5 ms·

Can people put 'free' apps on the app store, that then essentially ask for payment in app to proceed? Or perhaps, 'upgrade'? That would seem really annoying i

Can people put 'free' apps on the app store, that then essentially ask for payment in app to proceed? Or perhaps, 'upgrade'? That would seem really annoying if every app started doing that.

alex_young 5y ago
Like they already do? This is basically Netflix's model I think...
- rurp 5y ago
  What, you want small companies to have the same rights as big ones?! I personally think this ruling is great and that the fears about all apps switching to bait and switch models are overblown. There are advantages to using Apple's IAP and it will still be the preferred method for many/most customers and so most companies will still want to support it. The biggest effect will be putting downward pressure on the current fees. There's a lot of room to move between 30% and 3%.
RandallBrown 5y ago
Apple already restricts you from doing this in the App Store. Free apps need to have at least some functionality without paying. I don't think this ruling will change that.
CivBase 5y ago
I don't see why this ruling would stop Apple from requiring app devs to disclose when their apps require payments.
cheschire 5y ago
Exactly my problem with this ruling. What we'll probably end up seeing now is a million "free" apps for things with lots of hidden fees and costs, and now you won't have the apples-to-apples comparison directly on the search page. Awesome.
- WA 5y ago
  This is already the reality anyways. Most apps have some kind of subscription with wildly different terms. They are not easily comparable anyways.
- ilikehurdles 5y ago
  I've said this in a previous topic about the lawsuit, but with developers using third party payment methods, consumers like me lose out on iClouds convenient and simple subscription management. Being able to cancel services like HBO Now, Strava, or whatever I'm trying out for a bit of time with a consistent interface is a big win for consumers. Instead, I know the developers celebrating in the comments will happily adopt the trash UI patterns implemented by legacy media, like newspapers and satellite radio, where subscribers have to go through a form and then get in contact with support on the phone to process a cancellation. Apple's payment system puts the end-user experience first. I'm sure abandoning that will pad subscriber retention for the developers here, but I'm really, really not looking forward to this.
- manquer 5y ago
  There is nothing stopping apps doing so already, only difference is Apple get a 30% of IAP or not. A lot of games and many apps do this already, download and perhaps few features are free, however advanced features/ removing ads / buying skins or mods in game requires you to pay . This is nothing new.
ars 5y ago
i.e. go back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware ? It seemed to work quite well back in the day.

Can people put 'free' apps on the app store, that then essentially ask for payment in app to proceed? Or perhaps, 'upgrade'? That would seem really annoying if every app started doing that.

alex_young 5y ago

Like they already do? This is basically Netflix's model I think...

rurp 5y ago
What, you want small companies to have the same rights as big ones?! I personally think this ruling is great and that the fears about all apps switching to bait and switch models are overblown. There are advantages to using Apple's IAP and it will still be the preferred method for many/most customers and so most companies will still want to support it. The biggest effect will be putting downward pressure on the current fees. There's a lot of room to move between 30% and 3%.

RandallBrown 5y ago

Apple already restricts you from doing this in the App Store. Free apps need to have at least some functionality without paying. I don't think this ruling will change that.

CivBase 5y ago

I don't see why this ruling would stop Apple from requiring app devs to disclose when their apps require payments.

cheschire 5y ago

Exactly my problem with this ruling. What we'll probably end up seeing now is a million "free" apps for things with lots of hidden fees and costs, and now you won't have the apples-to-apples comparison directly on the search page. Awesome.

WA 5y ago
This is already the reality anyways. Most apps have some kind of subscription with wildly different terms. They are not easily comparable anyways.
ilikehurdles 5y ago
I've said this in a previous topic about the lawsuit, but with developers using third party payment methods, consumers like me lose out on iClouds convenient and simple subscription management. Being able to cancel services like HBO Now, Strava, or whatever I'm trying out for a bit of time with a consistent interface is a big win for consumers. Instead, I know the developers celebrating in the comments will happily adopt the trash UI patterns implemented by legacy media, like newspapers and satellite radio, where subscribers have to go through a form and then get in contact with support on the phone to process a cancellation. Apple's payment system puts the end-user experience first. I'm sure abandoning that will pad subscriber retention for the developers here, but I'm really, really not looking forward to this.
manquer 5y ago
There is nothing stopping apps doing so already, only difference is Apple get a 30% of IAP or not. A lot of games and many apps do this already, download and perhaps few features are free, however advanced features/ removing ads / buying skins or mods in game requires you to pay . This is nothing new.

ars 5y ago

i.e. go back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware ? It seemed to work quite well back in the day.