Listen to this Post
A New Battle Over Apple’s Most Controversial Revenue Stream
The long-running legal war between Apple and Epic Games has entered another important phase, and this time the fight is not simply about whether developers should be allowed to link customers to outside payment systems. The dispute has moved deeper into the economics of those transactions: how much Apple should be allowed to charge when a purchase happens outside the App Store.
Apple has now proposed charging developers as much as 15% on certain purchases completed through external links, while offering lower rates for some programs and smaller developers. Epic Games, however, is challenging more than the proposed percentages. It is also fighting Apple’s attempt to keep parts of the evidence behind those percentages confidential.
Apple’s Proposed Commission Structure
Apple’s proposal gives the company a new commission structure for purchases that begin inside an iOS application but are completed through an external payment system. Under the proposal, standard applications would face a 15% commission, compared with Apple’s traditional 30% rate for many in-app purchases.
Developers participating in Apple’s Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, or Mini Apps Partner Program would face a proposed 10% rate, while subscription renewals would also be subject to a 10% rate under the proposal. Developers eligible for Apple’s Small Business Program would face a proposed 5% commission.
The Numbers Are Only Part of the Story
At first glance, Apple’s proposal may look like a significant reduction compared with the company’s traditional App Store commission. But the central legal question is not simply whether 15% is lower than 30%.
The real question is whether Apple is legally entitled to collect a percentage of an external transaction at all, and if so, what level of compensation is justified.
That distinction is critical because the Ninth Circuit previously indicated that Apple could potentially recover certain necessary costs associated with linked-out purchases, while the broader legal dispute continues over the scope of those costs.
Epic Challenges Apple’s Attempt to Seal Information
Epic’s latest filing attacks another part of Apple’s submission: the company’s request to keep portions of its evidence and expert reports under seal.
According to Epic, Apple is seeking to redact information involving financial data, estimates of developer adoption of external links, developer survey results and other evidence that Apple considers commercially sensitive. Epic argues that these materials are directly relevant to the court’s decision and therefore should not be hidden from public view without a sufficiently specific justification.
Why Epic Thinks the Public Should See the Evidence
Epic’s argument is straightforward but strategically important: if the court is being asked to determine a reasonable commission, then the evidence used to justify that commission should receive meaningful public scrutiny.
Epic argues that Apple has not demonstrated enough specific harm to justify keeping the disputed information confidential. The company also points to previous court decisions where broad or generalized claims of commercial harm were considered insufficient to justify sealing judicial records.
Developer Adoption Data Becomes a Major Flashpoint
One of the most interesting parts of the dispute concerns Apple’s data about how many developers have actually adopted external purchasing links since the court required Apple to permit them.
Epic particularly objects to Apple seeking to redact percentages showing adoption rates based on the size of different applications.
That information could be extremely important because it may help reveal whether developers are actually embracing external payments, whether consumers are increasingly being directed away from Apple’s payment system, and how much competitive pressure external purchasing is creating for the App Store.
Why Apple Wants Some Information Hidden
Apple’s position is understandable from a business perspective. Companies routinely argue that detailed financial information, internal forecasts, customer data and commercially sensitive research could harm them if competitors gain access.
The problem for Apple is that the disputed information is being presented in a legal proceeding where the court must determine an appropriate fee. The closer the evidence is to the actual economic justification for Apple’s proposed commission, the more difficult it may become to argue that the public has no legitimate interest in seeing it.
The Court Has to Balance Two Competing Principles
This dispute puts two important principles against each other.
On one side is the public’s interest in transparent judicial proceedings, especially in a case that could influence the economics of one of the world’s largest digital marketplaces.
On the other side is a
The court therefore does not simply have to decide whether Apple or Epic is more persuasive. It must determine which information genuinely requires protection and which information should remain publicly accessible.
More Than 60 Proposed Redactions Are Being Challenged
Epic says its objections extend beyond a handful of isolated passages. The company points to a separate 19-page exhibit in which it challenges, in whole or in part, more than 60 proposed redactions across Apple’s filing and supporting expert reports.
That number matters because it demonstrates the breadth of the disagreement. This is not simply a disagreement over one confidential figure. The parties are fighting over how much of the economic evidence surrounding Apple’s proposed commission should be visible to the public.
Apple’s Argument Goes Beyond the App Store
Apple has argued that its proposed rates should be evaluated partly in comparison with other digital marketplaces.
The company has pointed to Google Play, saying Google charges linked-out rates that include a 20% standard rate, 15% program rate and 10% subscription rate, and that Epic has agreed to those rates in its separate dispute involving Google.
Apple is effectively presenting its proposal as a competitive-market rate rather than an arbitrary fee.
Epic Sees the Issue Differently
Epic’s position is that Apple cannot simply point to another platform’s commission and use that as proof that its own fee is reasonable.
The legal question is tied to Apple’s own obligations, costs and the specific circumstances of the Epic litigation. A percentage charged by another company does not automatically establish what Apple is legally permitted to collect.
That distinction could become one of the most important arguments as the case develops.
The Zero-Cost Argument Could Become Crucial
Perhaps the most explosive part of the dispute is the argument surrounding what constitutes a “necessary cost.”
Epic has emphasized that Apple’s own position, as described in the ongoing litigation, potentially points toward a much lower number if the fee is limited strictly to costs necessary to facilitate linked-out transactions. Apple nevertheless argues that a broader commission can reflect the value of its platform, intellectual property, tools and services.
This creates a fundamental clash between two economic theories.
Apple wants compensation for the broader value of its ecosystem. Epic wants the court to focus much more narrowly on the costs genuinely associated with allowing an external transaction.
The Supreme Court Has Already Shaped the Timeline
The timing of this dispute is also important.
Apple attempted to pause the lower-court proceedings while its broader Supreme Court litigation continues. Justice Kagan temporarily stayed proceedings on August 12, but the Supreme Court application was denied on August 13, allowing the lower-court process to continue.
That forced Apple to move forward with its proposed fee structure instead of waiting for the Supreme Court proceedings to resolve first.
Apple Has Also Raised the Possibility of Settlement
The conflict has another layer that makes the situation even more interesting.
On August 13, Apple separately asked the court to refer the parties to a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Apple argued that confidential settlement discussions could potentially help resolve the dispute while the remand proceedings continue. Epic did not consent to Apple’s request.
That does not mean a settlement is imminent, but it demonstrates that Apple is exploring more than one route toward resolving the dispute.
This Is Ultimately About Control
Behind the legal terminology is a much bigger technological question: who controls the economic relationship between developers and their customers?
Apple’s App Store model gives the company enormous influence over payments, distribution, security, discovery and monetization. External links weaken one part of that model because they allow developers to move the final transaction outside Apple’s payment infrastructure.
That is why the commission debate matters so much.
External Payments Could Change Developer Economics
For a developer earning millions of dollars through subscriptions or digital purchases, the difference between a 30% commission, a 15% commission, a 10% commission and a 5% commission can translate into enormous amounts of money.
A lower external commission could encourage developers to promote web payments more aggressively.
If enough major developers do that, Apple could face increasing pressure to make its own in-app payment system more attractive through pricing, convenience and features rather than relying primarily on platform control.
Small Developers Could Benefit the Most
The proposed 5% rate for Small Business Program participants could make external payment options particularly attractive to smaller developers.
For a small company operating with limited margins, retaining an additional portion of every transaction can materially affect profitability. The lower rate could also provide an incentive for developers to experiment with external purchasing rather than accepting Apple’s traditional payment economics.
But the final impact will depend heavily on implementation, user behavior and the court’s ultimate ruling.
Consumers Are Quietly Part of the Battle
Although the legal filings focus heavily on companies and commissions, consumers are ultimately affected as well.
If developers can avoid higher platform fees, they could theoretically use those savings to lower prices, increase discounts, invest in new features or simply improve their margins.
However, external payment systems can also introduce additional complexity. Consumers may encounter different payment flows, account systems, refund policies or customer-support procedures.
The question is therefore not simply whether external payments are cheaper. It is whether they create a healthier competitive environment without sacrificing usability and consumer protections.
Deep Analysis: What This Fight Really Means
The Sealing Dispute Is More Important Than It Looks
Epic’s challenge to Apple’s redactions may appear procedural, but it could have major consequences for the public understanding of the case. If the disputed documents contain the economic assumptions behind Apple’s commission proposal, transparency could make it easier for outside observers to evaluate whether those assumptions are convincing.
Public Evidence Could Increase Pressure on Apple
If significant portions of Apple’s evidence become public, developers, economists and competitors could independently examine the company’s reasoning. That could create additional pressure on Apple to defend the proposed percentages with concrete data rather than broad claims about ecosystem value.
Apple Still Has a Strong Business Argument
Apple is not arguing that developers should simply pay a random fee. The company maintains that its ecosystem provides technology, tools, security, services and intellectual property that support developers even when transactions happen outside the App Store’s payment system.
That argument could resonate if the court concludes that Apple’s broader ecosystem genuinely creates measurable value for external transactions.
Epic’s Narrow-Cost Theory Is More Disruptive
Epic’s approach is more disruptive because it potentially limits Apple to compensation tied closely to actual costs.
If that interpretation prevails,
A 15% Fee Would Still Be a Major Revenue Opportunity
Even though 15% is half of
The important variable is not only the percentage.
It is the size of the transaction pool to which the percentage applies.
Apple Could Lose More Than Commission Revenue
If external purchasing becomes popular, Apple could also lose valuable control over payment relationships.
Developers could gain greater ownership of customer billing relationships, subscription management and payment data. That could reduce Apple’s strategic influence over the broader app economy.
The Adoption Rate Could Reveal the Future
This explains why the developer adoption data is so significant.
If only a small percentage of developers are using external links, Apple could argue that the existing App Store model remains highly attractive.
If adoption is rapidly increasing, Epic could argue that developers are responding strongly to the opportunity to escape Apple’s payment structure.
Transparency Could Help Developers Understand Their Options
Public disclosure of adoption statistics could also give developers a clearer picture of how their peers are responding.
Developers often make business decisions based on what competitors are doing. Knowing whether large and small applications are embracing external payment links could influence future decisions across the ecosystem.
The Court Is Effectively Designing a New Economic Rule
This case is no longer simply about enforcing an injunction.
The court is being asked to determine the economic boundaries of Apple’s relationship with developers when transactions occur outside Apple’s payment infrastructure.
That makes the outcome potentially relevant far beyond Epic.
The Decision Could Influence Other App Stores
Whatever framework emerges could become a reference point in future disputes involving digital marketplaces.
Apple is not the only company facing questions about commissions, external payments and platform power. Google and other technology platforms are dealing with similar regulatory and legal pressure.
A ruling that establishes a clear methodology could therefore have broader consequences.
The Definition of “Necessary Costs” Matters Enormously
The biggest conceptual battle may ultimately revolve around those two words.
If “necessary costs” means only the incremental expenses required to support external links and transactions, Apple’s permissible fee could be very small.
If it includes a broader share of the value generated by Apple’s technology and ecosystem, the acceptable commission could be substantially higher.
Apple’s Proposed Rate Is a Strategic Starting Point
It is also important to remember that
Apple is effectively establishing its preferred negotiating position.
The court could approve the proposal, modify it, reject it or establish a completely different framework.
Epic Has Every Incentive to Push for a Lower Number
Epic’s business interests align strongly with lower external-payment fees.
A lower Apple commission would make alternative payment systems more economically attractive and could weaken the App Store’s traditional payment advantage.
Epic therefore has a strong incentive to challenge not only the percentage itself but also the evidence Apple uses to justify it.
Apple Has an Incentive to Protect Its Ecosystem Economics
For Apple, the stakes are equally significant.
If external purchases become effectively commission-free or subject only to minimal fees, developers could have a powerful reason to move transactions outside Apple’s payment infrastructure.
That could challenge one of the most important economic pillars of the App Store.
The Fight Could Reshape Developer Negotiations
Developers may also gain leverage from the dispute.
Even before a final ruling, the existence of multiple potential fee structures changes negotiations between Apple and developers. A developer can now look at external payments not merely as a theoretical possibility but as part of an evolving economic model.
Subscription Businesses Have Particularly High Stakes
Subscription-based applications could be among the biggest beneficiaries if external payment systems become significantly cheaper.
A recurring subscription generates revenue repeatedly, meaning even a modest reduction in commission can compound over time.
Apple’s proposed 10% rate for subscription renewals is therefore strategically important.
Apple’s 5% Small-Business Rate Could Change the Debate
The proposed 5% rate also gives Apple a strong argument that it is not treating every developer identically.
By offering a much lower rate to smaller businesses, Apple can frame the proposal as a tiered structure designed to reduce the burden on developers with lower revenues.
Epic may nevertheless argue that the fundamental legal question should not depend solely on Apple’s chosen pricing tiers.
The Court Must Separate Competition From Compensation
Another major issue is whether
If the fee is too high, external payment systems may become economically unattractive.
If the fee is low enough to encourage genuine competition, developers could realistically compare Apple’s IAP system against alternatives.
The Best Outcome May Not Be Zero or 15 Percent
The debate is often framed as if the court must choose between Apple’s proposed commission and Epic’s preferred outcome.
In reality, the court has room to establish a different methodology.
It could potentially determine a rate based on specific costs, impose conditions, require further evidence or establish a framework that changes as market conditions evolve.
The Public Interest Is Larger Than Apple and Epic
Millions of developers participate in
That means the
This Case Is Becoming a Test of Platform Power
The broader question is increasingly difficult to ignore: how much economic control should a technology platform retain once a developer is allowed to conduct a transaction outside that platform?
Apple believes its ecosystem deserves compensation even when the final payment happens elsewhere.
Epic believes Apple’s role should be much more limited once the transaction leaves Apple’s payment system.
That philosophical difference is at the heart of the entire dispute.
The Next Stage Could Be Even More Important
The battle over
As the court reviews the competing evidence, the substance of Apple’s economic model will receive increasing attention. Expert reports, adoption figures, financial assumptions and developer behavior could all become critical pieces of the final decision.
The Real Winner Could Be the Developer
Regardless of which company ultimately wins the legal argument, developers stand to gain the most if the case produces clearer and more competitive rules.
A transparent fee structure would allow businesses to plan.
A predictable external-payment framework would reduce uncertainty.
And genuine competition between payment options could force platforms to compete more aggressively on value.
The Real Risk Is a New Form of Control
There is also a danger that external payments could technically be permitted while remaining economically unattractive.
If a platform charges a sufficiently large commission, imposes complicated requirements or makes external purchasing difficult to communicate to users, developers may have little practical incentive to use the option.
That is why the percentage alone cannot tell the entire story.
The Battle Is Far From Over
The latest filing demonstrates that the Epic-Apple dispute is entering another critical chapter rather than reaching a quiet conclusion.
Apple has proposed its rates.
Epic is challenging both the rates and the secrecy surrounding Apple’s supporting evidence.
The court now has to determine how much information should remain confidential and, ultimately, what economic framework should govern external purchases.
What Undercode Says:
Apple Is Fighting for More Than a Percentage
The 15% proposal should not be viewed simply as Apple cutting its commission from 30% to 15%. The bigger issue is whether Apple can preserve a meaningful financial claim over transactions that no longer occur inside its payment system.
The Evidence Could Matter More Than the Headline Rate
The public debate will naturally focus on 15%, 10% and 5%, but the supporting evidence could determine whether those numbers survive legal scrutiny. If Apple’s economic assumptions are weak, the proposed rates could become difficult to defend.
Epic’s Transparency Argument Has Strategic Value
Epic’s fight against the redactions is strategically smart because public evidence can influence the wider debate. Developers, regulators, economists and technology companies can all examine the assumptions behind Apple’s proposal if more information becomes available.
Apple Has a Reasonable Commercial Argument
Apple’s claim that its ecosystem creates value even when a transaction occurs elsewhere should not be dismissed automatically. Developers do rely on Apple’s operating system, distribution infrastructure, security technologies and developer tools.
But Ecosystem Value Is Not Automatically a Commission
The difficult question is how that value should be measured. The existence of valuable infrastructure does not automatically establish that Apple should receive a particular percentage of every transaction conducted outside its payment system.
The Legal Definition Will Drive the Economics
The interpretation of Apple’s permitted “necessary costs” could ultimately matter more than Apple’s preferred pricing structure. A narrow definition could dramatically reduce the commission Apple can charge.
Developers Are Watching Closely
For developers, this is effectively a fight over margins. A few percentage points can become millions of dollars at scale, especially for companies operating subscription businesses.
Consumers Could Eventually Feel the Difference
If developers save substantial amounts on payment fees, some of that economic benefit could eventually reach consumers through lower prices, promotions or additional services. Whether that happens will depend on competitive pressure.
Apple Could Respond With Better Value
Competition does not necessarily mean Apple loses. If external payments become a serious alternative, Apple could respond by making its own payment system more attractive through better tools, pricing or developer services.
The App Store Model Is Being Tested
For years, Apple’s payment system has been a central part of the App Store business model. The Epic litigation is testing whether that model can remain intact when developers gain more freedom to transact outside Apple’s system.
The Redaction Fight Signals High Stakes
Apple would not be fighting over dozens of proposed redactions if the underlying information had no strategic significance. The scope of Epic’s objections suggests the evidence could be important to how the court evaluates Apple’s proposal.
Public Scrutiny Could Change the Debate
Once commercial assumptions become public, Apple may have to defend them not only before the judge but also before the broader technology industry.
Google Provides an Important Comparison
Apple’s comparison with Google is useful, but it does not settle the legal issue. Different legal judgments, platform structures and market conditions can produce different permissible outcomes.
The Supreme Court Adds Uncertainty
Because the Supreme Court is also involved in the broader dispute, the final legal framework remains uncertain. The lower court’s fee-setting process and the Supreme Court proceedings could interact in important ways.
Apple’s Settlement Request Is Significant
Apple’s request for settlement talks suggests that the company recognizes the potential value of a negotiated resolution. But Epic’s resistance shows that the two sides remain far apart.
A Settlement Could Be Cleaner Than Years of Litigation
Both companies could potentially benefit from certainty. Developers would also benefit if the parties produced a stable framework rather than continuing through multiple layers of litigation.
But Settlement Could Leave Bigger Questions Unanswered
A private settlement might resolve the immediate conflict without establishing a broader precedent for the mobile software industry.
The Court Could Create a More Durable Rule
A judicially established framework could provide guidance to developers and platforms far beyond this individual case.
The 15% Figure May Not Be the Final Number
There is no guarantee that
The 5% Rate Could Become a Benchmark
The proposed Small Business Program rate is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that Apple itself believes external transactions can operate under substantially lower commissions.
The 10% Subscription Rate Is Also Important
Recurring revenue businesses could find 10% significantly more attractive than traditional App Store economics, potentially accelerating experimentation with external payment options.
Adoption Data Could Reveal Developer Confidence
If external links are being adopted rapidly, it would indicate that developers see real economic value in escaping Apple’s traditional payment model.
Low Adoption Would Strengthen Apple’s Position
If developers largely ignore external purchasing despite being permitted to use it, Apple could argue that its proposed commission does not prevent meaningful competition.
The User Experience Will Matter
External payments will only become a genuine alternative if users are comfortable leaving the App Store payment environment. Friction could discourage adoption even when the economics look attractive.
Security Will Remain Part of Apple’s Argument
Apple will likely continue emphasizing security, privacy and trust as part of the value associated with its ecosystem. Developers and the court will have to distinguish legitimate platform costs from broader claims about ecosystem value.
The Economics Are Becoming More Transparent
Regardless of the final ruling, this litigation is forcing a much closer examination of how app stores make money and how much of that revenue is justified by actual services.
The Outcome Could Influence Future Regulation
Governments and regulators around the world are already scrutinizing digital marketplace power. A major U.S. ruling could become another reference point in those debates.
Epic Has Already Changed the Conversation
Whatever the final outcome,
Apple Still Has Significant Leverage
Apple controls the operating system, distribution environment and technical infrastructure. Even with external payments, developers remain deeply dependent on the platform.
Developers May Eventually Get More Choices
The most meaningful long-term result could be greater payment flexibility rather than the complete collapse of Apple’s payment system.
Competition Is the Central Question
If developers can genuinely choose between
The Court’s Decision Could Set the Tone for Years
A ruling in this dispute could influence how Apple structures its developer economics for years and potentially affect how other technology platforms approach external transactions.
Transparency Is Essential
When a court is deciding an issue with such broad economic consequences, public access to relevant evidence matters. Confidentiality has a legitimate role, but it should not become a mechanism for hiding the core assumptions behind a major economic dispute.
The Final Battle Will Be About Value
Ultimately, Apple must demonstrate what value it provides when the transaction happens outside its payment system. Epic must demonstrate why that value should not justify a meaningful commission.
The Most Important Number May Still Be Unknown
The final fee could be 15%, 10%, 5%, something lower or potentially structured differently altogether. The court has not yet approved Apple’s proposal.
The Developers Will Be Watching Every Move
Every filing in this case gives developers another clue about what the future of App Store economics could look like.
This Is Bigger Than Epic
Epic may have initiated the confrontation, but the implications extend to every developer that sells digital goods, subscriptions or services through Apple’s ecosystem.
Apple’s Next Move Will Matter
Whether Apple continues fighting aggressively, increases settlement efforts or modifies its proposal could reveal how confident the company is in its current position.
Epic’s Next Move Will Matter Too
Epic will likely continue challenging both the economics and the evidence supporting Apple’s proposal, particularly where it believes the information is essential to public understanding.
The Final Decision Could Redefine the App Economy
The central issue is no longer simply whether Apple permits external links. The deeper question is whether Apple can continue taking a meaningful percentage of money that developers earn after customers leave Apple’s payment system.
✅ Apple has proposed a 15% commission for standard U.S. apps using external purchase links, with proposed rates of 10% for certain programs and subscription renewals and 5% for eligible Small Business Program developers. These are proposed rates, not final court-approved fees.
✅ Epic has challenged Apple’s requests to seal portions of the supporting evidence. The dispute includes financial information, developer adoption estimates, survey results and other material, with Epic objecting to more than 60 proposed redactions across the filings.
❌ Apple’s proposed commission structure is not yet the final legal rule. The court still has to determine what, if anything, Apple may charge for linked-out purchases, while the broader Supreme Court litigation remains ongoing.
Prediction
(+1) The most likely outcome is a compromise rather than Apple’s proposal being accepted exactly as submitted. The court has strong reasons to examine the underlying costs and economic evidence before approving a major commission structure.
(+1) External payment options are likely to become increasingly important for major subscription-based developers. Even a moderate reduction in platform fees can create substantial savings at scale.
(+1) More of Apple’s supporting evidence could eventually become public. The court will have to weigh Apple’s claims of commercial sensitivity against the public interest in understanding the basis for the proposed fees.
(-1) A complete return to Apple’s old 30% model for external purchases appears increasingly difficult to sustain. The legal proceedings have already established that developers must have meaningful access to external purchasing options.
(-1) Apple is unlikely to walk away from commissions entirely without a major legal defeat. The company has strong financial incentives to preserve some form of compensation for transactions connected to its ecosystem.
(+1) The eventual framework will probably include different rates for different categories of developers or transactions. Apple’s current proposal already demonstrates that a tiered model is central to its strategy.
(+1) The biggest long-term change may be increased competition between Apple’s payment system and external payment providers. If developers gain a realistic alternative, Apple will face greater pressure to justify its fees through actual value rather than platform control alone.
The Bigger Picture
The latest confrontation between Apple and Epic shows that the App Store battle is far from finished. Apple is now defending not only a commission percentage but also the economic assumptions and confidential evidence behind that percentage. Epic, meanwhile, is pushing for greater transparency and a much narrower interpretation of what Apple should be allowed to charge.
The final answer will matter well beyond the two companies. It could determine how developers monetize applications, how consumers pay for digital services and how much economic power a platform can retain after a transaction moves outside its own payment system. The 15% figure may dominate the headlines today, but the real story is much larger: who gets to control the money once the customer leaves the App Store?
▶️ Related Video (74% Match):
🕵️📝Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
🎓 Live Courses & Certifications:
Join Undercode Academy for Verified Certifications
🚀 Request a Custom Project:
Secure, high-velocity infrastructure and disruptive technological engineering. Contact our engineering team for high-tier development and proprietary systems:
[email protected]
💎 Smart Architecture | 🛡️ Secure by Design | ⭐ Trusted by Thousands
References:
Reported By: 9to5mac.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.medium.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon | 📺Youtube
