always-on assistants that move from coding tools into daily errands, and reviews flagging that the approval gates still leak. Agents are different from chatbots in one commercially decisive way: they transact.
Why A Transacting App Is A Money Print
A chatbot costs you tokens and returns words. An agent costs you tokens and returns reservations, purchases and bookings — each one a payment with a number attached. If Apple becomes the default counter through which those transactions flow, its commission stops depending on whether people keep paying for streaming apps and starts taxing the machine economy itself. That is why Wall Street heard “opportunities” and thought “agents.”
It is also why the phrasing stayed deliberately vague — plural, unfinished, aspirational. “We feel there’s opportunities” is not a roadmap; it is a door Apple intends to keep unlocked. And doors, at an earnings call, are an invitation to model the room behind them. Every sell-side analyst with a services model now has a new line to draw a hockey stick on, and every regulator who spent a decade narrowing the App Store has a new reason to watch what Apple does with it.
The App Store Commission Squeeze, Market By Market
The 18% Leak
To understand Apple’s hunger, count what it lost. Third-party estimates reviewed in August suggested Apple’s U.S. commission revenue had fallen by about 18%, per MacRumors’ reporting — and Brazil and Japan were bleeding too after their governments rewrote the rules. Apple has always taken 15-30% of App Store transactions; the store is the company’s most profitable invention since the industrial assembly line, and it is now a crime scene.
Each market cracked the door differently. Courts in the United States let apps steer users to outside payments. Europe’s gatekeeper rules forced alternative stores and side-loading. Japan now mandates alternative app stores outright. Brazil’s regulator ordered payment freedom. The commission was never a price — it was a toll, and tolls survive only where the bridge has no other crossing.
The Squeeze, In One Table
| Market | What changed | Status |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Court-enforced links to outside payments | Commission revenue down 18% (third-party estimate, Aug 2026) |
| European Union | Gatekeeper rules upheld on appeal | Side-loading + external payments mandatory |
| Japan | New mobile-software competition law | Alternative app stores permitted |
| Brazil | Regulator ordered App Store changes | External payments opened up |
Apple’s counter-moves — smaller commissions for hosting outside payments, storage fees, affiliate deals — recover cents where it lost dollars. That is the balance sheet into which the phrase “third-party opportunities” was gently inserted. When your best business is being legislated toward a slower heartbeat, a new kind of transaction to tax stops being a nice-to-have.
Epic, Europe And The Rulings That Broke The Till
The Lawsuit That Changed The Counter
The single most expensive sentence in App Store history came from a game about dancing. Epic Games sued in 2020 over Fortnite’s removal after it bypassed billing, and after years of appeals — including Apple’s Supreme Court appeal over App Store commissions — the company was forced to let apps link users out to their own payment systems. Every dollar that walks through one of those links is a dollar Apple’s 30% never sees, replaced at most by a sliver of a processing fee.
The pattern repeats across borders. When Apple fought Europe’s gatekeeper designation in court, it lost. When Japan passed its mobile-competition law, Apple had to open a second door whether it liked the weather or not. Regulators in Brazil ordered payment changes. Each jurisdiction discovered the same lever: you do not have to kill the App Store to hurt it — you just have to build a sidewalk next to it.
Why Apple Responds By Growing The Counter
Read that history as Apple’s leadership reads it, and the AI hint stops sounding vague and starts sounding inevitable. If the commission base — paid digital goods — is structurally shrinking under legal fire, the strategic answer is not to defend every inch of a shrinking map. The answer is to find new territory where Apple still holds the terrain: identity, device-level distribution, and a payments rail regulators have not (yet) legislated. Agentic AI, where the transactions are brand new and nobody owns the toll yet, is exactly that territory. That is what “opportunities” is doing on that call — it is a land grab dressed as a weather report.
Record Subscriptions, Quiet Erosion
The Two Halves Of The Same Quarter
Parekh’s own numbers tell a split story. On the recurring side, the App Store is booming: “we had a record number of paid subscriptions with double-digit growth for third-party apps on the App Store,” he said. Subscriptions are the tidy half of the ledger — predictable, sticky, and exactly what every software company pretends to want.
On the transactional side, the same quarter was flat: “during the September quarter, the performance on the App Store was similar to the prior year,” with mobile gaming headwinds expected to continue into the summer quarter. Gaming is the old cash register of in-app purchases, and it is the half most exposed to the outside-payment exits and the new storefronts. Read the two halves together and the shape of the strategy appears: subscriptions are the present, and Apple wants the future metered too.
September-Quarter Signals
One chart, four numbers — the quarter Apple described in prose:
The uncomfortable synthesis: Apple is printing subscription growth on top of a transactional base that is quietly leaking. Double-digit subscription growth on a flat store means the recurring share of revenue keeps climbing — which is lovely, until you notice that the fastest-growing slice of the machine economy, AI agents, is not in the store yet at all. Whatever the CFO meant, the arithmetic explains why he meant it: subscriptions keep the lights on, but only a new transaction engine can make the App Store grow again.
The Earnings Call, Translated
Decoding The CFO’s Vocabulary
Earnings calls are a confession genre written in code. “Similar to the prior year” is not neutral when the install base keeps growing — flat revenue on a bigger base means the average user is being charged less, which is what outside payments do to a commission engine. “Double-digit growth in paid subscriptions” is the part of the store regulators have not broken yet.
The most revealing phrase was forward-looking: Parekh guided December-quarter services growth to 8-9% and said the outlook “contemplates our best estimates on sequential headwinds, primarily from third-party licensing and the additional half percentage point of foreign exchange.” Third-party licensing — the payments Apple makes to partners like Google for search and placement — is now framed as a drag on services. Apple is telling Wall Street that its own most profitable arrangement has line items pointing down in some places and up in others, and that the net is getting harder to defend.
The Call, Translated Line By Line
| The phrase | What it covers | What it signals |
|---|---|---|
| “Similar to the prior year” | September-quarter store activity | Flat spend on a growing install base |
| “Record paid subscriptions” | Third-party recurring bills | The unregulated half of the ledger is thriving |
| “Third-party licensing” headwind | Payments Apple makes to partners | Even the deals Apple signs now subtract from services |
| “Opportunities across third-party apps” | The AI revenue question | A door held open, not a plan finished |
Put the translation next to the Reuters theory and the picture resolves: a company whose two biggest money-flows — the commission and the licensing deal that protects it — are both under legal or economic pressure, publicly auditioning a third flow. AI agents are the only transaction category large enough to matter, new enough to escape legacy regulation, and dependent enough on device access that Apple could realistically own the meter.
How An App Store Cut Of AI Agents Could Work
Four Ways To Tax A Robot
If Apple does build a cut of third-party AI agents, there are only four plausible shapes it can take — and Apple has precedent for all of them. The question is not whether Apple can meter the machine economy; it is which meter regulators will let it install.
| Model | How it works | Where it exists today |
|---|---|---|
| Subscriptions | 15-30% take on recurring agent bills | Standard store practice, record growth |
| Credit packs | Users prepay tokens/credits the agent spends | Gaming virtual currency; agent apps emerging |
| Agent transactions | Take on purchases the agent completes | Would ride on Apple Pay + store rules |
| Partnership placements | Paid default/partner slots for assistants | Preinstall deals reportedly worth billions |
The token-pack model deserves a second look because the cost side is real. Agentic coding and reasoning tools already run bills that would have sounded absurd two years ago — Y Combinator’s president publicly spends up to $200,000 a year on tokens to keep his organization’s agents running. When usage becomes a utility bill, whoever owns the payment rail becomes the utility. Brian Chesky argued this summer that AI agents need their own operating system; Apple’s answer, unspoken but obvious, is that it already runs the one on your phone.
The Meter Is The Product
Notice what every model above has in common: none of it requires Apple to build a better model. Apple wins by owning the counter, not the product on the other side of it. That is the entire App Store playbook, restated for a category that did not exist when the playbook was written — and it is why even a vague sentence about “opportunities” moved the conversation from Apple’s AI chances to Apple’s AI leverage, where the company has always been more comfortable.
What Apple Gains, And What It Risks
The Upside Case, Stated Generously
Done well, an agent toll rewrites Apple’s growth story without Apple building a single breakthrough model. Services gets a transactional engine that compounds with the machine economy instead of decaying with mobile gaming. The commission stops depending on human app-habit at a moment when human app-habit is visibly maturing. And every agent maker on Earth — billions in venture funding hunting distribution — walks toward the counter Apple already owns.
The Downside Case, Stated Honestly
Done badly, Apple taxes the one category still small enough to route around its tax. Web-based agents skip the store entirely. Big developers bundle agent subscriptions into existing plans and bill them outside Apple’s reach — the same escape routes the courts already carved for payments. And regulators who just finished prying the App Store open are watching a company they have fought for a decade re-plant its flag on a brand-new beach; Europe’s gatekeeper machinery does not need new legislation to notice a new conduit, only enforcement.
There is also the reputational ledger. Apple’s own AI track record gives critics the quote they need: ChatGPT-in-Siri usage was reportedly dramatically underperforming, the reworked assistant ships behind a waitlist, and the company is paying $250 million to settle claims that Siri’s capabilities were oversold. A company that has not yet convinced consumers its own assistant is magic — and that has admitted as much by partnering with rivals — now wants to be the toll road for everyone else’s magic.
The plan is not crazy; the trust bill is just unusually high. The next earnings call, when Apple must either repeat the word “opportunities” or attach a number to it, is where the bet becomes real — and where the App Store’s next identity, tax collector of the machine economy, either gets its first line item or quietly disappears back into a slide footnote.
References
TechCrunch — Apple may try to increase revenue by doing something with third-party AI apps
Financial Times — Apple services business under growing pressure
TechCrunch — Apple says gaming slowdown and App Store changes hurt services growth
MacRumors — Apple App Store commission revenue falling
TechCrunch — Apple, Epic Games lawsuit and the App Store commission appeal
Courthouse News — Apple loses EU court fight over Big Tech gatekeeper rules
Reuters — Investors weigh App Store cut of third-party AI agents
More AI coverage: explore Progressive Robot's AI Models, Tools & Releases hub — hands-on reviews, setup guides and benchmarks in one place.
