Apple is reportedly weighing two distinct paths to grow its services revenue — one carries serious risk, the other offers more promise. Industry reports outline both, but only one aligns with what customers, developers, and regulators will tolerate.
Option 1: Launch a Home Security & Monitoring Service
One of the opportunities on the table is a privacy-focused home security and monitoring service. The idea is to introduce a hardware setup — possibly one or more devices — that uses AI to analyze live environments without actual video recording. This would pair with a service that allows users to track what’s going on around their home without compromising their privacy.
This isn’t a brand new concept. Apple already has HomeKit Secure Video, and rumors of a security camera or even a smart doorbell have floated before. Tapping into this market gives Apple room to build both hardware and recurring service revenue — delivering innovation through integration in ways that many of its competitors haven’t.
Option 2: Raise More Money from the App Store
The second path involves squeezing more revenue from the App Store. Senior executives are reportedly considering raising margins and extracting more recurring income from the platform’s existing structure. This would mean increasing fees, tightening policies, or finding ways to get developers and users to pay more.
But this option comes with serious risks: developers are already frustrated, regulatory pressure is mounting globally, and the notion that Apple could simply demand more has become increasingly controversial. Attempting to wring additional revenue out of a already contested system could backfire badly.
Why One Choice Stands Out
Pursuing a home security service is far more strategic. It matches well with Apple’s core strengths — its hardware-software synergy, its privacy-first reputation, and its willingness to build ecosystems rather than seen-as monopolisitic platforms. A well-designed security service can create value that people are willing to pay for.
On the other hand, trying to extract more money from the App Store feels like a tactic stuck in the past. It risks alienating users and developers, invites more regulatory scrutiny, and undermines trust — for marginal gain at best.
Apple has heavyweight voices internally who share this distinction. For example, Phil Schiller is said to oppose increasing the financial pressure on developers through the App Store, believing it would harm both the company’s image and relationships with third parties. Meanwhile, others see clear revenue potential in tightening margins or increasing take rates.
In short, Apple faces a fork in the road. One path lets it build something new, valuable, and defensible. The other walks deeper into conflict: with regulators, with developers, and with many customers.
What this means is clear: Apple must channel its innovation into services people will embrace rather than revenue tactics people will resent. The Cupertino giant’s reputation — and future profits — may depend more on what it builds than what fees it raises.
