8 ms·

This is the opposite argument to what the problem is right now. It's not that IAP is bad, or that it shouldn't be available. It's that there's no alternative pe

This is the opposite argument to what the problem is right now. It's not that IAP is bad, or that it shouldn't be available. It's that there's no alternative permitted in addition to Apple's IAP model. You're not even allowed to HINT at the fact that you might have alternative ways to pay for the things you want to pay for. Even if your name is hugeservicethateveryoneknows, you can't tell people that you have a website where they can manage their account. IAP is great, and setting rules such that if apps offer IAP, they have to at least offer the platform's own payment service as initial and preferred choice, is perfectly reasonable. But it's extortion if you own the entire ecosystem and promise to ban anyone who wants to offer additional, alternative means of account/service management for a product/service that you have no business ownership of.

pwinnski 6y ago
This seems like a pretty large misreading of the situation. Yes, the most disagreeable thing about Apple's IAP policies is where they forbid links to alternative purchase pages. But it is also the smallest of the current complaints. It's not "additional" means of purchases many companies are pushing for. They want to be able to avoid offering Apple's IAP whatsoever. I mean, ProtonMail did not have IAP in their app at all, but offered options to pay for their service on their website. Apple insisted, as you suggest, that they "at least offer the platform's own payment service as initial and preferred choice," and now ProtonMail is saying that is "Mafia extortion."
- rockostrich 6y ago
  Yea, I have trouble understanding how this is any different than how people purchase things in person. When you go to Best Buy and buy a TV they obviously aren't going to let the TV manufacturers advertise that you can buy the TV for cheaper directly from the manufacturer. Obviously it's not a 1-1 comparison, but Apple is giving the apps a similar platform to sell their product.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    It's not a 1-1 comparison only because it sidesteps the crux of the debate completely and focuses on the strawman portion. What's argued as anticompetitive against these app stores is the integration of consumer devices with storefronts not that independent storefronts exist and don't advertise other storefronts.
  - IneffablePigeon 6y ago
    Well, a slightly flawed analogy is that you bought a Best Buy house and the only way to get a TV is to get it through Best Buy. It's the fact that not only are Apple providing a platform to sell the product, they're also the only distribution method for the product and are slowly clamping down on the loophole of providing a "free" app that requires a subscription bought elsewhere. To continue the flawed analogy, the Best Buy houses are clearly the best houses in most other respects in the opinion of a lot of people and it's hard for the market to apply pressure about this one specific limitation. Whether that's fine or not is basically the philosophical argument being had.
    - rockostrich 6y ago
      > Well, a slightly flawed analogy is that you bought a Best Buy house and the only way to get a TV is to get it through Best Buy. Not really. For Epic, you can buy things in Fortnite on other platforms and you get them in the iOS account. Same goes for ProtonMail I assume. The issue is that you can't advertise in the app that users can purchase the things elsewhere.
  - ksec 6y ago
    Except in that real world, you only have two choices, Best Buy or Walmart ( iOS and Android ). The problem and complain is much more complex once all these additional factors comes into play. It isn't so much a problem if we look at it in isolation. As in your Best Buy example, which I agree is perfectly valid.
  - pier25 6y ago
    The huge difference is you can buy your TV from many places (BestBuy, Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc) but you can't sell your iOS app outside the AppStore.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  That's not what Apple insisted, if you have IAP you can't have a button below that says "or buy direct 30% cheaper". It's either IAP or no mention of payments.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    ProtonMail had no IAP in their app at all, but offered paid subscriptions on their website. Apple insisted that they offer IAP in the app, and ProtonMail is upset. Here: > "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. There's nothing you can say to that. They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, and you can take it or leave it. You can't get any sort of fair hearing to determine whether it's justifiable or not justifiable, anything they say goes. We simply complied in order to save our business." Yes, as I said, ideally Apple would allow other forms of payment alongside IAP, but that's not even the issue here. The issue here, as I said, was that ProtonMail was trying to avoid implementing IAP at all.
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      > The issue here, as I said, was that ProtonMail was trying to avoid implementing IAP at all. Show me Apple forced everyone to use IAP before ProtonMail included the link to their website on their app and I'll agree.
    - simion314 6y ago
      The problem is bigger then that. Apple takes a 30% cut(and the fanboys will say it is legal and fair and theoretically Apple could make it 99% and should still be legal) and on top of that cut they are forcing you not to inform the customer about alternatives, YES Apple prevents you to be informed by better reals and deciding for yourself what is better, so you could say that Apple is protecting you because you are too stupid to decide or you can just be honest and say it is just for money and Apple protects their budget.
- whakim 6y ago
  Yep. Having gone through multiple review cycles with Apple, they'll look for any hint of a way that a user might wind up paying through a different mechanism and force you to excise that. A great example we faced was a feature that was only offered on the web (it didn't make sense on a phone), and we weren't allowed to link to it or mention it (even though you got access with an in-app subscription) because someone might go check it out on the web and subscribe via the CTA on the page.
- Hermel 6y ago
  And your reading of the situation lacks one crucial piece of information: Apple does not allow app authors to forward the “Apple tax” to the user. For example, if a newspaper subscription costs 300$ on the website, the publisher must not charge more than that in the app store event though he only gets 210$ after the “Apple tax”.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    That has not been true since 2011, nine years ago! https://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/apple-backtracks-on-in-app-subscriptions/ https://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/apple-backtracks-on-in-ap...
    - toyg 6y ago
      As your sibling comment demonstrates, Apple will try and try again to reinstate that policy. One way or the other, they’ll squeeze developers until the last ounce of profit goes to Apple. They are the supermarket chain of software now, and that’s what supermarket chains do.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        I mean if you're going to hang Apple for crimes they haven't committed yet then you could at least be more creative about them. Apple is going to force all apps that offer messaging as a feature to integrate with iMessage! Apple is going to force companies with an iOS app to turn over 30% of their total gross revenue! And it's additive! If you don't buy an iCloud subscription Apple is going to randomly delete some of your alarms!
        toyg 6y ago
        You joke, but that’s what they do. Even with no rule change, the obligation to have IAPs has clearly ramped up in the last year or so, simply by getting reviewers go through each and every app-screen with a finer comb. What else will they ramp up in order to increase their profits? All developers in the appstore are effectively sharecroppers; when the landowner needs some money, he can squeeze them at will.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  It may be ProtonMail's situation but speaking as a consumer, far from being the smallest complaint; my largest complaint is that Apple intentionally require third parties to mislead me about my options.
- thetechimist 6y ago
  Wow. I was on ProtonMail’s website debating wherever to sign up for them or someone else. Decision made after reading this. First, everyone techie enough to play Fortnite or consider ProtonMail knows full well that visiting a company’s website might offer other ways to sign up or pay, that apps are often limited by a hundred things. As they often are. Maybe the Gmail app should “hint” that you can see more emails of your inbox on your 27” monitor. Heck, maybe Google should try and sell you a bigger monitor instead of just letting people use the stupid app. I’m definitely not going to give ProtonMail my American dollars if they are blasting Apple, a great American company, from their European roost. They can slip back into their obscurity. It’s these little bit players that have been embolden by Epic’s stupidity. They are all shooting themselves in the foot. Others here are correct. I have to spend time researching cancellation methods BEFORE I sign up if not using IAP. Some companies are the devil. But in ProtonMail’s case, I had no interest in signing via my phone. I only keep Apple-created apps on my phone. Sorry... too many other bad experiences over the years. Like apps sending my location to 3rd-party advertisers, or burning up my battery, or using up data. After 10 years with iPhones, I’ve not only learned that most apps are bloated junk, but even the “useful” ones are better accessed as a bookmark on Safari. Or not at all. I’ve also learned that a smartphone is a portal to madness for most people so having just the basics for minimum life functionality is more than sufficient. The photo-editing apps, social media, weather apps, and whole categories of apps (games!) are pointless toward creation of a meaningful and healthy life. Oh and that includes the thousands of “fitness” apps. Unless you’re a pro athlete (you’re not!), what the heck? Sleep apps, reading list apps, running apps... all designed to put a phone, the internet, and some company between you and a normal human activity that needs none of it. The huge exception is Reddit. I hate that website but it occasionally comes up in search results. Click on it to your ultimate doom. It’s completely unusable. It should get an award for the first bulletin board site that is unreadable without a technical manual. Apple should ban Reddit on Safari for being “nagware”. Just block that site. It’s useless. These few bit players (well, and Epic) want their own App Store. Be careful what you wish for Epic, you might just get it. Let them have it, Apple and let all these bit players clamor to get on it and whine to Epic instead about all their “policies” and “pay rates”. Meanwhile, Apple should make an iPhone called the iPhone Secure+ (based off the SE2). Make it even smaller and lighter, even cheaper, waterproof and Caterpillar-like hardened materials, but here’s the kicker: NO THIRD-PARTY APPS AT ALL! In fact, maybe not even some of Apple’s! Who the heck uses Pages and Numbers on a 4-inch screen? Just a phone that works for normal people who are busy. And it should be conspicuous and bold! Make it obvious to all that you have a personal phone that is just for a few utilitarian purposes and you’re not a dweeb who scrolls through Instagram, Tinder, or plays games on the toilet! It would be the conversation piece of this decade.
crossroadsguy 6y ago
I'd rathe like Apple to do what they are doing with "Sign In With Apple". If you have any other sing up option in your app you have to have Sing in With Apple as well. I don't mind that. If you want to be a payment gateway, compete with other payment gateways. If the app has any other payment method integration, there should be IAP as well. But the problem is: if IAP is available, at least I am never going to opt for custom payment methods ever unless there's a clear cost benefit. Just like the OP I've had nightmares dealing with cancellation and automatic reactivations (of course that means automatic billing as well). But the question is will Apple allow apps to show, or does it even make sense to do this: Pay With Apple: $13 Pay with CC: $10.03 Pay with X: $11 This doesn't look like a solution at all now.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread and the answer appears to clearly be no. Apple will not allow an app to even mention that they can get it at a cheaper price on another device. Personally, I think if Apple will continue to insist on this anti-competitive behavior, iOS users should just pay the 30% more for their subscriptions (so app developers end up with the same revenue) for the benefits you describe unless they're savvy enough to actively look for other payment options on desktop, Android, etc.

pwinnski 6y ago

This seems like a pretty large misreading of the situation. Yes, the most disagreeable thing about Apple's IAP policies is where they forbid links to alternative purchase pages. But it is also the smallest of the current complaints. It's not "additional" means of purchases many companies are pushing for. They want to be able to avoid offering Apple's IAP whatsoever. I mean, ProtonMail did not have IAP in their app at all, but offered options to pay for their service on their website. Apple insisted, as you suggest, that they "at least offer the platform's own payment service as initial and preferred choice," and now ProtonMail is saying that is "Mafia extortion."

rockostrich 6y ago
Yea, I have trouble understanding how this is any different than how people purchase things in person. When you go to Best Buy and buy a TV they obviously aren't going to let the TV manufacturers advertise that you can buy the TV for cheaper directly from the manufacturer. Obviously it's not a 1-1 comparison, but Apple is giving the apps a similar platform to sell their product.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  It's not a 1-1 comparison only because it sidesteps the crux of the debate completely and focuses on the strawman portion. What's argued as anticompetitive against these app stores is the integration of consumer devices with storefronts not that independent storefronts exist and don't advertise other storefronts.
- IneffablePigeon 6y ago
  Well, a slightly flawed analogy is that you bought a Best Buy house and the only way to get a TV is to get it through Best Buy. It's the fact that not only are Apple providing a platform to sell the product, they're also the only distribution method for the product and are slowly clamping down on the loophole of providing a "free" app that requires a subscription bought elsewhere. To continue the flawed analogy, the Best Buy houses are clearly the best houses in most other respects in the opinion of a lot of people and it's hard for the market to apply pressure about this one specific limitation. Whether that's fine or not is basically the philosophical argument being had.
  - rockostrich 6y ago
    > Well, a slightly flawed analogy is that you bought a Best Buy house and the only way to get a TV is to get it through Best Buy. Not really. For Epic, you can buy things in Fortnite on other platforms and you get them in the iOS account. Same goes for ProtonMail I assume. The issue is that you can't advertise in the app that users can purchase the things elsewhere.
- ksec 6y ago
  Except in that real world, you only have two choices, Best Buy or Walmart ( iOS and Android ). The problem and complain is much more complex once all these additional factors comes into play. It isn't so much a problem if we look at it in isolation. As in your Best Buy example, which I agree is perfectly valid.
- pier25 6y ago
  The huge difference is you can buy your TV from many places (BestBuy, Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc) but you can't sell your iOS app outside the AppStore.
zamadatix 6y ago
That's not what Apple insisted, if you have IAP you can't have a button below that says "or buy direct 30% cheaper". It's either IAP or no mention of payments.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  ProtonMail had no IAP in their app at all, but offered paid subscriptions on their website. Apple insisted that they offer IAP in the app, and ProtonMail is upset. Here: > "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. There's nothing you can say to that. They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, and you can take it or leave it. You can't get any sort of fair hearing to determine whether it's justifiable or not justifiable, anything they say goes. We simply complied in order to save our business." Yes, as I said, ideally Apple would allow other forms of payment alongside IAP, but that's not even the issue here. The issue here, as I said, was that ProtonMail was trying to avoid implementing IAP at all.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    > The issue here, as I said, was that ProtonMail was trying to avoid implementing IAP at all. Show me Apple forced everyone to use IAP before ProtonMail included the link to their website on their app and I'll agree.
  - simion314 6y ago
    The problem is bigger then that. Apple takes a 30% cut(and the fanboys will say it is legal and fair and theoretically Apple could make it 99% and should still be legal) and on top of that cut they are forcing you not to inform the customer about alternatives, YES Apple prevents you to be informed by better reals and deciding for yourself what is better, so you could say that Apple is protecting you because you are too stupid to decide or you can just be honest and say it is just for money and Apple protects their budget.
whakim 6y ago
Yep. Having gone through multiple review cycles with Apple, they'll look for any hint of a way that a user might wind up paying through a different mechanism and force you to excise that. A great example we faced was a feature that was only offered on the web (it didn't make sense on a phone), and we weren't allowed to link to it or mention it (even though you got access with an in-app subscription) because someone might go check it out on the web and subscribe via the CTA on the page.
Hermel 6y ago
And your reading of the situation lacks one crucial piece of information: Apple does not allow app authors to forward the “Apple tax” to the user. For example, if a newspaper subscription costs 300$ on the website, the publisher must not charge more than that in the app store event though he only gets 210$ after the “Apple tax”.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  That has not been true since 2011, nine years ago! https://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/apple-backtracks-on-in-app-subscriptions/ https://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/apple-backtracks-on-in-ap...
  - toyg 6y ago
    As your sibling comment demonstrates, Apple will try and try again to reinstate that policy. One way or the other, they’ll squeeze developers until the last ounce of profit goes to Apple. They are the supermarket chain of software now, and that’s what supermarket chains do.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      I mean if you're going to hang Apple for crimes they haven't committed yet then you could at least be more creative about them. Apple is going to force all apps that offer messaging as a feature to integrate with iMessage! Apple is going to force companies with an iOS app to turn over 30% of their total gross revenue! And it's additive! If you don't buy an iCloud subscription Apple is going to randomly delete some of your alarms!
      - toyg 6y ago
        You joke, but that’s what they do. Even with no rule change, the obligation to have IAPs has clearly ramped up in the last year or so, simply by getting reviewers go through each and every app-screen with a finer comb. What else will they ramp up in order to increase their profits? All developers in the appstore are effectively sharecroppers; when the landowner needs some money, he can squeeze them at will.
inopinatus 6y ago
It may be ProtonMail's situation but speaking as a consumer, far from being the smallest complaint; my largest complaint is that Apple intentionally require third parties to mislead me about my options.
thetechimist 6y ago
Wow. I was on ProtonMail’s website debating wherever to sign up for them or someone else. Decision made after reading this. First, everyone techie enough to play Fortnite or consider ProtonMail knows full well that visiting a company’s website might offer other ways to sign up or pay, that apps are often limited by a hundred things. As they often are. Maybe the Gmail app should “hint” that you can see more emails of your inbox on your 27” monitor. Heck, maybe Google should try and sell you a bigger monitor instead of just letting people use the stupid app. I’m definitely not going to give ProtonMail my American dollars if they are blasting Apple, a great American company, from their European roost. They can slip back into their obscurity. It’s these little bit players that have been embolden by Epic’s stupidity. They are all shooting themselves in the foot. Others here are correct. I have to spend time researching cancellation methods BEFORE I sign up if not using IAP. Some companies are the devil. But in ProtonMail’s case, I had no interest in signing via my phone. I only keep Apple-created apps on my phone. Sorry... too many other bad experiences over the years. Like apps sending my location to 3rd-party advertisers, or burning up my battery, or using up data. After 10 years with iPhones, I’ve not only learned that most apps are bloated junk, but even the “useful” ones are better accessed as a bookmark on Safari. Or not at all. I’ve also learned that a smartphone is a portal to madness for most people so having just the basics for minimum life functionality is more than sufficient. The photo-editing apps, social media, weather apps, and whole categories of apps (games!) are pointless toward creation of a meaningful and healthy life. Oh and that includes the thousands of “fitness” apps. Unless you’re a pro athlete (you’re not!), what the heck? Sleep apps, reading list apps, running apps... all designed to put a phone, the internet, and some company between you and a normal human activity that needs none of it. The huge exception is Reddit. I hate that website but it occasionally comes up in search results. Click on it to your ultimate doom. It’s completely unusable. It should get an award for the first bulletin board site that is unreadable without a technical manual. Apple should ban Reddit on Safari for being “nagware”. Just block that site. It’s useless. These few bit players (well, and Epic) want their own App Store. Be careful what you wish for Epic, you might just get it. Let them have it, Apple and let all these bit players clamor to get on it and whine to Epic instead about all their “policies” and “pay rates”. Meanwhile, Apple should make an iPhone called the iPhone Secure+ (based off the SE2). Make it even smaller and lighter, even cheaper, waterproof and Caterpillar-like hardened materials, but here’s the kicker: NO THIRD-PARTY APPS AT ALL! In fact, maybe not even some of Apple’s! Who the heck uses Pages and Numbers on a 4-inch screen? Just a phone that works for normal people who are busy. And it should be conspicuous and bold! Make it obvious to all that you have a personal phone that is just for a few utilitarian purposes and you’re not a dweeb who scrolls through Instagram, Tinder, or plays games on the toilet! It would be the conversation piece of this decade.

crossroadsguy 6y ago

I'd rathe like Apple to do what they are doing with "Sign In With Apple". If you have any other sing up option in your app you have to have Sing in With Apple as well. I don't mind that. If you want to be a payment gateway, compete with other payment gateways. If the app has any other payment method integration, there should be IAP as well. But the problem is: if IAP is available, at least I am never going to opt for custom payment methods ever unless there's a clear cost benefit. Just like the OP I've had nightmares dealing with cancellation and automatic reactivations (of course that means automatic billing as well). But the question is will Apple allow apps to show, or does it even make sense to do this: Pay With Apple: $13 Pay with CC: $10.03 Pay with X: $11 This doesn't look like a solution at all now.

vinay427 6y ago
Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread and the answer appears to clearly be no. Apple will not allow an app to even mention that they can get it at a cheaper price on another device. Personally, I think if Apple will continue to insist on this anti-competitive behavior, iOS users should just pay the 30% more for their subscriptions (so app developers end up with the same revenue) for the benefits you describe unless they're savvy enough to actively look for other payment options on desktop, Android, etc.