5 ms·

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used an

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank, compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the developer. Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Apple IAP are still easier, and probably will convert at a higher rate than pushing a user outside the app to do the payment on a website, so there's still incentives for developers to use them. If Apps switch away from IAP, then Apple is incentivised to actually compete (imagine that!!) and make something better that developers actively want to use. It says something about the state of competition where Netflix can just say "no, we no longer want people to sign up on an iPhone and give us money". That says they don't think IAP is good, and Apple should actually work on building something that companies want to use.

maccard 5y ago
> and it could still be used But it's not guaranteed to be, which is a huge loss for the app store IMO.
- jackson1442 5y ago
  Agreed. I think a fair plan would be * lower IAP to 15% with an option to pay a higher dev license fee to lower it to maybe 7-10%. * require that any IAP has an _option_ to use Apple’s IAP system within day 20% of the offsite price * physical goods stay on the same system, but potentially offer some kind of carrot to implement Apple Pay
draw_down 5y ago
Who is we? I imagine app makers want this, but as a user I do not care to enter my credit card details just so they can save on their cut to Apple. It’s understandable from their POV, but not my problem.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Apple would also likely drop their cut from 30% overnight. Maybe not to 3% like Paypal, but low enough where companies would have to think.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  For context, Netflix was getting 15% in some markets and that was not enough to keep them on IAP.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    Netflix is in a fairly unique position. They have a good brand, and most customers probably watch Netflix mainly on non Apple devices.
ghosty141 5y ago
>isn't the competition here what we want? In my opinion not in this specific case. As an iOS user I WANT a system where everything conforms to certain guidelines. I do NOT want to fiddle with some weird custom in-App payment dialog which does it's own thing again. It'll be interesting to see how this court order will be "implemented", my guess is that not much will change for now.
- widowlark 5y ago
  you will still be able to do this, at a 30% premium through IAP
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    Yea, but obviously no company will offer that option unless forced. This decision undeniably benefits app developers, but the benefit to customers is murkier. Apple couldn’t previously require payment flow through Apple’s payment systems, as evidenced by apps like Audible where you have no purchasing in the app and just have access to the content that you purchased through their website. Since Apple couldn’t outright force app vendors to monetize through Apple payment channels, their cudgel has been to ensure that app vendors have no way to link to external purchase options in the app, and hope that this was inconvenient enough for app vendors that they would choose to integrate with Apple’s payment channels. And it worked for most, but not all of them. Some apps, like Audible, just chose to live with having no way to sell anything from the app. If Apple can’t even do that, they lose the ability to provide for their customers a consistent payment experience across apps.
    - iknowstuff 5y ago
      They did try to force companies to monetize through them. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-...
      - dodobirdlord 5y ago
tshaddox 5y ago
> Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Depends what you mean. The subtlety that is always lost in these conversation on HN is how deep does the competition have to go? I don't think anyone seriously argues that iPhones do not have viable competition in the smartphone market. And yet, if I as a consumer want to use a smartphone which places strong restrictions on third-party developers (which is one of the most significant reason I use iPhones and recommend them to friends and family), somehow those restrictions are considered "anti-competitive." If these restrictions are lifted or prohibited, that clearly removes one of the key differences between iPhones and their competitors (mostly Android phones), and it baffles me that this could be construed as a more competitive smartphone market for consumers.
- zamalek 5y ago
  > which places strong restrictions on third-party developers Malware isn't under the probe here; IAP is. Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Broadening the argument to Apple's desirable curation process is a misrepresentation of the issue. People will continue to be able to enjoy the convenience of Apple IAP. Savvy users might seek better prices externally - but convenience does hold immense value. Developers can now also, as a pertinent example, ask for donations for open source projects without being taken down.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I'm not only talking about malware either. > Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Certainly not objectively. I would very strongly prefer an Apple ecosystem with no in-app purchases at all!
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Malware was absolutely under probe here until today’s ruling (which closed the door to forcing Apple to allow sideloading). Had third party app stores/sideloading been allowed to happen as epic demanded, that would have made it impossible for any app sufficiently large enough to demand it from their users. The risk here was very much a return to the Google/FB “gift cards for root access” scheme, minus the gift cards of course, if they had prevailed they would have just blocked web access to iOS and just demanded you root yourself for them if you want to use their service. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

maccard 5y ago

> and it could still be used But it's not guaranteed to be, which is a huge loss for the app store IMO.

jackson1442 5y ago
Agreed. I think a fair plan would be * lower IAP to 15% with an option to pay a higher dev license fee to lower it to maybe 7-10%. * require that any IAP has an _option_ to use Apple’s IAP system within day 20% of the offsite price * physical goods stay on the same system, but potentially offer some kind of carrot to implement Apple Pay

draw_down 5y ago

Who is we? I imagine app makers want this, but as a user I do not care to enter my credit card details just so they can save on their cut to Apple. It’s understandable from their POV, but not my problem.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

Apple would also likely drop their cut from 30% overnight. Maybe not to 3% like Paypal, but low enough where companies would have to think.

madeofpalk 5y ago
For context, Netflix was getting 15% in some markets and that was not enough to keep them on IAP.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Netflix is in a fairly unique position. They have a good brand, and most customers probably watch Netflix mainly on non Apple devices.

ghosty141 5y ago

>isn't the competition here what we want? In my opinion not in this specific case. As an iOS user I WANT a system where everything conforms to certain guidelines. I do NOT want to fiddle with some weird custom in-App payment dialog which does it's own thing again. It'll be interesting to see how this court order will be "implemented", my guess is that not much will change for now.

widowlark 5y ago
you will still be able to do this, at a 30% premium through IAP
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  Yea, but obviously no company will offer that option unless forced. This decision undeniably benefits app developers, but the benefit to customers is murkier. Apple couldn’t previously require payment flow through Apple’s payment systems, as evidenced by apps like Audible where you have no purchasing in the app and just have access to the content that you purchased through their website. Since Apple couldn’t outright force app vendors to monetize through Apple payment channels, their cudgel has been to ensure that app vendors have no way to link to external purchase options in the app, and hope that this was inconvenient enough for app vendors that they would choose to integrate with Apple’s payment channels. And it worked for most, but not all of them. Some apps, like Audible, just chose to live with having no way to sell anything from the app. If Apple can’t even do that, they lose the ability to provide for their customers a consistent payment experience across apps.
  - iknowstuff 5y ago
    They did try to force companies to monetize through them. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-...
    - dodobirdlord 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

> Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Depends what you mean. The subtlety that is always lost in these conversation on HN is how deep does the competition have to go? I don't think anyone seriously argues that iPhones do not have viable competition in the smartphone market. And yet, if I as a consumer want to use a smartphone which places strong restrictions on third-party developers (which is one of the most significant reason I use iPhones and recommend them to friends and family), somehow those restrictions are considered "anti-competitive." If these restrictions are lifted or prohibited, that clearly removes one of the key differences between iPhones and their competitors (mostly Android phones), and it baffles me that this could be construed as a more competitive smartphone market for consumers.

zamalek 5y ago
> which places strong restrictions on third-party developers Malware isn't under the probe here; IAP is. Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Broadening the argument to Apple's desirable curation process is a misrepresentation of the issue. People will continue to be able to enjoy the convenience of Apple IAP. Savvy users might seek better prices externally - but convenience does hold immense value. Developers can now also, as a pertinent example, ask for donations for open source projects without being taken down.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I'm not only talking about malware either. > Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Certainly not objectively. I would very strongly prefer an Apple ecosystem with no in-app purchases at all!
- paulmd 5y ago
  Malware was absolutely under probe here until today’s ruling (which closed the door to forcing Apple to allow sideloading). Had third party app stores/sideloading been allowed to happen as epic demanded, that would have made it impossible for any app sufficiently large enough to demand it from their users. The risk here was very much a return to the Google/FB “gift cards for root access” scheme, minus the gift cards of course, if they had prevailed they would have just blocked web access to iOS and just demanded you root yourself for them if you want to use their service. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...