5 ms·

Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on

Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all. https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscription_information/spotify-through-the-app-store/ https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip... Netflix has done the same thing. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-netflix-bypassing-apple-app-store-billing-charges https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-... In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app.

rubicon33 8y ago
> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. This is especially damaging to small companies. Most people have heard of Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, etc. So it's somewhat natural for them (if not a bit akward) to go to the website if they can't get premium in the app. But for small companies that connection isn't immediately obvious. In my company for instance, we aren't allowed to put ANY reference to our website in the app (as it relates to purchasing premium). As a result when a user signs up, my only option is IAP. I cannot just assume they will naturally go to the website.
- covercash 8y ago
  Most(every?) app that I’ve signed up for requires an email address. Some apps then send a verification or welcome email. If you mention and link to paid subscription upgrades in that email, will Apple pull your app?
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Will people actually read the email? Will they remember it at the time they actually want to upgrade their account? (An "email me a payment link" button would almost certainly get rejected by Apple)
    - covercash 8y ago
      “We’ve just sent a verification code to the email you provided, please type the 4 digit code here:_ _ _ _” It could even be 2 digits (the same 2 digits for everyone), you’re just looking to get their eyes on the email letting them know additional paid subscriptions are available on your website.
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        Let's assume you purposefully crafted the email or app to break the code autofill built into iOS. I think you'd end up confusing users. Most people will go to their email expecting to see a verification code in big bold type. If you make the code less obvious, they'll get frustrated ("I came here to get a code, why am I now doing something else?") It's awful UX at a particularly business-critical moment. And this is all assuming Apple doesn't see through your ploy and just reject the app.
  - throwaway198389 8y ago
    As Spotify points out, and I've seen first hand, Apple prohibits you from allowing users to create accounts or enter contact information if your service has a paid option and you don't use apple's IAP. So you couldn't even get to the point where you can send an email without first falling in line with IAP. And according to my understanding of the Spotify timeline, and I haven't see this because I haven't published to the platform in a while, Apple now prohibits you from targeting your iOS users with upgrade communications (even if they didn't sign up via iOS, which they didn't since that's prohibited).
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video, Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing). Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. All this strikes me as a clear indication that Apple is asking for too high a cut. I've never been tempted to use a mobile app to shop on, say, Amazon, but Apple are clearly ok with that experience being far better on Android than on iPhone. > In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Interesting. The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist. [0] https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360000633989 https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360000633989
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  > Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. This is what Spotify used to do (charging $13 instead of the normal $10 to give apple their cut), but they stopped when apple started making apple music available at $10 (since they didn't need to pay their own tax)
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    That's the sort of behavior that gets your company broken up. Apple's management team doesn't seem to own a single history book between them.
    - dkonofalski 8y ago
      How so? Isn't the tipping point of an antitrust suit a lack of competition and/or a monopolized position? Apple doesn't have that. They can do whatever they want in the confines of their own store.
      - 8y ago
spiderfarmer 8y ago
>In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Why on earth is Apple allowed to do that? I get that it is their marketplace and their rules, but they are directly hurting competition and consumers this way. There's simply no real argument to prohibit developers like this. Seems like something the EU should combat against.
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.
  - lancesells 8y ago
    I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I know it changes to 15% after a year but that's still ridiculous IMO. Maybe there's an App Association that challenges all of these stores on their rather high recurring fees.
    - pms 8y ago
      This is a ridiculous stance. Essentially it's the same as saying that you're scared to pay for anything online and you only trust Apple for making online payments. There are other solutions to feel secure about paying online or via an app. For instance, if the app asks you for payment, you could be first shown its rating in the store, if it's low. There could be even a separate rating judging the payment security of the app, if security is what Apple is after. You're allowing Apple to rip you off by 30% on all app transactions, it's as simple as that. (Not to mention the cost of locking yourself in their platform and hardware.)
lotu 8y ago
> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. The counter point is, if Apple allowed this, then every single App would use that method. Most people would not realize or care that they bought the XYZ in a web view vs through the AppStore payment system. Even apps that are currently paid only would switch to a "free" app with a "pay here" in-app purchase. At this point the AppStore no longer can bring in any money for Apple except indirectly via encouraging iPhone sales. Maybe Apple could charge the publisher for each app download or something instead to keep making money but I doubt that would be very popular.
- paxy 8y ago
  There is still a non-zero cost to implementing a checkout page, as well as associated vendor fees etc. In a fair market the fees for Apple checkout would be along the same lines as Stripe, PayPal etc., but they are using their position as the device and OS vendor to charge 10x as much and giving developers no other option.
  - pmart123 8y ago
    I disagree they should be the same. Credit card fraud risk is much higher on the internet than in person for instance. Apple through iOS and the App Store I would guess, also has a significant edge in detecting and stopping fraud through name, location, etc. While 15/30% might be too high, it should be higher than a simple payment processor as the transaction is also safer for the merchant.
wdr1 8y ago
Amazon's Kindle app has done the same as well.

rubicon33 8y ago

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. This is especially damaging to small companies. Most people have heard of Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, etc. So it's somewhat natural for them (if not a bit akward) to go to the website if they can't get premium in the app. But for small companies that connection isn't immediately obvious. In my company for instance, we aren't allowed to put ANY reference to our website in the app (as it relates to purchasing premium). As a result when a user signs up, my only option is IAP. I cannot just assume they will naturally go to the website.

covercash 8y ago
Most(every?) app that I’ve signed up for requires an email address. Some apps then send a verification or welcome email. If you mention and link to paid subscription upgrades in that email, will Apple pull your app?
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Will people actually read the email? Will they remember it at the time they actually want to upgrade their account? (An "email me a payment link" button would almost certainly get rejected by Apple)
  - covercash 8y ago
    “We’ve just sent a verification code to the email you provided, please type the 4 digit code here:_ _ _ _” It could even be 2 digits (the same 2 digits for everyone), you’re just looking to get their eyes on the email letting them know additional paid subscriptions are available on your website.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      Let's assume you purposefully crafted the email or app to break the code autofill built into iOS. I think you'd end up confusing users. Most people will go to their email expecting to see a verification code in big bold type. If you make the code less obvious, they'll get frustrated ("I came here to get a code, why am I now doing something else?") It's awful UX at a particularly business-critical moment. And this is all assuming Apple doesn't see through your ploy and just reject the app.
- throwaway198389 8y ago
  As Spotify points out, and I've seen first hand, Apple prohibits you from allowing users to create accounts or enter contact information if your service has a paid option and you don't use apple's IAP. So you couldn't even get to the point where you can send an email without first falling in line with IAP. And according to my understanding of the Spotify timeline, and I haven't see this because I haven't published to the platform in a while, Apple now prohibits you from targeting your iOS users with upgrade communications (even if they didn't sign up via iOS, which they didn't since that's prohibited).

MaxBarraclough 8y ago

It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video, Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing). Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. All this strikes me as a clear indication that Apple is asking for too high a cut. I've never been tempted to use a mobile app to shop on, say, Amazon, but Apple are clearly ok with that experience being far better on Android than on iPhone. > In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Interesting. The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist. [0] https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360000633989 https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360000633989

oh_sigh 8y ago
> Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. This is what Spotify used to do (charging $13 instead of the normal $10 to give apple their cut), but they stopped when apple started making apple music available at $10 (since they didn't need to pay their own tax)
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  That's the sort of behavior that gets your company broken up. Apple's management team doesn't seem to own a single history book between them.
  - dkonofalski 8y ago
    How so? Isn't the tipping point of an antitrust suit a lack of competition and/or a monopolized position? Apple doesn't have that. They can do whatever they want in the confines of their own store.
    - 8y ago

spiderfarmer 8y ago

>In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Why on earth is Apple allowed to do that? I get that it is their marketplace and their rules, but they are directly hurting competition and consumers this way. There's simply no real argument to prohibit developers like this. Seems like something the EU should combat against.

dkonofalski 8y ago
That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.
- lancesells 8y ago
  I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I know it changes to 15% after a year but that's still ridiculous IMO. Maybe there's an App Association that challenges all of these stores on their rather high recurring fees.
  - pms 8y ago
    This is a ridiculous stance. Essentially it's the same as saying that you're scared to pay for anything online and you only trust Apple for making online payments. There are other solutions to feel secure about paying online or via an app. For instance, if the app asks you for payment, you could be first shown its rating in the store, if it's low. There could be even a separate rating judging the payment security of the app, if security is what Apple is after. You're allowing Apple to rip you off by 30% on all app transactions, it's as simple as that. (Not to mention the cost of locking yourself in their platform and hardware.)

lotu 8y ago

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. The counter point is, if Apple allowed this, then every single App would use that method. Most people would not realize or care that they bought the XYZ in a web view vs through the AppStore payment system. Even apps that are currently paid only would switch to a "free" app with a "pay here" in-app purchase. At this point the AppStore no longer can bring in any money for Apple except indirectly via encouraging iPhone sales. Maybe Apple could charge the publisher for each app download or something instead to keep making money but I doubt that would be very popular.

paxy 8y ago
There is still a non-zero cost to implementing a checkout page, as well as associated vendor fees etc. In a fair market the fees for Apple checkout would be along the same lines as Stripe, PayPal etc., but they are using their position as the device and OS vendor to charge 10x as much and giving developers no other option.
- pmart123 8y ago
  I disagree they should be the same. Credit card fraud risk is much higher on the internet than in person for instance. Apple through iOS and the App Store I would guess, also has a significant edge in detecting and stopping fraud through name, location, etc. While 15/30% might be too high, it should be higher than a simple payment processor as the transaction is also safer for the merchant.

wdr1 8y ago

Amazon's Kindle app has done the same as well.