6 ms·

From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS users that they can purchase virt

From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS users that they can purchase virtual goods or subscriptions cheaper elsewhere. [US Judge] Gonzalez Rogers was questioning why allowing this to be conveyed to App Store customers would be bad..." It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be directed off iOS for purchases. This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground between the parties.

burlesona 5y ago
I’m generally on Apple’s side in this debate, but on this point specifically I think Apple is in the wrong. It’s just silly that apps which don’t route payments through the App Store aren’t allowed to say so. And further, it degrades the user experience when you download an app, which Apple has reviewed and approved, but that app doesn’t work without a subscription etc. which you have to just “figure out” how to buy outside the app. That rule has always felt over the top to me.
- hokumguru 5y ago
  Why would any store allow its products to advertise a cheaper price outside the establishment? What would be the point of even offering those products?
  - kemayo 5y ago
    Well, in Apple's case, it's because having e.g. Netflix available on iOS devices makes people more likely to buy their very-expensive hardware. If people couldn't get the assorted free service-client apps on iOS, that'd be a problem for Apple. Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Manufacturers can and do print some 'manufacturer's suggested retail price' on their products, and (in the absence of a specific contract prohibiting so) retailers can and do sell them for a higher price despite the company and product advertising that in general they are available cheaper.
  - justapassenger 5y ago
    A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription. It’s insane that in my product I cannot tell people about ways you can purchase it. Defending this rule seems like Stockholm syndrome.
    - eigen 5y ago
      > A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription. is there a 15/30% fee for physical goods such as DoorDash, Amazon, etc? thought it was just for digital goods, subscriptions, etc.
  - kwyjobojoe 5y ago
    Apps are not Apple products.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      And the products on the shelves of stores are not the store's products. Apple sells apps. Apps that were made by others. Walmart sells X. X that was made by others.
      - lexs 5y ago
        Apple didn't buy the apps from the developers, they provide a marketplace. Don't most supermarkets own their inventory?
        vineyardmike 5y ago
        I think a lot of businesses "borrow" the inventory from the supplier and only pay them once the inventory is sold. It's not the same as a marketplace, per-se but considering you pay apple, download from apple servers, after apple does "QA" and follows apple rules, i'd say its pretty similar to a store that sources select products and provides the checkout infrastructure and distribution logistics.
- mikehearn 5y ago
  My 100% selfish take on this is that Apple's in-app payment flow is a pretty incredible user experience (double-tap a button + FaceID scan, and you're done), whereas being directed to a website and having to manually enter card details is a legitimate pain. I haven't pulled my credit card out of my wallet to enter my details on a phone in a long time. Haven't had to type my billing address, haven't had to find my CVC number. It's been nice! I'm sure Apple is very pleased with the profit margins they get on in-app payments, but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users. Obviously the flip side is that some companies - Netflix! - then decide just not to offer payment in-app at all. That's also bad! But I don't know how to compromise on allowing apps to direct users to payment systems outside the app store without opening the floodgates to a million different payment experiences, which I (again, selfishly) would love to avoid.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users" It's absolutely and fundamentally first about the platform-monopoly and control. Apple has a considerable number of other 'bad users experiences' to point at to suggest that this issue, while might be a part of their legit product strategy, is way second tier to their control of the distribution. Finally, there's also a fairly heavy 'bad user experience' in blocking from doing the things the want to do. The answer to your question is actually in the economics: Apple should be able to charge a premium to using their 'great experience' commensurate with the likelihood that vendors will use it, given that premium. With a 15%/30% cut, vendors will not use the service. With an 8% cut (assuming they'd have to pay Stripe 4% or whatever), then it may very well be worth it for vendors. i.e. if the 'Apple Checkout' were forced to compete as an actual produced (even with it's entrenched position in the platform), the profits would be a measure of the value at least on some level.
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    I mean, the obvious answer here is that Apple needs to offer companies a reasonable revenue split (like, 5% or something) for these recurring subscription scenarios where it’s obvious Apple did nothing to drum up the business and is purely functioning as a (very convenient, admittedly) credit card processor.
- dvcrn 5y ago
  It's silly that when I want to watch something on Prime Video, I can see the title in the Prime app on AppleTV but can't rent it. I have to go to amazon.com on a different device, search the title, rent it, then it becomes available on the TV app. As a person working in tech I understand it, but it's still silly.
  - late2part 5y ago
    I think it used to be this way, but now I can rent/buy things from Prime within AppleTV. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
- tomjen3 5y ago
  As a user I don't want to have to subscribe through anything but the app/play store. Whenever that happens I have no guarantee, at all, how easy it is to cancel, etc.
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    I'm sure most services would have no problem letting you do that, if they could also inform you that you're paying 30% extra when choosing that method.
loceng 5y ago
That Apple's trying to control the narrative, that you can't even tell people what $ of their payment is going to Apple, is a problem; this is a problem with food ordering-delivery service apps too, it should be law so people can make informed choices of what app they want to use.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  At this point, I am firmly of the opinion that we need a single, global standard for online payments that is just an electronic equivalent of cash or a direct bank transfer. Solid authentication of the parties. Explicit authorisation of each transaction or series of transactions to be performed. No other strings attached for anyone just because you're transferring money; that's what contracts are for. No arbitrary gatekeeping or labyrinthine terms for buyers and sellers, dictated by intermediaries in their own interests. No spying on who is paying for what and selling that data on to some shady broker for an extra cut. Ideally, the whole thing should be run as a public service in each country, at cost, with no intermediaries at all, in the same way countries operate their primary currencies as a public benefit that is beyond the control of any commercial entity. If not, then at least heavily regulated with a similar outcome. And make it illegal for any commercial entity offering goods or services for sale to require the use of some other payment method without also offering this one with at least the same prominence, so you can use something like an escrow service with a refund mechanism if you want to, but only if both parties genuinely agree to the terms. With the increasing prevalence of online shopping, the increasing importance of reliable and efficient international money transfer to the global economy, and the seemingly never-ending ways the financial services industry can mess around both senders and receivers of money when all they wanted to do was send $X from A to B, we needed something like that long ago, but better late than never.
  - annadane 5y ago
    Diem! (/s)
  - pitched 5y ago
    It doesn’t quite hit all those points but have you tried paying for a service with Bitcoin lately? The lightning network plus QR codes to autofill details all works pretty well.
xattt 5y ago
Devil’s advocate, but doesn’t the customer already have choice not to choose iOS?
- techrat 5y ago
  Not if they already have the device. With most Android devices, you can unlock the bootloader and replace the Rom, root the device for administrator style access, debloat and remove system components, generally modify the hardware as you see fit. With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.' Neither can be done on iOS. Attempting to modify the system or sideload apps on iOS requires using exploits that are security flaws and will likely be patched out in a future OS update. If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
  - covercash 5y ago
    > With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.' Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that?
    - batiudrami 5y ago
      Sideloading apps is very easy (albeit you have to press “okay” on a very scary looking warming page). Plenty of people do, to play Fortnight or install the Amazon App Store, for instance.
    - techrat 5y ago
      > Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that? It really doesn't matter if the average Android user will do it. What matters is that you have the option to do so.
      - covercash 5y ago
        I think it only matters if that was the expectation when you purchased it. Nobody buys an iPhone with the expectation that they’ll be able to install apps anywhere outside of the App Store. In fact, a single place to buy and install apps is a selling point to many people.

burlesona 5y ago

I’m generally on Apple’s side in this debate, but on this point specifically I think Apple is in the wrong. It’s just silly that apps which don’t route payments through the App Store aren’t allowed to say so. And further, it degrades the user experience when you download an app, which Apple has reviewed and approved, but that app doesn’t work without a subscription etc. which you have to just “figure out” how to buy outside the app. That rule has always felt over the top to me.

hokumguru 5y ago
Why would any store allow its products to advertise a cheaper price outside the establishment? What would be the point of even offering those products?
- kemayo 5y ago
  Well, in Apple's case, it's because having e.g. Netflix available on iOS devices makes people more likely to buy their very-expensive hardware. If people couldn't get the assorted free service-client apps on iOS, that'd be a problem for Apple. Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Manufacturers can and do print some 'manufacturer's suggested retail price' on their products, and (in the absence of a specific contract prohibiting so) retailers can and do sell them for a higher price despite the company and product advertising that in general they are available cheaper.
- justapassenger 5y ago
  A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription. It’s insane that in my product I cannot tell people about ways you can purchase it. Defending this rule seems like Stockholm syndrome.
  - eigen 5y ago
    > A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription. is there a 15/30% fee for physical goods such as DoorDash, Amazon, etc? thought it was just for digital goods, subscriptions, etc.
- kwyjobojoe 5y ago
  Apps are not Apple products.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    And the products on the shelves of stores are not the store's products. Apple sells apps. Apps that were made by others. Walmart sells X. X that was made by others.
    - lexs 5y ago
      Apple didn't buy the apps from the developers, they provide a marketplace. Don't most supermarkets own their inventory?
      - vineyardmike 5y ago
        I think a lot of businesses "borrow" the inventory from the supplier and only pay them once the inventory is sold. It's not the same as a marketplace, per-se but considering you pay apple, download from apple servers, after apple does "QA" and follows apple rules, i'd say its pretty similar to a store that sources select products and provides the checkout infrastructure and distribution logistics.
mikehearn 5y ago
My 100% selfish take on this is that Apple's in-app payment flow is a pretty incredible user experience (double-tap a button + FaceID scan, and you're done), whereas being directed to a website and having to manually enter card details is a legitimate pain. I haven't pulled my credit card out of my wallet to enter my details on a phone in a long time. Haven't had to type my billing address, haven't had to find my CVC number. It's been nice! I'm sure Apple is very pleased with the profit margins they get on in-app payments, but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users. Obviously the flip side is that some companies - Netflix! - then decide just not to offer payment in-app at all. That's also bad! But I don't know how to compromise on allowing apps to direct users to payment systems outside the app store without opening the floodgates to a million different payment experiences, which I (again, selfishly) would love to avoid.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users" It's absolutely and fundamentally first about the platform-monopoly and control. Apple has a considerable number of other 'bad users experiences' to point at to suggest that this issue, while might be a part of their legit product strategy, is way second tier to their control of the distribution. Finally, there's also a fairly heavy 'bad user experience' in blocking from doing the things the want to do. The answer to your question is actually in the economics: Apple should be able to charge a premium to using their 'great experience' commensurate with the likelihood that vendors will use it, given that premium. With a 15%/30% cut, vendors will not use the service. With an 8% cut (assuming they'd have to pay Stripe 4% or whatever), then it may very well be worth it for vendors. i.e. if the 'Apple Checkout' were forced to compete as an actual produced (even with it's entrenched position in the platform), the profits would be a measure of the value at least on some level.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  I mean, the obvious answer here is that Apple needs to offer companies a reasonable revenue split (like, 5% or something) for these recurring subscription scenarios where it’s obvious Apple did nothing to drum up the business and is purely functioning as a (very convenient, admittedly) credit card processor.
dvcrn 5y ago
It's silly that when I want to watch something on Prime Video, I can see the title in the Prime app on AppleTV but can't rent it. I have to go to amazon.com on a different device, search the title, rent it, then it becomes available on the TV app. As a person working in tech I understand it, but it's still silly.
- late2part 5y ago
  I think it used to be this way, but now I can rent/buy things from Prime within AppleTV. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
tomjen3 5y ago
As a user I don't want to have to subscribe through anything but the app/play store. Whenever that happens I have no guarantee, at all, how easy it is to cancel, etc.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  I'm sure most services would have no problem letting you do that, if they could also inform you that you're paying 30% extra when choosing that method.

loceng 5y ago

That Apple's trying to control the narrative, that you can't even tell people what $ of their payment is going to Apple, is a problem; this is a problem with food ordering-delivery service apps too, it should be law so people can make informed choices of what app they want to use.

Silhouette 5y ago
At this point, I am firmly of the opinion that we need a single, global standard for online payments that is just an electronic equivalent of cash or a direct bank transfer. Solid authentication of the parties. Explicit authorisation of each transaction or series of transactions to be performed. No other strings attached for anyone just because you're transferring money; that's what contracts are for. No arbitrary gatekeeping or labyrinthine terms for buyers and sellers, dictated by intermediaries in their own interests. No spying on who is paying for what and selling that data on to some shady broker for an extra cut. Ideally, the whole thing should be run as a public service in each country, at cost, with no intermediaries at all, in the same way countries operate their primary currencies as a public benefit that is beyond the control of any commercial entity. If not, then at least heavily regulated with a similar outcome. And make it illegal for any commercial entity offering goods or services for sale to require the use of some other payment method without also offering this one with at least the same prominence, so you can use something like an escrow service with a refund mechanism if you want to, but only if both parties genuinely agree to the terms. With the increasing prevalence of online shopping, the increasing importance of reliable and efficient international money transfer to the global economy, and the seemingly never-ending ways the financial services industry can mess around both senders and receivers of money when all they wanted to do was send $X from A to B, we needed something like that long ago, but better late than never.
- annadane 5y ago
  Diem! (/s)
- pitched 5y ago
  It doesn’t quite hit all those points but have you tried paying for a service with Bitcoin lately? The lightning network plus QR codes to autofill details all works pretty well.

xattt 5y ago

Devil’s advocate, but doesn’t the customer already have choice not to choose iOS?

techrat 5y ago
Not if they already have the device. With most Android devices, you can unlock the bootloader and replace the Rom, root the device for administrator style access, debloat and remove system components, generally modify the hardware as you see fit. With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.' Neither can be done on iOS. Attempting to modify the system or sideload apps on iOS requires using exploits that are security flaws and will likely be patched out in a future OS update. If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
- covercash 5y ago
  > With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.' Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that?
  - batiudrami 5y ago
    Sideloading apps is very easy (albeit you have to press “okay” on a very scary looking warming page). Plenty of people do, to play Fortnight or install the Amazon App Store, for instance.
  - techrat 5y ago
    > Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that? It really doesn't matter if the average Android user will do it. What matters is that you have the option to do so.
    - covercash 5y ago
      I think it only matters if that was the expectation when you purchased it. Nobody buys an iPhone with the expectation that they’ll be able to install apps anywhere outside of the App Store. In fact, a single place to buy and install apps is a selling point to many people.