6 ms·

> Developers can communicate directly with customers about alternative payment options. Customers have to consent and be given the right to opt-out. This is a

> Developers can communicate directly with customers about alternative payment options. Customers have to consent and be given the right to opt-out. This is a huge step forward (though it falls well short of the ideal case) for iOS development. Having the ability to tell customers about other, often cheaper, payment methods removes a substantial barrier for some apps that have high-priced subscriptions. Positive as this change is, there is still a lot of ground to be won here. I'm fearful concessions like this will work as legal currency in the Epic case, instead of momentum pushing ongoing shifts in app store policy. Can someone with more legal understanding weigh in on that?

jsnell 5y ago
What do you think the step forward is here? The developers are still not allowed to communicate about alternate purchase options in the app, they would need to have some other form of communication with the user. Such advertising via side-channels was never forbidden, it's just that it's impractical for most developers to establish that side-channel. I really have to congratulate whoever wrote that press release. They gave away nothing, and even stated that the policy did not change, but still appear to have convinced a ton of people that there was some kind of a concession here.
- taurath 5y ago
  Developers are also not allowed to link to account management on a webpage if they signed up via a website, which contributes to lots of user confusion when it comes to cancellation of a subscription for instance.
  - noway421 5y ago
    I think this is exactly what is being changed here? Now you can link away to a web portal with your account and alternative payment options. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    - taurath 5y ago
      > Developers can communicate directly with customers about alternative payment options. Customers have to consent and be given the right to opt-out. This is the only statement that might be construed as such from the article, but it doesn't say anything about management, and I'm really not sure what consent means - is it a popup that says "do you want to be informed about non-apple payment methods?". Maybe it is what is being changed, but I can't really tell. I can say that customer confusion is often built into app store policies, and the amount of backend and customer service work to clean up users who sign up with multiple payment methods accidently is not a trivial cost.
      - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        Moreover, communication about alternate payment options is not the same as ALLOWING alternate payment options.
    - tommymachine 5y ago
      you can't link directly from the app. however you can ask for email and send the link via email. the settlement hasn't been approved yet (filed yesterday) so the exact terms haven't been updated.
- Strom 5y ago
  This Apple press release and term changes are super confusing. Probably designed to be confusing. Let's look into them. First, let's take the old terms. App Store guidlines point 3.1.3 from 2020-11-28: [1] Apps in this section cannot, either within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. The old rules seem pretty straightforward. You're not allowed to contact users about other payment options if you acquired the contact info through the app. Now, the press release from 2021-08-26 says: [2] Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. [..] Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out. This seems like it's purposely vague. The press release doesn't talk about the source of the contact information at all. So let's take a look at the updated terms. App Store guidelines point 3.1.3 from 2021-08-25: [3] Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app). Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase. What a bizarre paragraph. First it explicitly makes it clear that it's forbidden to send the payment information using contact information obtained via the app. However the last sentence is a generic statement that seems to contradict that. Does Apple mean that you can only use contact information obtained elsewhere? That would then match the previous terms. So it's probably that. However it is worded in such a horrible way that I can't be sure. -- After looking more into it, I think some actual changes might still be coming. Here's the key paragraph from the actual court document: [4] Apple has agreed to revise its App Store Guidelines to permit developers of all app categories to communicate with consenting customers outside their app, including via email and other communication services, about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.3. Under the App’s Store existing Guidelines, developers may not use contact information (emails, phone numbers, etc.) obtained within an app to contact their user base outside the app. As a practical matter, this prevents developers from alerting their customers to alternative payment options. The proposed Settlement lifts this restriction, and it does so for all app categories. -- [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201128030647/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://web.archive.org/web/20201128030647/https://developer... [2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210825162013/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://web.archive.org/web/20210825162013/https://developer... [4] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21049923/apple_proposed_settlement.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21049923/apple_propos...
- jccalhoun 5y ago
  Agreed. This is just about the very least Apple could do.
- tdeck 5y ago
  Someone should set up a payment service for apps that's cheaper for the consumer and developer, then advertise it heavily. "Check if your favorite app is on FOO to save money". Every app using such a system could benefit from the direct advertising done once by the payment provider. They could even offer a service that checks your bill from Apple and helps you switch the payment for eligible apps, thereby saving money.
  - manmal 5y ago
    Revenuecat is perfectly positioned to do that, but probably won’t dare anger Apple in this way.
    - xuki 5y ago
      Why? Apple is not paying them, the developers are.
      - saagarjha 5y ago
        Apple could ban the SDK.
        bencollier49 5y ago
        That would be a beautiful piece of anti-competitive behaviour for the Epic case.
        xuki 5y ago
        I would like to see Apple try. Free PR for revenuecat.
      - manmal 5y ago
        Apple controls the (app store) APIs they are using.
- sfifs 5y ago
  > The developers are still not allowed to communicate about alternate purchase options in the app, they would need to have some other form of communication with the user. I'm pretty sure this "anti-steering" restriction in-app will go away with the Epic vs. Apple ruling. It's classic "tying" in anti-trust. Nothing else in that case might go Epic's way, but this likely will. I'm also pretty sure every major player generating in-app revenue already has already developed their cheaper payment alternative to rollout the minute the ruling drops, so Apple will have to hustle to get a stay order.
- phantom784 5y ago
  Shouldn't be too hard. Collect email when they register, give them a free trial, email them instructions to purchase through your website.
phire 5y ago
Does the settlement allow for alternative payment methods to be cheaper?
- saagarjha 5y ago
  They are already allowed to be cheaper. This is just saying you can email people about it outside of the app.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    So Spotify still can’t say front and center in the app ”Buy subscription in app: $12/mo or click here to purchase on Spotify dot com for $10”? They have to show only the $12 in the app?
    - realityking 5y ago
      That’s my understanding, yes. What they can now do is, if you sign-up for a free Spotify account using their app they can send you an email advertising the $10 subscription. In the past they could’ve only sent an email advertising the $12 one.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - codazoda 5y ago
    It seems like nothing in this prevents a new rule, however, that says you can't sell it cheaper on your own website. Amazon has been doing this with Kindle indy authors for a long time.
Aissen 5y ago
Do you know that there can be different pricing with alternative payment options ? This is suspiciously absent from the article.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
I have the same concern as well. Apple won't change a damn thing unless a US Court backs anyone but them. If you have legal precedence of a loss on Apples part, they won't be able to pull this BS in the future.

jsnell 5y ago

What do you think the step forward is here? The developers are still not allowed to communicate about alternate purchase options in the app, they would need to have some other form of communication with the user. Such advertising via side-channels was never forbidden, it's just that it's impractical for most developers to establish that side-channel. I really have to congratulate whoever wrote that press release. They gave away nothing, and even stated that the policy did not change, but still appear to have convinced a ton of people that there was some kind of a concession here.

taurath 5y ago
Developers are also not allowed to link to account management on a webpage if they signed up via a website, which contributes to lots of user confusion when it comes to cancellation of a subscription for instance.
- noway421 5y ago
  I think this is exactly what is being changed here? Now you can link away to a web portal with your account and alternative payment options. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - taurath 5y ago
    > Developers can communicate directly with customers about alternative payment options. Customers have to consent and be given the right to opt-out. This is the only statement that might be construed as such from the article, but it doesn't say anything about management, and I'm really not sure what consent means - is it a popup that says "do you want to be informed about non-apple payment methods?". Maybe it is what is being changed, but I can't really tell. I can say that customer confusion is often built into app store policies, and the amount of backend and customer service work to clean up users who sign up with multiple payment methods accidently is not a trivial cost.
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      Moreover, communication about alternate payment options is not the same as ALLOWING alternate payment options.
  - tommymachine 5y ago
    you can't link directly from the app. however you can ask for email and send the link via email. the settlement hasn't been approved yet (filed yesterday) so the exact terms haven't been updated.
Strom 5y ago
This Apple press release and term changes are super confusing. Probably designed to be confusing. Let's look into them. First, let's take the old terms. App Store guidlines point 3.1.3 from 2020-11-28: [1] Apps in this section cannot, either within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. The old rules seem pretty straightforward. You're not allowed to contact users about other payment options if you acquired the contact info through the app. Now, the press release from 2021-08-26 says: [2] Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. [..] Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out. This seems like it's purposely vague. The press release doesn't talk about the source of the contact information at all. So let's take a look at the updated terms. App Store guidelines point 3.1.3 from 2021-08-25: [3] Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app). Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase. What a bizarre paragraph. First it explicitly makes it clear that it's forbidden to send the payment information using contact information obtained via the app. However the last sentence is a generic statement that seems to contradict that. Does Apple mean that you can only use contact information obtained elsewhere? That would then match the previous terms. So it's probably that. However it is worded in such a horrible way that I can't be sure. -- After looking more into it, I think some actual changes might still be coming. Here's the key paragraph from the actual court document: [4] Apple has agreed to revise its App Store Guidelines to permit developers of all app categories to communicate with consenting customers outside their app, including via email and other communication services, about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.3. Under the App’s Store existing Guidelines, developers may not use contact information (emails, phone numbers, etc.) obtained within an app to contact their user base outside the app. As a practical matter, this prevents developers from alerting their customers to alternative payment options. The proposed Settlement lifts this restriction, and it does so for all app categories. -- [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201128030647/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://web.archive.org/web/20201128030647/https://developer... [2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-agree-to-app-store-updates/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210825162013/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://web.archive.org/web/20210825162013/https://developer... [4] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21049923/apple_proposed_settlement.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21049923/apple_propos...
jccalhoun 5y ago
Agreed. This is just about the very least Apple could do.
tdeck 5y ago
Someone should set up a payment service for apps that's cheaper for the consumer and developer, then advertise it heavily. "Check if your favorite app is on FOO to save money". Every app using such a system could benefit from the direct advertising done once by the payment provider. They could even offer a service that checks your bill from Apple and helps you switch the payment for eligible apps, thereby saving money.
- manmal 5y ago
  Revenuecat is perfectly positioned to do that, but probably won’t dare anger Apple in this way.
  - xuki 5y ago
    Why? Apple is not paying them, the developers are.
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      Apple could ban the SDK.
      - bencollier49 5y ago
        That would be a beautiful piece of anti-competitive behaviour for the Epic case.
      - xuki 5y ago
        I would like to see Apple try. Free PR for revenuecat.
    - manmal 5y ago
      Apple controls the (app store) APIs they are using.
sfifs 5y ago
> The developers are still not allowed to communicate about alternate purchase options in the app, they would need to have some other form of communication with the user. I'm pretty sure this "anti-steering" restriction in-app will go away with the Epic vs. Apple ruling. It's classic "tying" in anti-trust. Nothing else in that case might go Epic's way, but this likely will. I'm also pretty sure every major player generating in-app revenue already has already developed their cheaper payment alternative to rollout the minute the ruling drops, so Apple will have to hustle to get a stay order.
phantom784 5y ago
Shouldn't be too hard. Collect email when they register, give them a free trial, email them instructions to purchase through your website.

phire 5y ago

Does the settlement allow for alternative payment methods to be cheaper?

saagarjha 5y ago
They are already allowed to be cheaper. This is just saying you can email people about it outside of the app.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  So Spotify still can’t say front and center in the app ”Buy subscription in app: $12/mo or click here to purchase on Spotify dot com for $10”? They have to show only the $12 in the app?
  - realityking 5y ago
    That’s my understanding, yes. What they can now do is, if you sign-up for a free Spotify account using their app they can send you an email advertising the $10 subscription. In the past they could’ve only sent an email advertising the $12 one.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- codazoda 5y ago
  It seems like nothing in this prevents a new rule, however, that says you can't sell it cheaper on your own website. Amazon has been doing this with Kindle indy authors for a long time.

Aissen 5y ago

Do you know that there can be different pricing with alternative payment options ? This is suspiciously absent from the article.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

I have the same concern as well. Apple won't change a damn thing unless a US Court backs anyone but them. If you have legal precedence of a loss on Apples part, they won't be able to pull this BS in the future.