5 ms·

From the replies (@mysl_co): > Hey Matt, When I open the Help Center from the app, I can get guidance about upgrading to one of your paid plans. If I tap on “P

From the replies (@mysl_co): > Hey Matt, When I open the Help Center from the app, I can get guidance about upgrading to one of your paid plans. If I tap on “Plans” as seen the screenshot, the app opens Safari and shows the plans. This is a violation according to App Store Review Guidelines. > Here is the relevant term that your app violated: 3.1.3(a) Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions […] provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase This is amazing to me. They're essentially taxing hyperlinks in your app? The "directly or indirectly target iOS users" wording seems like it would even cover a mere textual mention of a paid product in the app. The read anti-trust magnifying glass should be on Apple's lack of support for the PWA-related standards. Google's FUGU program is closing the gap quite fast, and Apple (thanks to their ban on other browser engines) knows they can hold back the tide by dragging their feet on development of the standards. Their strategy is so anti-competitive, and so out in the open that I can't see how they've been allowed to get away with it for so long.

robotnixon 6y ago
My company had our apps flagged because our links to support documentation included our logo, which took you to our homepage, where you could presumably find contact information for our sales department and contact us to purchase. At the time we didn't even have the ability purchase online as our app was only a portal to the enterprise product we were selling which had custom pricing. We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  > We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support. This is of course MUCH better for consumers, obviously. /s I don't normally leave this type of comment but honestly Apple's outright aggression towards consumers is right out in the open. They're demonstrating second by second the reason that market-makers cannot dominate.
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  But then people could ask support to buy your services!
likeclockwork 6y ago
It's not even "content". They're a publishing platform.
graeme 6y ago
Ah this is it right here. I had been very confused as to why Apple made this move. This is at least consistent with their past actions. But yeah the lack of ability to link to web based payment for subscription plans or even mention it will probably be something that has to go from the app store’s terms. It’s bad for both users and developers. The situation is confusing for users. Not all apps have margins that can support 30%, but this policy makes it non obvious how to even subscribe. I think if Apple had a flat 15% for subscriptions they’d still get a fair bit of usage, as there are big conversion advantages to using the IAP system. They might even get more revenue by attracting dev’s with reasonable terms, growing the amount of subscription apps using. This seems much more clear cut to me than Epic’s demands. Epic wants to dismantle the whole phone system as we know it.
- dwaite 6y ago
  It is antithetical for apple to create a for-profit store which allows for all avenues for profit to be skipped. Apple's take is typically one of a referral/marketing relationship, such as how they charge different rates for acquiring a new customer subscription (30% for the first year) vs maintaining a customer subscription (15% for additional years) or having a customer come in through another subscription channel (0%). To prevent abuse (from Apple's perspective), they mandate that the in-app subscription and purchasing be available and 'encouraged' (as in, not actively discouraged through referring to any price difference from other channels as a 'tax', or linking to other channels rather than offering in-app options). A lot of the recent news (such as the Hey email app fiasco) unfortunately come from developers trying to interpolate what is acceptable through other examples in the App Store, rather than reading the terms they have with Apple. IMHO different handling of different apps is actually due to the various business models producing a very 'jaggy' line around in-app purchasing and subscription requirements. For instance, Hey decided rather than supporting in-app subscriptions as an option, they would provide a 'free' service tier - but this does mean their app is restricted from pushing the user to a paid subscription tier, including indirectly via links to the hey.com website. Developers often look at very popular apps which have the ability to publish with no functionality without an out-of-app account with external purchases and/or subscriptions. However, these apps are actually limited to a few types of products, so called 'reader' apps where presumably the user equates the products with consumption of already purchased/rented physical goods (music, movies, television episodes, books, magazines, etc). Presumably this exemption both came from the popularity of large apps published before in-app purchasing was added to the system, that Apple themselves had spent a lot of time implying their various media stores were for "purchasing" media just like in the physical world, and that limitations that would effectively prohibit the use of systems such as Kindle and Amazon Music would create antitrust issues. Apple obviously is not willing to voluntarily give up any territory along this line of exemptions, which is why other services (such as email accounts or blog hosting) are not considered part of this "reader" exemption. Also obviously, it is also really unfortunate that this complicates what business models are acceptable when publishing on the App Store.
neurostimulant 6y ago
If this thing upset you, wait until you know that your app can be rejected for including an image of android phone unless it's to illustrate some sort of connectivity between the ios and android app.
manmal 6y ago
They pulled the Dropbox app for this very reason, a few years back. It’s a troubling, but widely known limitation.

robotnixon 6y ago

My company had our apps flagged because our links to support documentation included our logo, which took you to our homepage, where you could presumably find contact information for our sales department and contact us to purchase. At the time we didn't even have the ability purchase online as our app was only a portal to the enterprise product we were selling which had custom pricing. We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago
> We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support. This is of course MUCH better for consumers, obviously. /s I don't normally leave this type of comment but honestly Apple's outright aggression towards consumers is right out in the open. They're demonstrating second by second the reason that market-makers cannot dominate.
dariosalvi78 6y ago
But then people could ask support to buy your services!

likeclockwork 6y ago

It's not even "content". They're a publishing platform.

graeme 6y ago

Ah this is it right here. I had been very confused as to why Apple made this move. This is at least consistent with their past actions. But yeah the lack of ability to link to web based payment for subscription plans or even mention it will probably be something that has to go from the app store’s terms. It’s bad for both users and developers. The situation is confusing for users. Not all apps have margins that can support 30%, but this policy makes it non obvious how to even subscribe. I think if Apple had a flat 15% for subscriptions they’d still get a fair bit of usage, as there are big conversion advantages to using the IAP system. They might even get more revenue by attracting dev’s with reasonable terms, growing the amount of subscription apps using. This seems much more clear cut to me than Epic’s demands. Epic wants to dismantle the whole phone system as we know it.

dwaite 6y ago
It is antithetical for apple to create a for-profit store which allows for all avenues for profit to be skipped. Apple's take is typically one of a referral/marketing relationship, such as how they charge different rates for acquiring a new customer subscription (30% for the first year) vs maintaining a customer subscription (15% for additional years) or having a customer come in through another subscription channel (0%). To prevent abuse (from Apple's perspective), they mandate that the in-app subscription and purchasing be available and 'encouraged' (as in, not actively discouraged through referring to any price difference from other channels as a 'tax', or linking to other channels rather than offering in-app options). A lot of the recent news (such as the Hey email app fiasco) unfortunately come from developers trying to interpolate what is acceptable through other examples in the App Store, rather than reading the terms they have with Apple. IMHO different handling of different apps is actually due to the various business models producing a very 'jaggy' line around in-app purchasing and subscription requirements. For instance, Hey decided rather than supporting in-app subscriptions as an option, they would provide a 'free' service tier - but this does mean their app is restricted from pushing the user to a paid subscription tier, including indirectly via links to the hey.com website. Developers often look at very popular apps which have the ability to publish with no functionality without an out-of-app account with external purchases and/or subscriptions. However, these apps are actually limited to a few types of products, so called 'reader' apps where presumably the user equates the products with consumption of already purchased/rented physical goods (music, movies, television episodes, books, magazines, etc). Presumably this exemption both came from the popularity of large apps published before in-app purchasing was added to the system, that Apple themselves had spent a lot of time implying their various media stores were for "purchasing" media just like in the physical world, and that limitations that would effectively prohibit the use of systems such as Kindle and Amazon Music would create antitrust issues. Apple obviously is not willing to voluntarily give up any territory along this line of exemptions, which is why other services (such as email accounts or blog hosting) are not considered part of this "reader" exemption. Also obviously, it is also really unfortunate that this complicates what business models are acceptable when publishing on the App Store.

neurostimulant 6y ago

If this thing upset you, wait until you know that your app can be rejected for including an image of android phone unless it's to illustrate some sort of connectivity between the ios and android app.

manmal 6y ago

They pulled the Dropbox app for this very reason, a few years back. It’s a troubling, but widely known limitation.